Sad News of the Day

I just saw that Ed Morrissey shut down Captain's Quarters during my hiatus and is now blogging at Hot Air. While as far as I can tell Captain Ed's style and tone is the same as it's always been, I'm a bit saddened by this bit of news. As much as I frequently disagree with the Captain, he has always done an outstanding job of giving his opinion and news with a good dose of calm and reason, with remarkably little of the vitriol and venom that often exemplifies the A-list blogosphere of both the left (see: Talkleft) and right (see: Michelle Malkin). In joining Hot Air the Captain is now forcing me to fight through the hyperbole and rank hatred that is often typical of Hot Air's tone. Sigh.

Although, I must admit that the usually cantankerous Allahpundit seems to have taken a more even tone in the handful of his posts that I have read in my short visit over there this afternoon.

I'll continue to read Captain Ed regularly, but I do lament the disappearance of his outstanding site.

Amusing Post of the Day

Reflections from a Rotting Nation has an amusing and poignant post describing why he wants to bring back indentured servitude. It pretty much sums up the libertarian view of the world about as well as possible.

"They Took Ur Jerbs!"

Perhaps the most common argument against immigration and especially "illegal" immigration is that the immigrants take jobs away from hard-working, honest Americans. I've always found this to be more than a little strange.

While standing in Home Depot the other morning, the silliness behind this line of argument was abundantly clear to me - in this still relatively prosperous area of New Jersey, just about the only other people in the store were Latino immigrants. Most of them appeared to be contractors preparing for renovations on a home of some sort. I only saw one non-Latino in the store who appeared to be a contractor (and I was there for a solid half an hour).

Thinking about this, I recalled that in my time in the DC suburbs of Northern Virginia (another prosperous area of the country), the Home Depot was also usually filled with Latino contractors. And I remembered all too well the lines of mostly illegal immigrants I used to pass regularly waiting for work at the local 7-11.

The point is this: immigrants tend to go where the jobs are, and where the labor markets are tightest. In other words: they're rational human beings. They don't go where there is a high unemployment rate, but instead they go where the unemployment rate is lowest and jobs are most plentiful. And indeed, the states with the highest per capita immigration populations (2005 data) are states that we generally associate with a strong, stable economies, and a fairly high quality of life: California, New York (although the upstate economy is awful, most of the immigrants tend to be in the prosperous downstate area), New Jersey, Florida, and Arizona. Other states with immigrant populations greater than 10% (2005 data) include states like Massachusetts, Nevada (which was a boom state at the time), Illinois (presumably mostly in the Chicago area), and Connecticut. States with the lowest immigrant populations included the Southeast (except for Georgia, where Atlanta was a boom town at the time), Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio- all areas generally associated with comparatively weak economies.

This would seem to blow the job-stealing argument against immigration out of the water. But there's more. I crunched some numbers and found that the strongest anti-immigrant attitudes are in places with the fewest immigrants. Meanwhile, I found that the weakest anti-immigrant attitudes are found in places with the highest number of immigrants. In other words, the people most likely to be anti-immigrant (and therefore to think that immigrants hurt economies) are the people least likely to actually be affected by immigration. The only logical explanation for this is therefore rank nativism and scapegoating....they are blaming immigration for their problems even though they are almost entirely unaffected by immigration compared to the rest of the country.

To do this, I compared the 2005 immigrant percentages (this was the most recent data I could find) against exit poll data from this year's Republican primaries on the question "What should be done with illegal immigrants?" (This question was not usually asked in the Democratic primaries; in addition, immigrants tend to be heavily Democratic, which means their presence was unlikely to skew data much in a Republican primary). This question was asked in a total of 24 Republican primaries this year. What I found was a very clear trend in which the higher a state's immigrant population, the less likely GOP voters in that state were to answer "Deport them" (the most extreme anti-immigrant answer included) on this question.

I'm too lazy to calculate r-squared and p values for this data, but from the looks of it, it appears quite statistically significant by political science standards. The scatter plot is above. Should anyone be willing to calculate those numbers, I would be eternally grateful, and will provide you with the raw data.

Lest anyone think that this data is skewed by the level of conservatism in the relevant GOP primary or by the region in which the state is located, I want to point out some data that disprove that. First, New Hampshire (a relatively moderate state by GOP standards) has one of the lowest immigrant populations, and one of the most virulently anti-immigrant voter bases (50% answered "Deport them"). Second, Texas, with a high immigrant population but a very conservative GOP base has one of the lowest "Deport them" percentages (37%). In addition, Utah, with a very conservative GOP base but a moderate immigration population was tied for the lowest "Deport them" percentage (35%).

In my mind, this graph I've put together shows an extremely strong likelihood that strong anti-illegal immigrant attitudes are heavily colored by rank nativism and irrational scapegoating and stereotypes.

NOTE: For the record, the states included in my study were: VA, OK, MI, SC, AZ, NY, AL, NJ, CT, CA, NH, FL, MO, UT, WI, GA, TN, IL, LA, TX, MD, MA, MS, and OH.

From the Department of Awful Statistics

This graph has been making the rounds of the left-of-center blogosphere the last few days. It purports to show that all elements of American society do better under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents. The clear implication is that the economic intervention of Democrats is a more successful policy than the free market orientation of Republicans.

While I don't care one iota about whether Republicans or Democrats are generally better, I do care about free markets. So I want to comment on some major problems with drawing conclusions from this graph.

1. There is a significant small sample problem. The statistics relied upon are only from 1948-2005. Since it is attempting to compare Republican Presidents vs. Democrat Presidents, there are in effect only 6 data points covering 32 years for the Republicans, and only 5 data points covering 24 years for the Democrats.
2. Eight years (25%) of the Republican data points were covered by Nixon/Ford. Nixon's (and Ford's) economic and domestic policies were largely anathema to anything resembling a free market. Indeed, Nixon committed the single most unspeakable economic act possible from a free market perspective: he instituted wage and price freezes. For three years. As anyone with an understanding of free market economics could predict, this action completely devastated an already ailing economy. As a result, the Nixon/Ford years are the worst economic years included in this graph.
3. Eight years (33.3%) of the Democratic data points were covered by the Clinton Administration. Despite Bill Clinton's many flaws, his Presidency is generally regarded as being historically favorable to free markets. Certainly we should remember that NAFTA was ratified under his watch, that it was he who declared the era of Big Government over (only to be ushered back in, ironically, by GWB), and that he had a particularly ornery Congress to deal with, which meant that neither Clinton nor Congress could get much done, economically speaking (this is usually a good thing for free markets). As a result of all this, the Clinton years were by far the best economic years included in the graph.
4. Another four years (16.7%) of the Democratic data points were covered by the Carter Administration. Whatever Carter's flaws on economic policy - and there were many - he was still better for the free market than the Nixon/Ford era. Certainly, he didn't institute wage and price controls, and importantly, he also deserves credit for beginning the process of deregulation.

The point is this: the data behind the graph wind up providing us with no information from which we can make generalizations about Republicans vs. Democrats or free markets vs. interventionism. There are too few data sets to compare, and the data sets that do exist are massively skewed due to two or three major anomalies where the President governed in a manner diametrically opposed to his Party's stereotypical economic position.


***UPDATE***I should have included a fifth point: Short of idiotic things like price controls, a President generally has pretty minimal power over the economy. Even to the extent he does have economic power there is a certain, undefined lag time between the policy making and the effects of the policy being felt. The data used appear to grant a one-year lag time, but the reality is that in some cases lag time could take several years. The fact is that the economy is generally too complex to be able to tie broad-based indicators like real income gain to a specific government policy or set of policies. (This being the reason why economic theory remains a relevant analytical tool).

The Secret Is Out

For the last year I've been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) plotting a move to Switzerland, which I believe is the closest thing to Libertopia that exists on this planet in the post-Bush Doctrine world. This move may or may not happen even if Obama wins the Presidency this year (and it will DEFINITELY happen if Hillary somehow steals the election), but I noticed awhile back that the small Alpine nation had passed the US in just about every libertarian category: economic, social, foreign policy, etc. Fortunately for me, when most people think about Switzerland and freedom, it is only to use them as an example of how a well-armed society need not have much violent crime.

Switzerland's high libertarian/classical liberal grades are not just an uninformed perception of mine, either- I've seen a number of annual studies of different freedom indicators that have ranked the Swiss equal to or above the US in just about every conceivable category in recent years. (For the record, the US held the top spot or one of the top spots in all of those indicators in the pre-GWB/Cheney years).

...And all these indicators say nothing about Switzerland's libertarian-like foreign policy of neutrality and relative non-intervention. While this policy decidedly put them on the wrong side of WWII, it's worth noting that it has also done a pretty good job of keeping them safe but well-regarded over the years.

