Motley Moose – Archive

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Believe it or not, Tuesday was election night. Several million Americans voted (or more accurately, did not vote) in mostly local races.

These results provide a helpful snapshot of the national mood. Polls may be inaccurate, or – more commonly – different pollsters may have different pictures of the public mood. Unlike polls, elections have that useful tendency of never being wrong.

Special elections for congressional districts are especially convenient, because there is already a wealth of accumulated data about them. Moreover, because name recognition of both candidates is generally very low, they come as close as one can get to “generic Democrat versus generic Republican.”

Quite happily, a special election occurred on Tuesday in one such congressional district. Specifically, voters in Florida’s 19th congressional district went about replacing retired House Representative Robert Wexler. Here are the results:

More below.

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

I think we all remember the 2008 Democratic primaries, that exciting and epic battle. In many ways the campaign caused more excitement than the general election, whose result was never really in doubt (especially after the financial crisis).

Both candidates drew upon distinctly different coalitions. In an influential article, Ronald Brownstein analyzes the difference this way:

Since the 1960s, Democratic nominating contests regularly have come down to a struggle between a candidate who draws support primarily from upscale, economically comfortable voters liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and a rival who relies mostly on downscale, financially strained voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative views on cultural and national security issues.

President Barack Obama assembled a coalition from the former, these “wine-track” Democrats. When most Americans think of liberals, they think of wine-track Democrats. Mr. Obama, then, was the liberal candidate; Mrs. Clinton the “beer-track,” working-class representative.

So candidate won the most liberal place in America?

The answer below the fold (or alternatively, in my title).

When Congress passed the health care bill, with it came a momentous education reform. Signed into law by President Barack Obama, its intention was to help relieve the ever-rising burden imposed by soaring college fees and tuition rates.

This reform was funded by ending a government subsidy to big banks in the business of student loans. Money for poor people to attend college was expanded. Money was also saved by ending these government subsidies.

Under the previous system, the government ensured that student lenders would always make money; if students defaulted on their loans, the government would pay the money to the student lenders. In a CBS 60 minutes report, think tank expert Michael Dannenberg characterized this as:

a socialist-like system,” he says. “It’s not as if this private entity  is assuming any risks. No, no, no. The law makes sure that this  so-called private entity has virtually no risk.”

Unfortunately for students, this lucrative government-funded industry did relatively little to benefit them.

More below.

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Memory fades quickly in politics; less than a year ago Bush was president, and already the man is halfway forgotten.

Many, though, remember that Bush became distinctly unpopular during his second term. Liberals will explain this as a product of Bush’s stance on Iraq, civil liberties, the environment everything. Conservatives will point to his “betrayal of the cause” – the deficits and his moderate stance on immigration.

The average person might, if asked, talk about Bush’s poor handling of the Iraq War and the economy’s weak performance during his term.

These explanations all ring true enough. But there is a giant element which they do not account for. Nobody talks anymore about this thing – this event. It is only when one reads Bush’s wikipedia article, that one goes – “Ah! I remember that. He really failed on that.”

More below.

This is the third part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Pennsylvania. Part four can be found here.

Philadelphia’s Suburbs

There used to be a time when Republicans could count on Philadelphia’s suburbs to counter Democratic margins from the city. This is Philadelphia, circa 1988:

Not anymore. Philadelphia, 2008:

Philadelphia’s suburbs stretch across four counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. Their Democratic shift threatens to turn Pennsylvania blue for the foreseeable future.

More below.

This is the second part of a series analyzing the swing state Pennsylvania. The next part can be found here.

Like Florida, and unlike Ohio, Pennsylvania’s political geography can be divided into three. The industrial southwest is reddening, the populous southeast is bluing, and Pennsyltucky remains, as James Carville memorably described it, “Alabama without the blacks.” (Actually, Pennsyltucky is a fair bit less conservative.)

The following section will concentrate on Philadelphia, the region upon which Democrats draw the most votes.

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Here is one of Rush Limbaugh’s critiques of Barack Obama:

We have 9.8% unemployment.  Administration officials say three to four months more of this, maybe, and then we’re gonna start seeing jobs added.  I thought Obama had saved 23 million jobs!  I thought he and Biden had saved all these jobs.  Now the administration, well, three or four more months, and maybe we’ll have some job growth. We hope. Obama demeaned the office of the presidency going on this sales pitch for Chicago’s corrupt profiteering.  Everybody knows what this was about: Corruption and patronage on a grander scale than ever before.  That was the opportunity Mayor Daley and everybody saw and they sent Obama off to secure it.  And I’ll tell you another reason he decided to go, not just because Daley sent him but Obama needed to distract everybody’s attention from his massive failures at home and abroad.

Ignore for a moment the argument Rush Limbaugh presents. Instead, look at his use of “Obama” and “Biden.” Limbaugh does not say “President Obama” or “Mr. Obama” – he just uses plain-old “Obama.”

It’s a lot easier to criticize Obama rather than Mr. Obama.

More below.

This is the first part of an analysis of the swing state Pennsylvania. Part two can be found here.

In the dying days of his campaign John McCain mounted a quixotic attempt to win Pennsylvania. Despite his efforts, Obama cruised to a double-digit victory; from May to November 4th, only one poll showed McCain leading.

Two years previously, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum – a Republican politician who had ambitions of becoming president – ran for re-election. A hard-line, nationally known conservative, he was overwhelmingly defeated by challenger Robert Casey.

These two instances provide a sense of Pennsylvania’s political climate; the state, while not exactly liberal, naturally leans towards Democratic candidates. The average Republican must overcome a formidable Democratic machine to win Pennsylvania.

Continued below the fold.

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

A while ago, while perusing the election results, I happened upon South Dakota. South Dakota is one of those states which everybody writes off as inevitably Republican. Yet nobody has a really good explanation for why Democrats can’t win it; it’s kind of like Indiana that way. Few people know this, but Bill Clinton twice came within four percent in the state.

Barack Obama lost South Dakota by 8.41%, a substantial but not overwhelming margin (I bet he could win it).



There is an extremely strong correlation between Indian reservations and Obama’s share of the vote in South Dakota.

Check it out:



Continued below the fold.

Attacking gerrymandering these days is as popular as saying Wall Street needs reform. It’s a truism; everybody agrees with that “gerrymandering is bad,” just as everybody agrees that breathing is good.

Gerrymanders do get pretty ridiculous. Consider Maryland’s 3rd congressional district:



Maryland’s legislature designed this gerrymander to favor Democrats. And it worked: Maryland is represented by seven Democrats and one Republican.

You can probably go search a few terrible gerrymanders of your own; they’re not exactly difficult to find. For the purposes of this post, however, I will be concentrating on one particular gerrymander: Arizona’s 2nd congressional district.

Here is how it looks:

To understand why this is a good gerrymander, see below the fold.