Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

You are not normal

by David Atkins

I’ll be writing a number of posts over the next few days with thoughts and analysis from the June election. The first point I want to make won’t be new to many of you, but is often forgotten by even seasoned political professionals: you are not normal. That phrase is constantly repeated at election trainings put on by Democracy for America, Howard Dean’s spin-off organization now run by his brother Jim. You are not normal. What that means here is that activists often assume that the general electorate has something approaching their own level of awareness of campaign issues and news stories.

This happens a lot. Activists will make arguments about how the President’s approval numbers will go up or down based on his support or lack thereof for some specific policy, or because that activist’s own pet issue, when in reality it has much more to do with a voter’s overall sense of personal and national well-being, and their ability to see themselves hanging out with the politician. Or one might see activists insist that the polls are all wrong, because the GOTV ground game will overwhelm the opposition–after all, everyone they know is fired up and ready to go, so that enthusiasm must be everywhere. Confirmation bias plays a big role there, and it was quite prevalent among progressives leading up to the Wisconsin vote.

Then there’s the assumption that voters are deeply aware of the intricate arguments and fights leading up to a campaign. I’ve posted before about Linda Parks, the Republican-turned-independent Supervisor in Thousand Oaks who ran for Congress in the CA26 top-two primary against a field of four Democrats (including progressive Assemblymember Julia Brownley) and a very conservative Republican State Senator, Tony Strickland. Almost every organization on the left endorsed Brownley, and there was a massive outpouring of local Democratic activism on her behalf. The DCCC came in heavy for Brownley with a slew of mailers in the final three weeks, some of them a little over-the-top and cartoonish but none of them dishonest, tying Linda Parks’ deficit obsession, refusal to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and refusal to condemn the Paul Ryan budget to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and George Bush.

The entire local press establishment took umbrage against the DCCC’s mailers, decrying them as unfair attacks. Local papers were swarmed with letters to the editor, and the comments section of the local papers were filled with comments decrying the negative attacks. Two or three phone calls came ringing in every day to our local Democratic headquarters from people claiming to be disgusted Democrats who were planning to change parties. Everywhere you went in political circles, there was talk of the “backlash” that would almost certainly come from the attacks. I myself was somewhat worried about the effect it might have.

Nothing of the sort actually happened. But that didn’t stop Parks from believing it would even when the results were clear. As of late election night when it was readily apparent that she was losing big, she was still saying this:

Parks could not be reached late Tuesday night, but earlier in the evening after just the mail-in ballots had been counted she expressed hope that the later returns would swing in her favor.

“These are the first ones coming in and this is before the smear campaign really hit and Julia Brownley’s supporters changed their position,” she said.

But they didn’t, they weren’t, and nothing of the sort was actually happening in statistically meaningful numbers. That entire conversation was happening in the political activist bubble, divorced from any reality on the ground. Which, honestly, would have been clear to anyone actually talking to voters. I personally made over 700 phone calls and knocked on over 500 doors in advance of this election to likely June primary voting Democrats, and most of them were clueless–in spite of the daily barrage of mail–that there was a major contested congressional race happening. If they knew anything, it was that Brownley seemed to be competent and a good Democrat, and that they had heard some negative stuff about Parks. But most didn’t even have that level of awareness. I wasn’t normal. And neither were Linda Parks and the barrage of backlashers in the political bubble. In the real world where people actually vote, none of that mattered.

It was an important lesson in Wisconsin. A lot of progressives blame the amount of money spent by conservatives in the race, but it’s important to remember that Walker was ahead and ahead big for a long time. Most people’s minds had been made up already, and they weren’t changing them. The campaign such as it was appeared to be mostly noise.

And it was an important lesson in Ventura County, too. We’re not normal, and we need not to read too much into why election and poll results are the way they are. Usually, the simplest and dumbest explanations are the right ones.

.

What Bittman Said

by tristero

Food stamps are currently used to purchase $4 billion worth of soda a year, a nice subsidy for soda and commodity corn producers, as well as for makers of insulin…

We should be encouraging people to eat real food and discouraging the consumption of non-food. Pretending there’s no difference is siding with the merchants of death who would have us eat junk at the expense of food and spend half our lives earning enough money to deal with the health consequences.

This has been another edition of What Bittman Said.