Well, in the current issue of The American, John Fund lets the cat out of the bag, providing a fairly in depth look at Swiss tax and economic policy, as well as at their style of democracy. Fund also points out a dirty little secret- Switzerland is one of the world's most prosperous countries despite the fact that it was an economic backwater only a century ago.

Alas, he does not mention Switzerland's relatively liberal perspective on gay rights, drugs (they're not legal but they are a far cry from our militaristic War on Drugs), and all sorts of other personal freedom issues that have little to do with economic policy. But tolerance of other lifestyles is something that the GOP would do well to learn from the Swiss.

This is not to say that Switzerland is in fact Libertopia - it has its fair share of areas where it falls short, too. But it is the closest thing to it currently in existence. Not surprisingly to libertarians, it has a quality of life to match. Surprisingly to Progressives and socialists, it has one of the world's finest health care systems, structured in a way that is more market-friendly than the American system.

In response, my socialist and Progressive friends will likely point to the case of Denmark to show how socialism can work. But that would ignore an important distinction between the two countries - Switzerland is a surprisingly diverse country (note to the anti-immigrant crowd: the Swiss have FOUR official languages), while Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries are extremely homogenous. No less an authority than Hayek recognized that socialism can conceivably work in a small, homogenous society where everyone shares a common purpose. That does not make it feasible in a massive nation like the US which has one of the world's most diverse populations (second note to the anti-immigrant crowd: restricting immigration more is a good way to screw up that diversity and therefore make socialism more likely).

Now if only I could find a job in Switzerland....

The Source of Conflict and Hatred

I wanted to share a revelation that I've had in the past few years that I think applies to conflicts and harmful behavior of all types. And that revelation is this:

Atticus Finch was wrong when he said that you can't understand a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes, and thus implied that the cause of conflict and hatred is a lack of understanding of other people.

What I have learned is that conflict and hatred isn't caused by failing to understand others, but is instead caused by people thinking that they do understand others.

Put more clearly: The problem isn't that people don't understand each other, it's that they think they do.

I will be happy to elaborate on this more fully should anyone ask.

I'm Baa-ack

My apologies for my unexpected hiatus over the last month or so. I don't want to get into the details behind it, but I've been dealing with an all-consuming problem that made it difficult for me to do anything with this blog. I'm hoping to get back up and running in the coming days as I catch up on current events, although my posting will probably be limited to just one or - at most - two a day for the foreseeable future.

Just to deter any speculation on these fronts, the issue that has kept me from posting did NOT involve any of the following: drugs, alcohol, arrest, dee-vorce, firearms, illegal wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, torture, Hillary Clinton re-education camp. It may or may not, however, have involved tap dancing on the grave of the Mitt Romney campaign.

Tactics and Political Brand Names

Kyle has an interesting post today that is a continuation of a discussion we had yesterday. In recent days, Obama has been responding to increased attacks that he lacks substance by giving more substantive speeches that tone down a lot of his more inspirational rhetoric. As Kyle points out, Obama was initially criticized early last year for being too heavy on the substance and too light on the inspiration in his speeches. When he changed his tone to replicate his legendary 2004 convention speech, he began to get traction and closed the gap with Sen. Clinton. As Kyle also recognizes, it is this style which has carried Obama from longshot to favorite.

But with the increased vigor of the attacks by the Clinton campaign on the substance issue, Kyle thinks it wise of Obama to respond with more substance and points out that Obama needs to figure out how to combine the style with the substance. As I argued yesterday, I'm not so sure, at least not at this stage of the game. I analogized it to switching to a prevent defense with too much time left on the clock when you've been dominating the defensive side of the ball all game and you just need one more turnover or sack to put the game out of reach.

Thinking on it a little more, I think there's another element here that shouldn't be overlooked. At this stage of the game, the highly informed and moderately informed voters have made up their minds and are unlikely to switch sides. Obama has pretty clearly won that battle as much as he's going to. The voters who are left to persuade - and there are a lot of them - are the low information voters; Jay Cost argues this fact explains a lot of the polling discrepancies we've seen this year. As Cost further explains, in a primary campaign low information voters are left to judge the candidates on personality and name recognition, since actual policy differences are usually so small. For the low-information voter who only gets to make their decision once, what matters most is the politician's "branding."

Although Obama has made up huge ground in terms of his name recognition and the reliability of his "brand," he cannot possibly compete with the Clinton "brand" on name recognition and reliability in the mind of the low information voter. By taking a more "substantive" tone, though, this is exactly what he is trying to do. (Of course, what passes for "substance" in political speeches is really just a litany of false promises made to sound impressive by peppering in nice, beautiful, round numbers).

By taking this "substantive" tone, Obama is selling himself as essentially a "me-too" product. That is a battle he cannot win because he isn't giving the voters a reason to give up their loyalty to the Clinton brand name. It's analogous to why people are willing to spend the extra 30 cents to buy the name-brand soda instead of the store-brand soda, even though they're exactly the same thing- they trust the name-brand, and don't trust the less-familiar brand.

When Obama takes his more inspirational and preachy tone, though, he is giving voters a reason to change brands. Instead of selling himself as another, less well-known cola, he is selling himself as something completely different...suddenly, he's Dr. Pepper rather than RC Cola. Sure, he won't be able to convince the cola die-hards to change brands, but he wasn't going to be able to convince them to switch anyways since he wasn't giving them much incentive to change brands. But he will convince all the people who are bored of cola to try something a little different.

It may be that Obama has already won over enough people that he can afford to go back to this substantive line of debate and "play prevent defense" or start his own line of cola. But I'm not sure that he's reached that point; regardless, I think his uptick in the polls will stall out if he tries to beat Clinton on her terms. This thing's not over yet.

Grading the Candidates

It took me a few days, but as I promised the other day, below is my analysis of the three remaining candidates with a realistic shot at the Presidency. Should Bloomberg run as a third party candidate (or for that matter, Bob Barr or another prominent libertarian), I will revisit this analysis. Of course, this analysis is utterly useless if you are unwilling to vote for someone who is not a libertarian in any way (and will thus be abstaining or voting for the LP candidate no matter what). But I think it's a useful guide to the big three nonetheless.

I have prioritized and weighted the issues based on their importance to me in this election; I have no doubt that others will disagree with that weighting and prioritization.

1. Executive Power/Civil Liberties - This is by far the most important issue this year in my mind. A politician with an expansive view of executive power is a politician willing to cram policies down our throats regardless of whether there is an overwhelming consensus (or any consensus at all, for that matter) behind those policies. In other words, a candidate's views on Executive Power affect the weight I give to their views on all other issues. The simple fact that all three major remaining candidates come from the Senate suggests that no matter what we will have an improvement over Bush due to a likely respect for the institutional separation of powers that presumably results. A view of Executive Power that is less expansive is, by the way, a necessary component of the Madisonian view of faction that is supposed to be the focus of this site; an expansive view of Executive Power will lead a President to run roughshod over opposing factions in the hopes of creating a permanent majority faction.

First, Sen. Clinton's past creates many serious questions about her on this issue, particularly with respect to the way in which she handled her infamous Health Care Task Force, and also with respect to her avowed support of an expansive view of executive privilege. McCain and Obama's political careers have both primarily been in the legislative branch, suggesting a likelihood of profound respect for the legislative process. However, McCain's sometimes bulldog-ish style on legislative matters creates some room for concern, as does his support of today's FISA legislation, complete with immunity for the telecoms. I have no doubt that he would be a vast improvement over Bush/Cheney on Executive Power, and to his credit he has stood up against torture. As importantly, he has absolutely condemned the use of signing statements across the board, which neither Clinton nor Obama has done. However, McCain voted against restoration of habeas corpus, which is a huge strike against him. Obama, on the other hand, is a constitutional law scholar who has largely stood up against expansion of executive power in a way that neither Clinton nor McCain have; moreover, his rhetorical emphases on consensus-building hint strongly at a candidate who is unlikely to force policy and law down our throats without having something resembling a super-majority behind him.

