-
Where's the Quirk? The seemingly infallible Nate Silver counts cloture votes on 'card check,' with a particular focus on Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
Arkansas is not the only state with a Democratic senator and low union membership. Pretty much the entirety of the South is in the same boat, with the important exception of Louisiana. But, while there aren't many union members in Virginia, North Carolina or Florida -- nor in some states like New Mexico outside of the South -- Barack Obama is quite popular in all of those areas, which he is not in Arkansas. Arkansas and really Arkansas alone presents the unique combination of Obama being unpopular and the union movement being virtually nonexistent, and among the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, Lincoln is up for re-election in 2010, whereas Mark Pryor is not. It's not a coincidence that she's hemming and hawing on EFCA. [E.A.]
Except that Pryor is hemming and hawing too. ... P.S.: Does this mean we can abandon the grail-like quest to find an instance where Silver was wrong? Not quite. But it does suggest the flaw in his mode of thinking--which seems to be to assume that pols respond in predictable ways to predictable factors (just as voters vote in predictable ways according to demographic factors). Isn't there room for persuasion and quirkiness? ... True, when I made this criticism before, during the Dem primaries, Silver turned out to be right (everyone did behave predictably). But the night is young! Someone will behave unpredictably at some point. ... P.P.S.: In this case, the quirky factor Silver would be overlooking is the inherent non-appeal of the specific "card check" idea--i.e. it's hard for pols to publicly defend eliminating the secret ballot, even if Obama swept their states. ... 10:32 A.M.
_____________________________
The Devil is In the Details, But Do the Details Matter? Steven Pearlstein's confident analysis of the auto bailout makes me think its critics, myself included--may have overly depressed ourselves by focusing on the actual details of the agreement--like the "non-binding" nature of the concessions required of the U.A.W.. Here's the more sanguine syllogism:
1) There's no way GM** and maybe even Ford can survive in the long run without either a) more bailouts or b) major sacrifices from workers, dealers, creditors, shareholders. That includes concessions on wages and work rules from the U.A.W. that would make GM factories competitive with foreign transplants in the U.S. (though not, I assume, with U.S. car factories in Mexico and elsewhere). The $9.4 billion the taxpayers have just loaned GM will be gone soon enough--within months. Then what will the company do?
2) There's no political appetite for bailing carmakers out again in March--i.e. for lending much more money to the automakers beyond the $17.4 billion already designated for both GM and Chrysler. The current bailout is unpopular enough. Critics say it won't work, that the car companies will just come back for more government money in a few months. When the companies prove the critics right, do you think Obama and the Dems, even with big majorities, are going to bail them out again? Maybe make a multi-billion dollar Federal subsidy permanent--a sort of underground conveyor belt from the Treasury to Detroit? I don't think so. GM and the UAW may be shocked that the public has not rallied to their side, but that seems to be the case. Obama has certainly given no signals that he's willing to permanently subsidize uncompetitive car companies (as opposed to not letting them go bankrupt at a time when that would have semi-cataclysmic ripple effects).
3) Therefore the workers, dealers, creditors and shareholders will have to make major sacrifices. It doesn't matter whether those sacrifices are spelled out in the legislation. It doesn't matter if they are vague-but-binding agreements or mere "targets." It doesn't matter if Barney Frank and Congressional Democrats keep the targets in or take them out at the urging of the UAW. The Congress and the President don't have to demand the taxpayer's $17 billion back (the sanction Bush boasts of). They can let GM and Chrysler keep the $17 billion. But as long as they don't offer up more billions, the manufacturers (and the UAW) will have to make the necessary changes, whether or not they technically go bankrupt.
Everything else is kabuki.
I can't think of anything major wrong with this logic. It's possible that the companies and the union are somehow hoping that if the economy quickly revives and SUVs start selling they can rebound without much pain and maybe make it to 2011 when the two-tier wage structure they've negotiated will begin to kick in. If that happens, it happens. But if it doesn't, I still don't see the Democrats coming across with a second huge tranche of cash. Maybe I am missing something.