So why aren’t companies investing for growth? One answer ringing from the C-Suites of corporate America (and their Washington megaphone, the Business Roundtable) is uncertainty. Specifically, uncertainty brought on by government actions (regulation) and inaction (debt ceiling and tax expiration procrastination)[…]

The problem with the idea that uncertainty is killing the economy is that it’s false. Bloomberg’s editors do an admirable job dismantling the argument...The question remains what kind of certainty these CEOs are really after.

If you can’t remove uncertainty that isn’t there, lower rates any more, or reduce non-existent inflation, there’s a strong case for fiscal stimulus. But since these CEOs have Peterson Institute-ingrained aversion to deficits and debt, they aren’t advocating for that. Rather, this crowd seems to be holding out for corporate welfare: changes to rules and regulations that would help specific companies outperform the market.

[…]

Companies are sitting on their hands and not investing in their businesses while the economy wilts, waiting for the kind of low-risk, above-market-return investment scenario that rentiers love. After four years of dealing with the after effects of a crisis brought on in part by providing an the securities business with precisely those type of opportunities, that should be off the table.

Negotiating in gibberish

by digby

Brian Beutler reports on the rather silly brouhaha over Bill Clinton allegedly saying that he thought the tax cuts should be extended. (He sort of did and sort of didn’t but who cares really?)

Anyway, Beutler talks about the so-called “fiscal cliff” that awaits the congress and the president after the election and explains how the two parties are approaching it:

Avoiding this so-called “fiscal cliff” is thus a top priority for policymakers of both parties. So is devising legislative strategy to maximize each individual party’s chances of using the cliff to make major ideological advancements.

For the Republicans, this means making the Bush tax cuts permanent; for the Democrats it means breaking the GOP’s anti-tax absolutism, and drawing down future budget deficits with both higher taxes and lower spending, without making radical changes to safety net programs.

I’ve written about my problem with this approach ad nauseum so I won’t do it again.
But let me ask you: which of the above arguments would you want to make, the one that simply says, “we want tax cuts for everybody!” or the one that says “we want to draw-down-future-budget-deficits with both-higher-taxes-and-lower-spending without making-radical-changes-to-the-safety-net (while also breaking the GOPsantitaxabsolutism)?

Right. One side is staking out a negotiating position. The other side is trying to be all things to all people. Which one do you suppose is likelier to win?

Deficits shouldn’t be a priority right now. The economy is very weak. So, let the GOP argue for their tax cut extension. The Democrats should argue for protecting all programs that benefit real people. If there has to be a deficit deal (and honestly, there shouldn’t be one at all) they can cut useless defense spending. That’s your compromise. If they won’t go along, then just agree to extend the tax cuts for two more years and protect the programs. This whole fiscal cliff nonsense is a kabuki pageant and from the sound of the dialog, the Democrats are playing the role of the designated losers again. They are good at it, you have to admit.

.

But watch even Jon Stewart argue with Thomas Mann in the second part, insisting that Democrats’ favored programs are secure and that the real problem is that both parties have what they want but they just can’t exist together. (It’s an extension of the Villager trope that Americans are selfish children who refuse to accept that they can’t have it all.) He just can’t hear what Mann and Ornstein are saying:

Lot’s of people are talking about this piece by Martin Wolf, particularly this part:

Bizarroworld Pulitzers

by digby

Ok, this is happening:

The Heritage Foundation and Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity ask for your assistance in paying tribute to the monumental achievements of Andrew Breitbart’s work, and the recognition of those who continue his legacy by carrying the torch for freedom and truth.

We will honor three individuals — from the realms of professional journalism, blogging, and citizen activism — whose efforts advance the spirit of Andrew Breitbart’s work. Nominations will be accepted for individuals who are driven by an indomitable pursuit for truth and accountability, and whose work has broken meaningful ground in advancing those causes on behalf of the public good.

Full-time reporter: In a media environment that tells reporters to go along to get along, a few still consider it a sacred trust to keep the people informed. A few still recognize the awesome responsibility in belonging to the only profession to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We’ll present one Breitbart Award to a full-time news reporter to honor courage and honesty in telling the real stories that matter to people’s lives.

Blogger: When the legacy media fails to do its job, we are fortunate to have an army waiting on the Internet to hold the institutions of power accountable. We’ll honor a blogger for intrepid reporting that goes over the heads of the legacy media to communicate directly to the people.

Citizen: The fight for freedom requires a constant stream of new recruits willing to make time in their lives to serve as watchdogs in their local communities. We’ll honor an information activist committed to digging up the truth.