Grades: Clinton: D, McCain: C+, Obama: B+

2. Foreign Policy/Defense Spending/Commander-in-Chief Role: Foreign policy is arguably the arena in which the President has the greatest amount of direct control, Constitutionally speaking. As a practical matter though, entrenched bureacracies often inhibit a President's ability to actually make dramatic changes in foreign policy. That said, I can say from personal experience that the Bush neo-con bureaucracy is largely located at the top of the food chain at the moment, and would likely be replaced under a Dem administration. The biggest sub-issue within this field is obviously Iraq, Afghanistan, and the GWOT. Sen. Clinton's position on Iraq ought to be cause for great concern, as should her advocacy of "coercive diplomacy" and her support of Kyl-Lieberman. Add to that her husband's rather extensive use of American military power, and I simply can't trust her on foreign policy or the GWOT. While I could not disagree more with McCain on most of his current foreign policy views, his pre-9/11 foreign policy views were quite sane. I also believe that, if indeed we must stay in Iraq, McCain is best equipped to oversee our actions there, and will do so with dignity and without authorizing torture and war crimes. Obama, on the other hand, is by far the closest to a libertarian in his foreign policy views (excluding, for the moment, his views on trade). Personally, I tend to support an immediate or rapid withdrawal of forces in Iraq, with a redeployment to Afghanistan for some of them. However, I do have questions about Obama's ability to oversee such a withdrawal in a wise manner given his lack of military experience (then again, he would presumably defer to the generals on the best way to accomplish a withdrawal). Importantly, Obama's election, in and of itself, would noticeably improve the world's image of the United States, creating an immediate intangible effect.

Grades: Clinton: D+, McCain: C, Obama: B-

3. Economic Policy/Taxes: Both Obama and McCain are well-established deficit hawks. We should never forget that the deficit itself creates a hidden tax in terms of both inflation and additional spending on interest payments. Obama is most likely to attempt to downsize the military budget, but McCain is the most likely to have the ability to do so. McCain has historically been a tax-cutter, and for the record, I think he was right to insist that Bush tie tax cuts to spending cuts. While I will deal with healthcare and SS more below, it's worth pointing out that McCain's positions would, I think, actually cut costs in those fields whereas Obama's would significantly increase them overall, and Clinton's would dramatically increase them. McCain is by far the best on free trade, though Clinton has a pretty good record in that respect, and Obama's economics are much more trade-friendly than his rhetoric. While I think the mortgage "crisis" will be over by the time the next President takes office, it's worth noting that Clinton's call for a lengthy moratorium on ARM adjustments is beyond obtuse from an economics standpoint.

Grades: Clinton: D+, Obama: C-, McCain: B

4. Health Care: Clinton wants to force health care down our throats at tremendous cost and with mandates that scare the bejesus out of me. Hers is an outright nanny-state position that is beyond disturbing from a libertarian point of view; equally bad, she insists on universal health care as an end in itself, and improperly diagnoses the problems with our health care system. She refuses to even discuss the possibility that there are long-term problems with Social Security, dismissing suggestions to that effect as Republican talking points. Obama correctly diagnoses the problems with our health care system as being cost-based, though he incorrectly diagnoses the source of those problems and is far too willing to blame insurance companies for all the ills of the system. Still, his admirable refusal to cave on the mandates issue shows a willingness to leave health care largely in the hands of individuals. In addition, he has actually acknowledged the long-term problems with Social Security; while his solution to those problems is hardly libertarian, my understanding is that it does provide some room for market-based reforms. McCain's health care proposal is far and away the best, and I evaluated it more fully awhile back. It is far from perfect, but by politician standards, it's pretty damn good.

Grades: Clinton: F, Obama: C, McCain: B+

5. Personal Freedoms: Obama gets some bonus points as the rare candidate who may actually scale back (however minimally) the War on (some) Drugs. None of the three candidates would support a Federal Marriage Amendment. Outside of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I don't think there is much that a President can do on most gay rights issues, but I have little doubt that McCain would keep that policy in place, Clinton would be likely to do so for quite some time, and Obama would likely try to repeal it relatively quickly. On firearms, all three are terrible; however, McCain should be by far the scariest on this issue, as he would be most likely to have political capital on this issue, particularly if he only ran for one term. All three, to my knowledge, support the onerous McCain-Feingold law, but of course McCain loses extra points for being the sponsor of that bill.

Grades: McCain: D+, Clinton: C, Obama: B-

6. Education: On education, McCain appears pretty close to the libertarian position; however, his position on No Child Left Behind is extremely vague, and is a major strike against him. Obama gets major points for his support of merit pay and his support of increased education tax credits (which inherently promote greater school choice). Hillary Clinton's position is in lockstep with the teachers' unions.

Grades: Clinton: C, McCain: B/incomplete, Obama: B

I would have liked to include judicial appointments in this evaluation, but I suspect that they will all appoint judges with whom I agree as often as I disagree, but who will on average be well-qualified and fair-minded. I don't think there is a judge on the SCOTUS these days with whom I agree with much more than 50% of the time on close issues.

Final Grades: Clinton: D+, McCain: C, Obama: B-

To be honest, I'm surprised that McCain didn't do worse in this evaluation, while Obama scored about where I expected him to, as did Clinton. I do think this evaluation shows that the differences between Obama and Clinton are fairly substantial, especially on the two most important issues of executive power and foreign policy.

The end result of all this is that Clinton scares the hell out of me, and I think would be as bad or worse than Bush/Cheney have been, McCain would be at least tolerable, and Obama would be above average in comparison to previous Presidents, but by no means the second coming of Grover Cleveland (or Calvin Coolidge, for that matter). Depending on how things shake out in November, I can see myself voting for Obama, the LP nominee, or McCain (but this would require that Clinton be the Dem nominee AND that NJ became a critical swing state, which is unlikely).

Hillary Skips Telecom Vote

Per Marc Ambinder, Obama voted against telecom immunity today, McCain voted for it, and Hillary Clinton voted.... absent?

Obama deserves at least some minimal praise for standing by his pledge to fight against telecom immunity (though as Big Tent Democrat correctly points out, his leadership on this issue has been lacking). In choosing to cast a vote on this issue, he leaves himself vulnerable to charges of being un-patriotic by the GOP. In other words, he took a very real risk here. True enough that he didn't have to sacrifice much campaigning time with today's DC-area primaries.

But the relatively small amount of praise that Obama deserves for his vote shows how cowardly Senator Clinton's actions appear in comparison. As Ambinder points out, Clinton was in Texas, for which she left last night or this morning. While conventional wisdom would point out that Hillary is using Texas as a firewall, her actions in going there at this precise moment are more than a little odd and, I think, transparent.

Her campaign headquarters is in Northern Virginia, right in the center of today's primaries. While she is almost certain to lose all three primaries, one would think she would have stayed in the area in the hopes of at least salvaging a couple of delegates. By staying in the area, of course, she would have also left herself the ability to vote on the FISA bill and the telecom immunity provisions.

Since leaving for Texas on this particular date makes very little sense, and since Clinton's opposition to telecom immunity has long been suspect, her actions give the appearance of being a transparent attempt to duck voting on the issue. By flying to Texas today, she is able to use the ready-made excuse that she was on the other side of the country and was thus unable to cast her vote; this is an excuse that she could not have used had she remained in the DC area for last-minute campaigning.

In my mind, this is nothing more than a transparent attempt to duck a vote on an issue of incredible importance to both the Democratic Party base and civil libertarians. Although I doubt civil libertarians were ever going to much support Clinton, it amazes me that any of the Dem base is willing to give her a pass on this issue.

For the record, I'm also pretty damn annoyed with the folks at Reason today, who chose to focus on the silly Che Guevara flag dustup without any regard whatsoever for the FISA votes. This despite David Weigel's call for more libertarian involvement with the issue a few weeks back.

As usual, Glenn Greenwald has the best coverage of this issue, why it's important, and why the vote on immunity is such a depressing failure of American self-government.

More blogger reactions at memeorandum.

Giving Credit Where It's Due

It's rare for me to offer praise to the LRC crowd. But when one of them leaves the fever swamp, it's worth giving them credit, as is the case with this excellent post from Nick Bradley (who I'll admit usually does a pretty good job avoiding the anti-Cato, anti-Reason vitriol). Bradley discusses the Daniel Koffler Comment Is Free column about Obama's appeal to libertarians that I posted about awhile back.

In any event, Bradley's analysis is well-balanced, fair, and well worth a read, I think.

Money quote:

So, is Obama a left-libertarian? No; Obama's platform is more akin to "Soft Paternalism", a gentler, less threatening approach to controlling people's lives (sometimes incorrectly referred to as Libertarian Paternalism).
...
Don't get me wrong: in a hypothetical match up in the fall between Obama and McCain, I'll either abstain from voting or write in Paul's name. But for the electorate as a whole, Obama would be the more liberty-minded choice over the statist, warmongering, ill-tempered and possibly unstable John McCain.

I'm much more willing to actually vote for Obama in the general election on the grounds that he will be far superior to McCain, and on the grounds that I think a change in foreign policy and a roll-back of executive power are the most important issues this year. But Bradley's analysis of Obama strikes me as dead-on accurate.

Another One?

Doug Mataconis adds his voice to the chorus of libertarians who view Obama as the most tolerable candidate with a chance to be President. As is the case with my endorsements of Obama, he is explicitly not endorsing Obama for the general election. Doug's "endorsement" is also much less enthusiastic than mine have been.