**--I'm focusing on GM because I doubt there's any way Chrysler can survive as an independent company, period. ...
Update: Jim Geraghty dissents on the crucial point #2--
The Obama Administration will - most likely — look at whatever restructuring effort the Big Three have made and wag their finger at slow progress, but declare that due to the economic circumstances, allowing the automakers to collapse is "not an option," and then open the checkbook again. Lather, rinse, repeat. The successful reform of the auto industry will always remain six months over the horizon.
Well, one of us is wrong. ... P.S.: Sounds like Iraq, circa 2006. The Friedman Unit returns. ... 1:50 A.M.
___________________________
You know it's a slow news day when MSN is headlining the feature "Can you name the noodle?" 12:33 A.M.
___________________________
-
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
You have to wonder, can the good Bill Gates is doing with his Foundation ever match the suffering caused by Vista? ...
P.S.:
October, 2001 --Windows XP launches. One month later, economic expansion begins..
January, 2007--Windows Vista launches. Ten months later, economy plunges into recession.
Coincidence? I'm not so sure! ...10:25 P.M.
___________________________
UAW Offers Concessions in Bailout Effort: The key paragraph--
At the meeting, the union did not discuss wage and benefit concessions for active employees, said Jeff Everett, a local Chrysler president.
One problem with the Wagner Act is that surviving in a modern economy requires fast decision-making, but negotiations with unions take time (and energy). Like pulling teeth takes time (and energy). You sometimes wonder whether boosters of Wagner Act unionism are familiar with the concept of "too little too late." ... Update: AP reports that UAW leaders did vote to "let the Detroit leadership begin renegotiating elements of landmark contracts signed with the automakers last year, a move that could lead to wage concessions." UAW President Ron Gettelfinger "stopped short of saying the union would reopen contract talks with General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co. but said it would be willing to return to the bargaining table to change some terms." But "any modifications would still have to be ratified by local union members." [E.A.] ... Gettelfinger blamed a "perception problem" for (in AP's words) "a negative view of the union." The union is buying TV ads to counteract it. ... 3:44 P.M.
___________________________
A Knack for Diplomacy: What attitude do the Hillary people bring to the State Department? I didn't think her spokesman Phillipe Reines could top his obnoxious and nonsensical response to the Gerth and Van Natta report that Hillary had secretly eavesdropped on her enemies ( “We don’t comment on books that are utter and complete failures”). But he's come close with his spin on the legal argument--a seeming winner*** if you actually believe the Constitution's language--that Hillary is barred from becoming Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset,” [E.A.]
Well all right then! No clinging to guns and God in this administration! ... I'm sure they spent a lot of time on the Emoluments Clause at Harvard and Yale.
Why do Hillary's people think this smug, sneering approach** is productive? Because of its success in winning them the nomination? Think how well it will work in the India-Pakistan crisis! ...
**--The technical term is "Lehanism," coined after its most conspicuous practitioner used it to put Al Gore and Wesley Clark in the White House. ....
Update: Eugene Volokh cites two law professors who agree that the Emoluments Clause means trouble for Hillary. Volokh himself thinks the wording is "ambiguous," but he didn't go to Harvard or Yale so ignore him. ... [via Plank]
***--Text originally said "slam dunk" rather than "seeming winner." Prof. Volokh convinced me that it isn't a slam dunk. You shouldn't call anything a "slam dunk" anymore anyway. ...12:23 A.M.
___________________________
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
From the NYT account of the GOP runoff win in Georgia:
Many voters interviewed Tuesday said the balance of power in the Senate had been an important factor in their choice of a candidate.
"If you can’t have a little back-and-forth arguing between the parties, then the party in power will make mistakes,” said Ron Zukowski, a computer expert in Atlanta who voted for Mr. Chambliss. “This was my chance to say no, and I said no.”
Hmm. Didn't Mike Kinsley say that "almost no one" thinks like that? I think he did! (He was arguing voters don't choose dividied government, not that they don't choose undivided-but-still-filibusterable government. But it's the same mindset.) ...