Journalism is now so far down the rabbit hole that Andrew Breitbart can be considered a mainstream example of journalistic integrity, and the mainstream media reports it as if it’s perfectly normal.

Something has gone terribly wrong.

.

Wednesday hangover

by digby

It was a bad night for the good guys, no doubt about it. Progressive super Tuesday was a flop.

I’m not going to do a postmortem on Wisconsin. There are enough gasbags doing that already. But I’ll just say a few words about the congressional primaries. For the most part we lost because several candidates split the progressive vote.

Here in California we are still awaiting the final vote count of provisionals and absentees in the Norman Solomon race, but it’s a long shot.(He’s behind by about 1400 votes at the moment.) Unfortunately, because of our jungle primary system, it’s probable that three candidates ended up splitting the progressive vote allowing an establishment Dem and a Republican to make it into the top two.

Similarly, two candidates split the progressive vote in Montana leaving the establishment Dem with a plurality win. And in New Mexico Eric Griego lost to a moderate backed heavily by Emily’s List. (The good news is that the corrupt, establishment choice Marty Chavez lost as well — a small sign of sanity in a sea of bad news.)

The progressive Democratic vote, which is substantial, is being diluted by too many candidates, some of whom are abusing the brand. The result is that the small amount of non-corrupt, progressive money we have is being spread too thinly and the slick establishment candidate with corporate, Party or personal funds slips past the goal line, even if the district clearly prefers a stronger progressive message overall.

There is a silver lining. When these establishment Dems look at those numbers, they know that their constituents are more liberal than they are. Congresswoman Janice Hahn’s record, for instance, was far more progressive in her first term than anyone expected, largely as a result of the progressives who turned out for her opponents. And the message overall is clearly affected when you have a bunch of progressives in a Dem primary race, tilting the whole campaign further left than it otherwise would be.

It’s thin gruel, I know. Progressives just don’t have the organization or the money to narrow the field before the primary, and I’m not sure it fits with our principles even we did. People have a right to run. This is a democracy.

But money is scarce and unfortunately, and it’s more important than ever these days. The Party is relying on self-funders or people with access to the 1%, which leaves out most middle and working class people, thus making the whole system even more tilted to the interests of the wealthy. And so the cycle begins again. We need to figure out a way to deal with this.

It’s still possible that Norman Solomon will pull it out so I don’t want to write him off. Also, powerful GOP incumbent Buck McKeon made a surprisingly poor showing in CA-25 and will face off against progressive Lee Rogers in the fall. And Blue America does have some other wins this year — outside the box candidates like Cartwright, Gill, O’Rourke won their primaries. But there’s no way to spin yesterday. It was a big disappointment.

But what can you do? Well, you do this:

Darcy’s polling way ahead of the other Democrats in her race, including the self-funding establishment choice. Here’s hoping she’ll be an exception that proves the rule this year.

Update: And by the way, David Atkins won his race, so huzzah for the Hullabaloo contingent.

.

Michael Lewis on wealth and luck

by David Atkins

I’m thoroughly exhausted after a very, very long election night here in my backyard and, of course, in Wisconsin and elsewhere. I’ll have more thoughts about all of it later, but for now I wanted to share the final paragraphs of Michael Lewis’ excellent commencement speech to Princeton graduates:

[D]on’t be deceived by life’s outcomes. Life’s outcomes, while not entirely random, have a huge amount of luck baked into them. Above all, recognize that if you have had success, you have also had luck — and with luck comes obligation. You owe a debt, and not just to your Gods. You owe a debt to the unlucky.

I make this point because — along with this speech — it is something that will be easy for you to forget.

I now live in Berkeley, California. A few years ago, just a few blocks from my home, a pair of researchers in the Cal psychology department staged an experiment. They began by grabbing students, as lab rats. Then they broke the students into teams, segregated by sex. Three men, or three women, per team. Then they put these teams of three into a room, and arbitrarily assigned one of the three to act as leader. Then they gave them some complicated moral problem to solve: say what should be done about academic cheating, or how to regulate drinking on campus.

Exactly 30 minutes into the problem-solving the researchers interrupted each group. They entered the room bearing a plate of cookies. Four cookies. The team consisted of three people, but there were these four cookies. Every team member obviously got one cookie, but that left a fourth cookie, just sitting there. It should have been awkward. But it wasn’t. With incredible consistency the person arbitrarily appointed leader of the group grabbed the fourth cookie, and ate it. Not only ate it, but ate it with gusto: lips smacking, mouth open, drool at the corners of their mouths. In the end all that was left of the extra cookie were crumbs on the leader’s shirt.