Money quote:

What’s needed, I am convinced, is a break with the past and a new direction. In some sense, although I hate to admit it, John McCain represents that for the GOP but Barack Obama represents it even more and, more importantly, is running against the one person who, if she wins, would guarantee a return to same crap we’ve been dealing with since 1993 on both sides of the political aisle.

Read the whole thing. Hopefully, tonight or this afternoon I'm going to break down the three remaining realistic candidates from a libertarian perspective.

Initial Thoughts on Super Tuesday

Some initial thoughts on last night....
Republicans
1. Romney is DOA. Even though Huckabee has proven remarkably resilient, it's impossible to see how McCain fails to win the nomination. The oft-heard meme last night and this morning has been about a McCain-Huckabee ticket. This, of course, is something I've said makes political sense for months - even back when McCain was still the underdog. Let the record show that on Dec. 26, I argued that such a ticket would be the only way for the GOP to unite its coalition for one last battle in November. Let the record also show that on that same day, I argued that McCain would win the nomination as long as he could keep his campaign afloat through Super Tuesday. Just sayin'
2. With McCain inevitable at this point, every extra dollar that Mitt Romney spends from his personal fortune on this campaign will show that he (Romney) really would not make a good President. Unless you think that doing that is a wise investment at this point.
3. On both the Republican and Democrat side, Missouri showed that it is not just a bellwether state in general elections. The closeness of each race is just staggering.

Democrats
1. My predictions were off on a couple aspects, and hit the mark perfectly on others. Overall, I actually underestimated Obama's support slightly, although it's tough to say how representative the caucus states are of the party's mood within those respective states.
2. Had we been told what the results would be a week ago, we would have probably said that Obama was the new frontrunner. Unfortunately for Obama, the media and a number of his cheerleaders built up expectations to an unrealistic level with their overreporting of poll results in California and New Jersey that showed Obama closing rapidly. As a result, last night was a draw in the truest sense (not in the sense of a draw actually being an Obama win). In California, the pundit-class that argued Obama might pull of the upset there utterly ignored the huge percentage of voters who voted by mail at a time when Hillary was ahead by 20 or 30 points. In New Jersey, that class ignored New Jersey's sordid history as a machine state. I personally would have been shocked had either state gone for Obama. In Massachussetts, the polling was showing a big lead for Hillary for quite some time - the expectation that the state was a toss-up just because of endorsements was laughable.
3. Hillary is still the favorite to win the nomination. It is almost inevitable that the race will come down to the Super Delegates, and I suspect that the race for binding delegates will wind up extremely close to tied. If that is the case, then it's hard to see how the Super Delegates break in Obama's favor.
4. The big surprises of the night from my perspective were Missouri and New Mexico (although my prediction on Alabama turned out to be wrong by several degrees of magnitude).
5. Looking at my original predictions, it looks like Obama took 4 of the 5 states I had listed as toss-ups, possibly one true "Lean Hillary" state (New Mexico- still undecided at this moment, but with a razor-thin edge to Obama), as well as one "Lean Hillary" state that probably should have been a "Lean Obama" state all along (Utah). Most pundits had Delaware as a "toss-up" state as well, giving Obama a major victory in the true toss-up states (I had it as a "Lean Obama" state due to its demographics).
6. Obama will have won several more states than Hillary when the counting is done. This is significant.
7. Obama's huge margin of victory in every single caucus state shows an ability to drive turnout that Democrats need to keep in mind if they want to win in November. If Hillary is the nominee, she will need to have Obama on the ticket if she wants to beat McCain; Obama does not need Hillary, though, if he is the nominee.
8. Obama may wind up ahead in pledged delegates on the night - no small feat given the media's (proper) emphasis on delegate counts as the true indicator last night.

More thoughts as they occur....

If you really need more thoughts right now, though, you can find them at Memeorandum.

Standard Meme of the Night

If I were John McCain, I'd be pretty annoyed at Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and a bunch of other pundits who have been advancing the meme that all of McCain's support is coming from "Blue states that Republicans can't win."

The reason I find this annoying is that it makes the assumption that Republicans don't need to win any blue states and shouldn't even try, even though they won the last two elections by the slimmest of margins with no room for error. If the Republican strategy is just to hold on to the states that Bush won in 2004 while making no inroads into other states, then the Republicans are leaving themselves no margin for error in a year when their party identification numbers are at an all time low.

At the same time as they've been hitting this meme like a broken record, they've been playing the opposite meme for Obama - that Democrats should take positive notice that Obama is doing so well in "Red" states, and that this makes him more electable.

If I was a Hillary supporter hearing those two memes juxtaposed together, I'd be even more annoyed.

Romney's Refrain

I've been meaning to comment on this for awhile, and today may well be my last chance if McCain all but seals the deal tonight as expected. In any event, ever since Romney transparently pillaged Obama's "Change" theme, he has made a point of saying that we can't have change by just "putting the same people in different chairs" (or something similar to that). He then claims that his experience as a Blue State governor (and as a businessman) makes him uniquely qualified to be President.


There's just one problem with that argument, which essentially argues that you need an outsider to create change, preferably an experienced governor, and definitely NOT a sitting member of Congress: most Presidents in modern times have fit Romney's "outsider" definition to a "T." Indeed, the last time we elected a sitting member of Congress to the Presidency was JFK - almost 50 years ago! Prior to that, you had Warren Harding in 1920, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Garfield in 1880 (who died a few months after taking office), and that's it. Of course there are a number of Presidents like LBJ who had prior Congressional experience, especially in the 1800s.

Compare that to the number of recent Presidents we've had whose prior experience was primarily as a governor: Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter... The point is this: the idea that all we need for "change" is to elect another governor is utterly preposterous. If anything, recent history would suggest that what we need for "change" is to stop electing governors as Presidents!

For the Record

For what it's worth, turnout in my Republican-monopolized town here in New Jersey seemed surprisingly low in a year when this state's vote actually means something in theory. I went to vote at what should have been a high time, and had exactly zero wait, and there was no one else coming or going for my district. Other districts (there are several that vote in the same building) were not much better. This says nothing about the Dem turnout, of course, since as I said the Republicans have a monopoly in my town (there wasn't a single "D" on my page of the voter list, for example). But the apparent lack of enthusiasm on the Republican side at this point says a lot.

My Reluctant Vote and What Ron Paul Should Have Done

This morning, I sucked it up, went to the voting booth, and voted for Ron Paul. Had the newsletter story broken earlier than it did, I would have changed my party registration so I could have supported Obama and given him a chance to win this surprisingly close state against Nixon in a Pantsu....err, Hillary.

In any event, it was amazing to me how joyless the experience of voting for Ron Paul had become only a few months after being absolutely ecstatic about his candidacy. Indeed, in the end, my vote was purely strategic and symbolic....a pure protest vote. My decision was made easier by the fact that McCain has a huge lead here in New Jersey, which is also a winner take all primary on the Republican side. Since I view Romney as on a par with Hillary on the Evil Scale, ensuring the death of his campaign had become a top priority for me. But with McCain's insurmountable lead here and the winner-take-all factor, that priority became a non-issue.

The diminishment of that priority paved the way for making a protest vote against the Republican Party's warmongering and nation-building of recent years, as well as its out of control spending and complete disregard for civil and social liberties. While Paul's value as a protest vote is greatly diminished due to the newsletter issue and his nativism on trade and immigration, as well as his emphasis on states' rights over individual rights, he is as good a protest as there is in the Republican Party these days. Since I could not vote in the Dem primary and since I am no longer a big fan of McCain, voting for Paul was the only way I felt my vote could have any impact whatsoever. Even then, my decision was still agonizing. In the end, I voted for Paul more because of McCain's douchebaggery and dishonesty in the last debate (which eliminated the main reason I could tolerate McCain) than anything else....though I hasten to add that Paul's honest and adult performance in that debate was also a factor.

It's sad, really, how reluctant my vote had become. Just a few months ago, Paul was one of the only politicians I had ever been excited about. Even after the Thanksgiving Eve Alex Jones interview, despite what my head was saying, my heart was still clearly with Paul. But the newsletter story, and especially the response to it from both the Paul campaign and the Rockwell crowd, killed whatever irrational passion I had remaining for Paul. In the end, my voyage to the polls this morning was utterly joyless, and I felt that my vote had become close to meaningless. Were Fred Thompson still in the race, I think I would have voted for him over Paul.

And it didn't need to be this way. Even after the newsletter story broke, Paul could have won my heart back or at least made my vote pro-Paul rather than just anti-Bush, Romney, and McCain. All that Paul needed to do was to come clean about the newsletters or put out one honest press release. He could have even done this without throwing his friends under the bus (even though those friends clearly had no problem throwing Paul under the bus).