P.S.: What's at stake: It's important that Democrats fail to achieve a filibuster-proof Senate. Chambliss' victory assures this. But what's most important is that Nate Silver turn out to be wrong about something, anything, however small. Otherwise he will have to be worshipped as a god. Was he wrong about Georgia? Here's the best I could find in a quick search:
"We think when it's all said and done Martin will lose by around 10 points."--Silver's blog partner Sean Quinn, as the returns came in. The actual margin is looking more like 14 points.
"The question is, will more Chambliss voters drop off or will more Martin voters drop off? That's the unknown. In wave years I'd tend to bet with the wave party, but I'm nowhere near ready to conclude Martin will win."--Quinn again.
[I]f the polls going into December 2nd say that Saxby Chambliss is going to win the runoff by 7 points, you shouldn't be a but surprised if Jim Martin actually wins instead. And you also shouldn't be surprised if Chambliss wins by 20."--Silver on Nov. 13. Final polls had Chamblis ahead by 4-7 points.
Not wrong enough! Eyes turn to Minnesota, where Silver has a hostage to fortune in the form of his confident prediction (in a TV talk with Arianna Huffington) regarding Al Franken:
[H]e`ll pick up votes in this recount.
Also his Nov. 23 projection "Franken to Win Recount by 27 Votes," Unfortunately, it is still possible Franken will win the recount by 27 votes. ...11:46 P.M.
___________________________
-
Monday, November 24, 2008
Mark Krikorian is not impressed with likely Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano's border-control credentials but concedes
[S]he's about as close as any Democrat governor can get to appearing hawkish on illegal immigration.
He speculates:
"It could mean that the Obama administration picked an immigration person for this job because they want to burnish their pro-enforcement credentials to make a more plausible case for amnesty down the road ...."
That would be shrewd. But I wonder--suppose it all miraculously works according to plan. That is, suppose Napolitano succeeds, against all expectations, in controlling the border. The ACLU sues to cripple enforcement in the workplace. It loses! Illegal immigration in effect ceases. The public feels soon confident enough to allow Congressional Democrats to legalize those illegals already in the country. No more living in the shadows. Celebrations in the streets! But because the border is controlled, no new illegal immigrants get in. Guest workers, including agricultural workers, do get in--perhaps with a "path to citizenship." But only in the numbers authorized. The question is: Would the Congressional Dems and their allies be happy?
I'm not sure. ... They'd get 12 million new, mainly Latino voters. Likely Democrats. But that would be it. I suspect there are a lot of Dem pols who would not-so-secretly be rooting for things to not go according to plan--for an amnesty to be accompanied by a breakdown in border control, as it was the last time it was tried, meaning there would be millions more illegal immigrants, mainly Latino, to legalize and empower in future years.. ...
I suppose the answer would depend on whether the new rules allowed existing immigrants to keep bringing in members of their extended families, thereby rapidly expanding the newly-arrived, legal electorate. ...
I'm not saying this scenario is likely to happen--it's a thought experment. The very forces that might be happy to see the border-control part break down (low-wage employers, pols hoping to surf the Latino surge, anti-nationalist libertarians) would try to make it break down. Which is why it probably would. ... 12:17 P.M.
___________________________
A job for Anna: New York is still in a state of intense speculation on the central policy question regarding Obama's transition: What does it mean for Vogue? Editor Anna Wintour's "rep" has denied gossip reports that she'll be joining the administration, but that hasn't stopped them. ... She raised some money for the campaign. What might she want? Ambassador to France would be a good fit, no? "The French would deal with her a lot better than the Iceberg Lettuce King of Salinas that W. sent over," says cosmopolitan kf reader Madame S. ... 10:50 A.M.
___________________________
Sunday, November 23, 2008
"Franken to Win Recount by 27 Votes": Give Nate Silver points for not playing it safe. ... Update: A new Silver calculation:
The various versions of the model project a Franken win by between 48 and 136 votes once all ballots are re-counted and all challenges are resolved.[E.A.]
There are some disclaimers about high "margins of error." Nobody will notice them if Silver's right. ...11:22 P.M.
____________________________
Richardson Vets! [You said this wouldn't happen-ed. Vets for Commerce. That's like being "Hot for D.C."] 1:45 P.M.
___________________________