This leader had performed no special task. He had no special virtue. He’d been chosen at random, 30 minutes earlier. His status was nothing but luck. But it still left him with the sense that the cookie should be his.

This experiment helps to explain Wall Street bonuses and CEO pay, and I’m sure lots of other human behavior. But it also is relevant to new graduates of Princeton University. In a general sort of way you have been appointed the leader of the group. Your appointment may not be entirely arbitrary. But you must sense its arbitrary aspect: you are the lucky few. Lucky in your parents, lucky in your country, lucky that a place like Princeton exists that can take in lucky people, introduce them to other lucky people, and increase their chances of becoming even luckier. Lucky that you live in the richest society the world has ever seen, in a time when no one actually expects you to sacrifice your interests to anything.

All of you have been faced with the extra cookie. All of you will be faced with many more of them. In time you will find it easy to assume that you deserve the extra cookie. For all I know, you may. But you’ll be happier, and the world will be better off, if you at least pretend that you don’t.

Never forget: In the nation’s service. In the service of all nations.

Thank you.

And good luck.

Lewis is asking for noblesse oblige from a world of rapacious people who think they earned everything they have. It probably won’t work, but at least I’m glad he’s trying, and eloquently at that.

.

Who bought the Wisconsin election?

by digby

Scott Walker survived his recall. In case you were wondering whether our democracy is totally fucked, read this about the last minute ads that poured into Wisconsin:

CAV describes itself as a “grassroots advocacy organization created by leaders from a wide array of issue interests.” It’s unclear who’s really behind the group—and it has seemingly taken measures to keep it that way. The local address CAV lists on disclosure forms appears to trace back to a Milwaukee UPS Store. Same goes for the Arlington, Virginia, address it provides on its bare-bones website.

State and federal records list Brent Downs as CAV’s treasurer, but an online search reveals nothing about who he is. (CAV did not respond to multiple phone and email messages for comment.) Federal Election Commission records list Illinois attorney James Skyles as CAV’s general counsel. Skyles’ online résumé says he formerly worked for the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. The Virginia-based think tank is part of the State Policy Network, a national web of free-market outfits that promote anti-union, pro-privatization policies. Reached at his office, Skyles said CAV is “a very new organization” devoted to “social welfare and public education.” But he repeatedly declined to identify the people behind the group, citing attorney-client privilege. CAV’s Facebook page, created less than two weeks ago, includes a handful of links to recall-themed news stories, but no information about runs the group.

The FEC warned the group in May that it could face “civil money penalties” or “legal enforcement action” for its failure to file a disclosure report.
The Center for Responsive Politics’ website lists just one donor to CAV’s associated PAC: Rebekah Mercer of New York City, who gave $50,000 in November 2011. Mercer has given tens of thousands to conservative candidates such as Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Steve King (R-Iowa) and groups including the Club for Growth.

A search of FEC records turns up just a handful of documents for CAV. The most recent is a May 3 letter (PDF) from the commission warning the group that it could face “civil money penalties” or “legal enforcement action” for its failure to file its April quarterly disclosure report. In late May, CAV registered with Wisconsin’s elections agency to make independent expenditures supporting Walker in the recall.

Along with its recall efforts, CAV operates a website called ProtectSandMining.com, which says it was created to dispel “a vast amount of misinformation” about the practice. Sand mining has boomed in northern Wisconsin as the use of “hydraulic fracturing,” or fracking, has grown. Fracking is the process by which a mix of chemicals, water, and sand are blasted into the ground to access natural gas reserves. CAV’s site touts the potential jobs created by sand mining in Wisconsin, while downplaying concerns about its sizable environmental impact. (Additionally, the group has also sought to raise money for Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s Ohio congressional bid.)

That’s very inspiring. I feel all patrioticlike just thinking about it.

Scott Walker will be the new GOP prototype. Their worst impulses have been validated.

Still waiting for returns on Wilmer in Montana, Griego in New Mexico, and Solomon in California among others. It’s going to be a long night. It isn’t over. In fact, it’s never over.

I’m going to have a shot of Patron right now in honor of the all the people who worked so hard in Wisconsin to put a stop to this. I salute you.

.