Such a press release could have just been a few sentences, and would have read something along the lines of:

I wanted to address the recent allegations against me in the New Republic. It is true that for an extended period of time, I allowed newsletters with some very incendiary material to be published under my name. The incendiary material in these newsletters was part of an ill-advised attempt to raise money for causes that I support, including my Congressional campaign. For a period, some of my advisors had become convinced that my ideals had a very limited appeal that required reaching out to groups with some ugly views. The success of my current campaign, which has brought together people of all races, religions, and backgrounds under one
movement, has proven just how wrong my advisors were, and just how wrong it was
of me to acquiesce to their convictions.

As for my personal views, I have said repeatedly and clearly that I view racism as anathema to the individualism that is at the core of my philosophy. Unfortunately, my personal ethics prohibit me from identifying the individuals who wrote this material by name. Should they choose to come forward, then I will have more to add at that time. What I can say is that I was wrong in acquiescing to their strategy, and for that I deeply apologize and take responsibility. Again, the diversity and passion of my supporters in this current campaign has proven just how wrong I was for
believing that publishing the incendiary material described in the New Republic article was necessary to expanding my base of support.

...Or something along those lines. But instead of taking responsibility for his actual involvement with the newsletters, he instead has tried to avoid that responsibility by saying that he didn't write the material, didn't know about it, and doesn't know who wrote it. If his concern was that he didn't want to hurt his friends by outing them as racists (or at least as former racists), he could have issued a response like the above, which at least avoids the implausible argument that he doesn't know who wrote the materials and didn't know what was going out.

If Paul is to run a credible third party campaign for the general election, these are concerns he will have to answer. While the newsletter controversy didn't gain that much traction outside of libertarian circles and the internet last month, it will certainly gain traction if Paul runs a third party campaign where he threatens to get 10% of the national vote (which is about where he's polling right now in hypothetical races).

Final Super Tuesday Predictions and Prognostications

The other day I gave a best guess on the fluid status of the Super Tuesday races on the Dem side. Today, I'm going to lay it all on the line and get very specific on those predictions by giving what I think will be the final spread in each race. While Obama has been gaining in almost all the polls, I want to point out that Hillary starts out with a big advantage in absentee ballots in a number of states. I also suspect that voter turnout will be highest among those who made up their minds awhile ago, which is the group most likely to have been following the race closely. So my predictions are slightly less optimistic for Obama than his momentum would suggest.

If I have time, I'll try to do the same for the Republicans tonight or tomorrow morning.

Without further ado:

Alabama: Clinton by less than 5. Total delegates split about evenly
Arizona: Clinton by 5-10, with a slight advantage in delegates
Arkansas: Clinton by about 20-25, and about 2/3 of the delegates
California: Clinton by about 5 on the strength of early votes. Delegates split about evenly.
Colorado: Obama by 5-10, delegates split about evenly.
Connecticut: Obama by one or two points, delegates split evenly.
Delaware: Obama by about 5, and a slight advantage on delegates.
Georgia: Obama by about 20-25, and about 2/3 of the delegates
Idaho: Obama by 20-25, and about 3/4 of the delegates
Illinois: Obama by 30+, and about 3/4 of the delegates
Kansas: Obama by 5-10, and a slight delegate advantage
Massachussetts: Clinton by less than 5, delegates split about evenly
Minnesota: Obama by less than 5, delegates split about evenly
Missouri: Clinton by less than 5, delegates split about evenly
New Jersey: Clinton by 5-10, and a slight delegate advantage
New Mexico: Clinton by less than 5, and a slight delegate advantage
New York: Clinton by 20, but Obama wins NYC by a slim margin. Clinton gets about 60% of the delegates
North Dakota (no link): Obama by 15-20, about 2/3 of the delegates
Oklahoma: Clinton by 25, and about 60% of the delegates (with Edwards picking off a couple delegates despite dropping out)
Tennessee: Clinton by 20 and about 2/3 of the delegates
Utah: Obama by 10, and about 60% of the delegates

Final result: Clinton wins 11 states, Obama wins 10, with American Samoa and Democrats Abroad unknown (though I suspect Obama wins the latter handily). Total delegates awarded: Clinton, 850-900; Obama, 750-800, Edwards 0-50. The race continues on to February 12, and beyond.

***Revised to include North Dakota***
***UPDATE 2: The original version vastly understated the number of delegates at stake; mistake has been corrected***

Obama and Gun Control

Nick Gillespie discusses a Clayton Cramer post on Obama and gun control. Cramer views Obama as an anti-gun radical (although their voting records show that Hillary is far, far worse).

My take, left as a comment to Gillespie's post, is below. Bottom line: Obama is clearly an anti-gun Democrat; but I also don't think significant gun control is likely in the next Administration to the extent it is a wedge issue that requires tons of political capital.

The key question here is:"How much of a role will gun rights play in the election?" The answer: not much, nor should they. Violent crime in this country is extremely low right now compared with the 80's and early 90's. The so-called "assault weapons" ban has been expired for well over 3 years and (shockingly!) there has been no sudden surge of people being bayoneted to death with scary looking rifles.

Meanwhile, the economy is going to shit, we're spending hundreds of billions on a war of choice, health care costs have gone through the roof (because our current system has so many market distortions), and we're fighting a massive GWOT in which the executive branch has decided the Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome rather than a road map to success. I could go on...Right now, gun control is probably not on the top 100 list of things to do for the next President. Even if it were, it's worth remembering that any such legislation would need to get through two houses of Congress. Gun control is also a wedge issue that requires a lot of political capital to force through; with so many higher priorities, an incoming President isn't going to be able to waste that capital on gun control. The cost of that capital will be even higher if the SCOTUS rules that gun ownership is an individual right, and only slightly less in the event SCOTUS finds only a collective right.

While I can see candidates discussing gun control on the campaign trail, and the eventual winner even mentioning it in their initial address to Congress, I have a hard time seeing any of them actually spending political capital to force significant gun control through before the 2012 elections.

The most likely way for gun control to happen under the next President is actually to elect John McCain. McCain has a long history of supporting fairly harsh gun control measures; there is also a good chance he will only be a one-term President due to his age. Combined with the fact that he is also a Republican, this means he would have to spend much less political capital for gun control than any of the other candidates.

More reactions at memeorandum.

Concluding Blogroll Amnesty Day

All weekend, I've been linking to other small blogs in honor of today's Blogroll Amnesty Day. There are still a couple more blogs from my blogroll to which I want to give some special attention, but which I was unable to give full posts this weekend. Below are a couple of recommended posts from those blogs. If there is anyone else on my blogroll who would like to have a post added to this list, let me know.

For the record, not all of these blogs are smaller than me, and one or two are even substantially larger than me. But all are underrated in their own way.

East Coast Libertarian discusses markets, morality, and central planning with a special eye on the libertarian truism known in these parts as Kip's Law.

Cosmo's Brain on Mitt Romney and Godwin's Law (bonus anti-Donder-oooooooooooooooo! rant).

Crazy For Liberty discusses Ron Paul's Fourth Quarter fundraising haul from military members.

Doug Mataconis takes a look at the Super Tuesday polls.

Mattbastard on an outrageous case of excessive force in Ohio.

The aforementioned Kip Esquire on ethanol and Bill Clinton.

**UPDATE** I unforgiveably left out the irreverent To The People, with some not-so-irreverent questions for the Straight Talk Express - and they want details and specifics.

A New Low in Moral Equivalence

I haven't much followed Senator Specter's utterly insane obsession with the NFL/Patriots "Spygate" non-scandal. But Tony at RollingDoughnut points out what has to be a new low in moral equivalence from Ira Einhorn's favorite defense attorney:

"The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes, or any time you have records destroyed."

Read Tony's full post, or else you don't get a cookie.

Executive Power and Organic Change

I wanted to discuss another important suggestion from this article I just linked to from Corgi Guy: as a matter of policy, the person we choose as President matters relatively little. While I disagree with this assertion to the extent it ignores the expansion of Executive Power that has occured over the last 7 years, it is otherwise historically quite accurate. Assuming that the Bush expansions of Executive Power are rolled back, the historical American system of separation of powers will take effect yet again, and the President will be prevented from making radical changes of policy except with the assistance of the other branches of government and/or the overwhelming support of the American people. Indeed, the Presidents who have ushered through the most radical top-down policy changes over the years have primarily done so through the misuse of Executive Power or novel Constitutional theories: FDR (think court-packing scheme here), LBJ (famous for using all sorts of shady tricks to get his way legislatively), Nixon (duh!), and now Bush.

We tend to forget that our system is set up to create gridlock (this is a good thing). For major changes to occur at the policy level in this country without implicating Constitutional violations, it is usually necessary for there to first be major organic changes. Top-down policy change is exceedingly difficult in this country without violating the Constitution (and I would argue that the dramatic changes we have seen in the Bush years have in fact come at the expense of the Constitution). When top-down change is attempted in a manner that is compliant with the Constitution, the political repercussions are swift and dramatic - see, e.g., the fall out from Hillary Clinton's first attempt at health care "reform" and the resulting 1994 Republican Revolution. Or look at the fact that policy-wise Reagan was largely unsuccessful at reducing the size of government; but also look at the fact that his rhetoric was transformational and created an organic change in attitudes that led to the shrinking of the federal government under Bill Clinton.

This fact of American political life means that the single most important issue in this upcoming election is the President's view of Executive Power. A President that will roll back the Bush-era expansions in that area is a President that will be unable to force through dramatic changes in policy without first obtaining a clear and overwhelming mandate for each change from the American people.

This is why I am so fearful of Hillary Clinton - her history strongly suggests a penchant for Bush/Nixon-level secrecy, and I have little faith that she would actually roll back many, if any of the Bush-era expansions of power. She may well put an end to specific abuses like torture, but her record suggests that she will build upon the unitary executive theory (for example) to implement her agenda, whether or not it is well-considered and supported by a super-majority of Americans.

But if we elect a President who has a healthy respect for the President's proper role, then we will get an America that once again hums along quite nicely on its own. We always forget that we are electing a President, not a dictator, and that the powers of the President, properly construed, are nowhere near as strong as we like to think. This is why I am so willing to support Obama, and why I could even live with John McCain (although I am beginning to see a disconnect between his stated positions on Executive Power and his actions - he may be more sympathetic to Bush-era expansions of power than he admits, which gives me great pause).

Obama and International Perceptions

Corgi Guy has a fascinating, must-read article from a Spanish paper about the international view of Obama, American politics, and how they fit together. The point of the article is that the international view of Obama says much about the state of affairs in individual countries, more so than it says much about whether the international community thinks Obama would be a good President.

This is not to say that Obama's successes are insignificant - quite the contrary, in fact. Should he be elected, he will have an impact that no other President can have - not by what he does, but by who he is and what that fact says about America. The anti-American stereotypes of the European and Latin American Left about the USA will be crushed, while the political Right in those countries (which would fit more closely with American Democrats than Republicans) would finally have some ammunition with which to promote better relations with the USA. As the article states:

"The moment he appears on televisions around the world, victorious and smiling, the United States’ image and the soft power will experience something akin to a Copernican Revolution. "

Thinking back on this, it actually comports well with my limited experiences talking politics in Europe. The individuals with whom I have spoken (one a center-right politician from Austria, the other a center-right professor from Slovakia) were both extremely excited about Obama...and both were on the European center-right.

Best Super Tuesday Prediction Around

Divided We Stand United We Fall has put together an epic tale of what shall come to pass in the ongoing battle between Queen Hillary and the Hero Obama. Possibly the most entertaining take yet on the battle for control of the Democratic Party. A must-read.

For the record, my more wonky predictions are here.

Blogroll Amnesty Day

Per Jon Swift, I learned that this weekend is the Second Annual Blogroll Amnesty Day. The first such day occured prior to my foray into the blogosphere, so it's not my place to explain the circumstances behind this event, other than to say that it is a day/weekend for left-of-center blogs to open their blogrolls up to all comers and give some blog-love to their smaller counterparts.

In any event, the modest success I've had on this blog the last few months has been far more than I ever thought I'd have. Much of that success has been due to the liberal policies of other blogs, and to the surprising amount of blog-love they send my way by linking to my posts on a semi-frequent basis. Without their assistance, I doubt this blog would have ever gotten more than a few dozen hits a day.

In particular, the guys at Comments from Left Field (especially Kyle) and at the Liberty Papers (especially Doug and Brad) have helped me along with encouragement, tips, and links galore. I am thankful for the help each of them has provided me. I'm also of course thankful for the increasingly large number of other bloggers who have added me to their blogrolls over the last few months or linked to me for various other reasons.

I don't know that I qualify as a left-of-center blogger, since I'm pretty strongly libertarian, and so I don't know where I fit in Blogroll Amnesty Day. But my priorities these days are on civil and social liberties more than on economic liberties, which means that I find myself sympathizing with the Left as often as not. Regardless, Blogroll Amnesty Day is a terrific idea, and I will be celebrating it no matter whether this blog qualifies.

With that in mind and as a way of passing along the support I've gotten from CFLF and the Liberty Papers, I'm going to do what I can to link to blogs that are even smaller than me, or about my size, this weekend. There are a few such blogs already on my blogroll, and a couple others that I'll be adding who I should have already put up. I also invite any other bloggers who may stop by to put their blog address in the comments to this post, and I'll make sure to add you as well.

(H/T Cernig)

Today's Iraq Bombing

...Nothing short of appalling and disgusting. I have no comment on how this affects evaluation of the relative success or failure of the surge - it is one incident, and should not be used as a basis for broader conclusions on that front.

But AQI's use of women with Down's Syndrome as apparently unwitting murderers is animal in every degree. Whatever else may be said about the Bush Administration, the Iraq War more generally, or our current foreign policy, this much is clear: there is no moral equivalence.

More reactions at memeorandum.

***UPDATE*** Via a commenter at Obsidian Wings - there is some question as to whether the "bomber" in fact had Down's Syndrome. If that is not the case, however, then it appears at least one was the mother of a small child, which is not much less appalling. Again - no moral equivalence.

Predicting Super Tuesday

Despite all the hype, I think it's unlikely that Super Tuesday will result in a clear winner on the Dems side, particularly given the way in which the Democrats distribute delegates. Obviously, I expect Super Tuesday to put an end to Romney's hopes on the Republican side.

Unless Hillary manages to get about 60% of the overall vote on Tuesday or Obama wins a majority of the total vote plus a significant majority of the states, I think both sides will be able to spin just about any result as a victory for them and still pass the laugh test. I do expect that Hillary will come out clearly on top in both delegates and vote percentage, though by nowhere near enough to knock Obama out of the race or to plausibly argue that she is the presumptive nominee.

With that in mind, below is my best guess of the results in each of the Super Tuesday states based on the recent polling data I could find from Pollster, and intuition where recent polling is unavailable.

Solid Obama: Illinois, Georgia, Democrats Abroad
Lean Obama: Alabama, Idaho, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, North Dakota
Toss-Up: Connecticut, New Mexico, Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri
Lean Clinton: New Jersey, Massachussetts, Utah, California, New Mexico, Tennessee
Solid Clinton: New York, Arkansas, Oklahoma

Looking at this, I noticed that my independently arrived at conclusions are pretty close to Marc Ambinder's predictions the other day. To be honest, I am quite surprised that I found Obama as the favorite in just as many states as Hillary, although Hillary does better in the most delegate-rich states, which is why I think she's likely to come out of the day with a higher delegate count and higher vote total. Still, if things shake out as I have it above, with the toss-up states being split evenly, it will be impossible for Hillary to breathe any kind of sigh of relief. It's just about impossible to see how this race gets decided without the Super Delegates- unless Obama takes all of the toss up states and steals at least two of the "Lean Clinton" states. Were that to happen, I could see him gaining enough momentum to take sizable majorities in the remaining primaries.

If you had asked me a few weeks ago, I would have said that a convention that comes down to Super Delegates would be bad news for Obama; but with the recent spate of endorsements he's received, I'm not so sure now. Hillary does have a 2:1 advantage currently in pledged Super Delegates, but the vast majority of Super Delegates have stayed out of the fray so far. Obama's endorsements will help him considerably with the hundreds of remaining Super Delegates.

One important caveat to all of this which has been under-covered: now that McCain's nomination seems almost inevitable, independent voters may turn out for Obama in somewhat heavier numbers in states with open primaries. I don't think it will make that much of a difference, but it could put him over the top in some of the toss-up states.


**UPDATE** A few explanations of some of the less intuitively obvious predictions:

California- Obama has narrowed the gap substantially here, and according to one recent poll has closed to within three points of Hillary, which would suggest the state is a toss-up. But that poll looks like it might be an outlier, as most polls have it scored as about a 10-15 point lead for Hillary. I'm guessing Hillary will win the state by about 5 points after Obama's momentum is factored in.

Delaware- there is no polling data here, but demographically the state is extremely favorable to Obama.

Kansas- again, no recent polling, but Obama has ties to the state, and it is the type of state in which Obama seems to be polling very strong (compare with Idaho, for example, where Obama had a lead in a July poll - well before he had any momentum, or with Iowa, which is where Obama started his surge).

Connecticut- one recent poll has Obama with a slight lead here and another has it tied, which would suggest that Obama should be the favorite. However, Connecticut is smack in the middle of Hillary country, and I would expect her to have a big advantage in the ground game here, which puts the state back in the toss-up category.

Massachussetts- despite the Kennedy endorsements, this is machine Democrat central, and Obama's initial deficit is far too much for him to overcome. The Kennedy endorsement will, however, make it much closer than it would have been.

New Jersey - recent polling has Obama closing fast here, and the state's high level of education allows Obama to be competitive. New Jersey's more urban black population is not going to be as pro-Obama as the rural black population in South Carolina, as New Jersey's cities are completely dominated by political machines that are Hillary's bread-and-butter. Obama will be helped in those areas by the support of highly-regarded Newark mayor Corey Booker, but New Jersey is just too much of a machine state for Hillary to lose.

Minnesota- polling still has Hillary with a lead of several points in the state, but demographically it is almost an ideal state for Obama. The history of Minnesota's politics lends itself even more heavily to Obama's favor.

North Dakota- this state is just an educated guess based more on Obama's win in Iowa than anything else.

New Mexico- there is no reliable polling in New Mexico right now, but the heavy Latino population in the state strongly favors Clinton, as do other demographic features like income level.

UPDATE #2: Today's Gallup Poll places Obama within the margin of error nationally against Hillary. This doesn't change the above analysis in any way, though.

More at memeorandum.

A Strange Consensus

Usually after a debate you will find that there is very little consensus about who won or lost. There may be a slight majority opinion one way or another, but there's usually a good number who disagree. Last night does not fit that mold, though.

Nearly every centrist or Progressive source I've read so far has called the debate either a tie or a slight win for Obama. I've yet to find one such source that called it for Hillary or said that it was a knockout blow for Obama. A few examples: Josh Marshall, Chuck Todd, Marc Ambinder, Noam Scheiber, Ron Chusid, and of course libertarian me.

Despite this, there seems to be a consensus among conservative commentators and bloggers that Hillary won the debate by a good margin, as discussed in this post at Newsday's Spin Cycle. See also: Lisa Schiffren.

I suspect there's a very clear reason for this unanimity of opinion: Obama won or tied the debate thanks largely to the section on Iraq and foreign policy. These of course are the two areas where Republicans are most blind to Obama's appeal - they still don't seem to grasp that most Americans and nearly all Democrats oppose the Iraq war and are strongly opposed to Bush's unilateralism and pre-emption doctrine. To the extent Obama won or pulled even with Hillary in the debate, he did so on this issue, which is a blind spot for the Republican commentariat.

Another reason for the strange unanimity of opinion on the Right is probably that they thought this debate was a chance for Obama to deliver a knockout blow by going hard after Hillary. In their Hillary Hate Rage (which I often share), they seem to forget that most Democrats really, really like Hillary, and that Obama probably cost himself New Hampshire by going hard after her.

Debate Thoughts

When I've blogged about the Democratic debates, I've generally tried to avert a lot of the domestic policy issues. I do that primarily because I've spent most of my life as a Republican, and I have very little idea how specific differences on domestic policy play within various Democratic Party groups. For a better idea on those issues, I strongly recommend Kyle's live-blogging of the debate. Still, I feel plenty comfortable discussing foreign policy since many Dems are more libertarian-friendly on this issue than Republicans are; ditto with immigration policy. And of course I feel comfortable discussing the unsubstantive things about the debates that still wind up being critically important.

Given those limitations, here are my thoughts on tonight's debate:

1. Despite his momentum, Obama is still trying to come from behind, and has only a few days to do that in over 20 states. To voters in those states who are just starting to pay attention and are not generally obsessed with politics, Obama is probably still something of an enigma. Hillary, on the other hand, is a completely known quantity within the party rank and file. This meant that tonight was much more important to Obama than it was to Hillary. It was his chance to sell himself to people currently supporting Hillary on name recognition alone. With that in mind, the primary question coming into this debate was not so much whether Hillary or Obama would win, but whether Obama would be able to cut into Hillary's support by enough of a margin to catch her.

2. The generally civil, policy-focused tone favored Hillary substantially on domestic policy. I say this because the discussion of domestic policy generally amounted to incredibly specific, detailed discussion of numbers whose actual significance to the average voter is nil. In getting into those details, Obama's ability to inspire is dramatically neutralized.

3. Foreign policy, however, has become extremely easy to understand these days, at least from the perspective of the average dove (which fairly well sums up most Democrats, I think): are you for the Iraq War or against it? Are you for an aggressive foreign policy or a more humble one. On these questions, Obama wiped Hillary across the floor. In fact, Hillary wiped herself all over the floor, managing to sound like a neo-con with her approving use of the phrase "coercive diplomacy." If I were Obama, I would take her sentence on that and play it on loop in as many Progressive media outlets as possible.

4. It would seem that Hillary's response to the dynasty question was approvingly received by the Dem grassroots. Certainly her catch phrase of "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush..." hit home beautifully with the base. It's unfortunate that they largely ignored the part of the response where she increduosly claimed that she and Obama had to start the campaigns on an even footing, as if her fundraising ability and initial name recognition advantage had nothing to do with her famous last name.

5. If there were concerns about how Obama would respond to Republican tried-and-true arguments, I think you'd have to say he passed with flying colors: humorous, disarming, and devastatingly accurate. How anyone can think that Hillary would stand up better to such arguments than Obama is officially beyond me at this point.

6. Both of them have clearly learned from their past mistakes that the first person to go onto the offensive winds up the loser in the long run. As a result, they both spent the debate trying to bait each other into going on the attack - neither ever really did it, though Obama through some beautiful soft jabs that no one could take offense to, but which did paint some differences between the two.

7. After Obama started landing some of those soft jabs, Hillary's demeanor did seem to change a bit, at least when he was speaking. She did a good job composing herself for her answers, but the look on her face while he was responding was all too similar to McCain's "too-cool-for-the-room" smirk last night. I thought that demeanor hurt McCain significantly last night, and I think it hurt Hillary again tonight.

Final verdict: Despite all of the above, I'd say it was a draw or only a slight advantage to Obama (Hillary just had too much of a built-in advantage on domestic policy questions in this format). Still, given the familiarity of so many voters with Hillary built up over the last 16 years, I think Obama probably picks up a couple of points on her, making the national poll numbers close to a dead heat. How that plays out in the individual Super Tuesday states I have no idea, though.

More thoughts on memeorandum.

A Quick Word on Tonight's Debate

I've been too ill to blog anything today about the Florida results, the Giuliani endorsement, or the Edwards news.

But the debate tonight, especially the exchange between Romney and McCain over McCain's accusation about Romney supporting timetables, struck me as noteworthy.

First, in the aforementioned exchange, McCain may have done himself some serious damage, both short and long-term. He came across as a bully who was just out for blood, trying to kick Romney when he was down. It was the first time....ever....that I've felt any sympathy for Romney. The exchange also seriously damaged McCain's claim to being the "Straight Talk" candidate.

I say this as someone who would vastly prefer McCain to Romney (which isn't to say I necessarily prefer McCain overall), but in trying to go for an unnecessary knockout blow of Romney, I think McCain might have given Romney an opening by looking like a complete douche in what may have been a critical debate. Frankly, to out-douche Romney takes a lot of work, but I think McCain managed to do that tonight.

The entire exchange struck me as similar to bickering between an older, favored son, and his younger brother unsuccessfully trying to point out that, in fact, the older brother wrecked the car.

Thankfully, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee came in and played the parents in the exchange, with Paul taking the role of the disciplinarian father taking them both to task for being babies, and Huckabee being the soft-hearted mother just trying to cool the situation down.

On the whole, Huckabee and Paul were both ignored far too much in a debate that is now down to a manageable number of candidates. While I can understand giving McCain and Romney more facetime overall, the extent to which Huckabee and Paul got the shaft was truly excessive.

Paul, to his credit, did what he could to expand his quixotic attempt to explain the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. This is not an issue that works well in a debate - especially one where you're not getting much speaking time - but I give Paul credit for trying to explain what is clearly his favorite topic of discussion, and what he has apparently chosen to make the basis of his campaign now that he knows he is just a protest candidate at best. Unfortunately, explaining Austrian Theory in such short spurts is more likely to just confuse people than do any good. He would have been well-served to focus on less heady issues, though the connection he drew between Reagan and the gold standard probably helped his cause a little. Still, I was happy to see him get to play (along with Huckabee) the role of "adult" at one or two junctures.

In his short periods of camera time, though, Huckabee actually managed to sound the most like a Reagan Republican of anyone on the stage. He managed to pay more than mere lip service to traditional Republican concepts like federalism, taxes, and deficits. There were even times when he sounded almost as libertarian as Ron Paul, particularly because he spoke only fleetingly about "values" issues. This isn't to say that his overall agenda is libertarian in any way (quite the opposite of course), that I could ever support him, or that his performance tonight is remotely indicative of his overall policy preferences...but if anyone sounded like Ronald Reagan tonight, it was the Huckster.

After tonight, I suspect that Huckabee will do slightly better than expected on Tuesday, McCain noticeably worse, Paul slightly better, and Romney slightly better. This would make (gulp) Romney the effective winner of the debate since Huckabee and Paul are so clearly also-rans. However, I doubt that McCain hurt himself enough to cost him the nomination.

More debate reactions (I'm sure) at memeorandum.

Another Libertarian Blogger for Obama?

I've been taking some mild flak the last few days for my quasi-endorsement of Obama, by which I mean that I currently support him, and would support him over any other potential major party nominee. However, I may yet decide to go with the LP nominee in the general election, depending on how things play out between now and November. To reiterate, though - I have no illusion that Obama is himself a libertarian in any way; however, I believe he is more genuinely open to libertarian solutions than any candidate of recent vintage, particularly on social and civil liberties; on economic liberties, he appears far better than any Democrat in many years (though I hasten to add that in effect, the Clinton presidency wound up being quite pro-market).

In any event, my sentiments appear to be seconded by Cosmo's Brain, who has gone even more whole-hog for Obama than I have. Cosmo also hits on a theme that I've been striking with increasing frequency of late: the Republicans are no longer a good home for libertarians.

Money quote:

I have come to learn something very important about the Republican Party and libertarians: the big tent welcomes libertarians only when it suits their convenience to do so (which is about every even numbered year). When those same libertarian principles Republicans champion are applied to issues like drugs or morality, then Republicans do not want to hear what libertarians have to say. Rudy Giuliani believes in expansive executive power; Mitt Romney is more pro-business than pro-free market (somebody should tell Mitt that being a businessman and being an economist are not the same thing); John McCain would gladly sacrifice civil liberties in the name of “clean government;” and Mike Huckabee, well, he is a statist who calls himself a conservative.

Later tonight, I think I will try to start a compilation of libertarian, libertarian-ish, and small government bloggers currently supporting Obama.

Libertarians on Warrantless Wiretapping

Kos asks where the libertarians are on fighting against the current FISA bill.

This is largely an important and fair question. Little is ever heard publicly from libertarian organizations on this issue, yet it is something going on - right now - that implicates libertarian values as much as anything else.

Libertarians have not been silent on this issue. Ron Paul - to the extent he is a legitimate representative of libertarianism (debatable) - is quite clearly opposed to warrantless wiretapping, and has been fairly vocal about it to my knowledge. Reason has also come out quite clearly against the wiretapping bill, including this article by Julian Sanchez. And of course Radley Balko has made a career of documenting abuses by law enforcement in general in a way that perhaps no one on the Progressive Left can really match. Unfortunately, Cato seems somewhat divided on the issue and has been far too silent.

A number of libertarian bloggers (myself included) have in fact been quite vocal in their opposition to the warrantless wiretapping.

Despite this, our primary institutions have not been vocal enough in trying to influence the debate. Thankfully, David Weigel at Reason is trying to take some steps to rectify this problem. But it's probably too little, too late.

More reactions at memeorandum.

2008 SOTU Drinking Game Rules

For the last several years, I've enjoyed playing my own State of the Union Drinking Game. The rules change from year to year based on current events (though some rules are constant as long as Bush is in office). This year's rules are below:

1 Drink:
Any mention of a new government program
Anything that will involve an increase in deficit spending
"Nucular"
Any ovation in which the Republicans stand and applaud - but not the Democrats
Every syllable of the word "Ahmadinejad"- if any is mispronounced, finish your beer
Any reference to the telecoms as "good patriotic corporate citizens" or some derivation thereof
"The State of the Union is Strong"
Every mention of a gratuitously invited guest

Finish Your Beer:
Any mispronounced word other than "nucular."
Any attempt to (falsely) blame the Democrats for allowing the end of the warrantless wiretapping program
Any mention that one of his invited guests is not even supposed to be allowed in the country because she is HIV positive.


Feel free to add more rules in the comments.

When Will They Learn?

In 2004, John Kerry hurt his chances (though not fatally) in Pennsylvania when he went to one of Philly's legendary cheesesteak places and ordered it "California-style" with lettuce, tomatoes, and mayo. To this day, this blasphemy is the first thing my wife remembers when she hears the words "John Kerry."

The other day, Mitt Romney committed a similarly unforgivable food faux pas when he picked the skin off his fried chicken. In Pensacola, Florida - a town not that far from Alabama. Afterwards, he claimed that he was just looking for a healthy food option. But sir, when you are running for President, healthy eating must take a backseat to following cultural food conventions. This also doesn't answer the important question of why he thought a KFC would be a politically appropriate place to get lunch when I am quite certain there are better fried chicken options in Pensacola. For shame, sir, for shame!

New rule: If you wish to be my President, then you have to show you are willing to make modest personal sacrifices to your health by showing that you actually appreciate local food culture. Otherwise you're just transparent that you are pandering to make the locals think you like their food.

H/T: memeorandum.

Does Sully Have a Libertarian Version of the Malkin Award?

Andrew Sullivan has an always interesting feature called the Malkin Award for "for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric." (His Moore Award is for similarly insane left-wing rhetoric). But I'm not sure if such rhetoric qualifies when it comes from a self-described libertarian. If so, this post by Michael Rebmann should take the cake:

While listening to the news on WBEN this morning, I heard the worst reason yet for voting for Barack Obama. A mother in South Carolina voted for Barack for her children. She said, she’s always told her children that “you can be anything you want to be” and that Barack Obama shows that the statement is true.
I’m sure that Idi Amin and Adolf Hitler also believed that they could be anything they wanted to be. Presidents need to be elected based on ideas and qualifications, not race or gender.

This is not only an absurdly hyperbolic comparison, it also manages to qualify for Godwin's Law.

More on Why I Can Support Obama

I wrote last night that I have an odd enthusiasm for Obama even though I disagree with perhaps the majority of his policy positions. The reason for this enthusiasm was, I said, that Obama appears to have classically liberal ends even though he does not wish to pursue libertarian means.

Doug Mataconis at the Liberty Papers picked up on my post, and has some disagreements with it, to wit:

The question is whether there’s anything there that libertarians and classical liberals can admire, or even support.
Politically, the answer has got to be no. Rhetoric aside, Barack Obama is as much of statist as Hillary Clinton. While he seems like he’d be more open to free market ideas, it’s clear from his positions and his rhetoric that he views governments as a force for good, rather than the cause of problems. Yes, he’d be better on civil liberties than George W. Bush, but you can forget about reducing the size of government if Barack Obama is President.

My response is posted in the comments section to Doug's post, and reprinted in revised form below:

Politically, [Obama is] definitely a statist. But the big thing for me is that I view libertarianism as the best means to achieve classically liberal ends (ie, socio-economic mobility, individualism, and legal equality). My point with Obama is that he seems serious about achieving those same ends, even though he prefers different means.

What it comes down to is that Obama's history (which is often overlooked) and rhetoric point to him being willing to consider alternative means to achieving his liberal ends. Similarly, I am a libertarian only because I think it is the best way to achieve liberal ends; if better means for doing so exist, then I will no longer be a libertarian. While I obviously disagree profusely with him on a couple of issues, Brink Lindsey actually expressed this exact sentiment in his response to the Ron Paul newsletter story (available here):

"I’m a libertarian because I’m a liberal. In other words, I support small-government, free-market policies because I believe they provide the institutional framework best suited to advancing the liberal values of individual autonomy, tolerance, and open-mindedness. Liberalism is my bottom line; libertarianism is a means to promoting that end."

I see the divide in this country as being primarily between those with liberal ends, and those who at best pay lip service to liberal ends but ultimately care only about implementing their chosen means (ie, their ends and their means are the same thing). It is identical to the divide between principle and "pu-pu platter partisanship," something I have been hitting on for quite awhile.

Doug acknowledges that Obama is slightly more open to free market principles than Hillary. I don't think it's only a slight difference, though. He is also quite clearly committed to liberal values in the arena of foreign relations and - at least more so than the vast majority of politicians - social and civil liberties. That makes Obama relatively close to libertarianism on two of the three main issue areas, and closer to libertarianism than most Democrats (as well as, these days, many Republicans) on economic liberties and property rights, though by no means close enough.