That's the only conclusion you can make after last night's results. When you delve into the math, Hillary has very few (if any) legitimate arguments left. First let's give the sobering reality of cold facts.
Fact: Obama will have a huge pledged delegate lead once the primary season.
Fact: Obama has won at least twice as many states.
Fact: Even adding in Florida and Michigan along with the caucus totals, Obama will win the popular vote.
Fact: Obama has won among Independents in all but 4 states (AR, OK, MA, RI). While Hillary can point to her double digit wins among Independents in Massachusetts and Arkansas, Obama has won by double digits in battle grounds like Missouri (67-30), Iowa (41-17), Virginia (69-30), Wisconsin (64-33), New Mexico (65-29), Nevada (47-33) and New Hampshire (41-31). What's really striking is that Hillary's biggest win among Independents is in Arkansas (home state edge) by 24. Obama's managed to win by bigger margins in several battleground states (VA, WI, NM, IA, and MO). For all of Obama's perceived struggles in Pennsylvania and Ohio (we'll come back to that), people have forgotten he won among Independents in both states (50-48 in Ohio and 54-46). Moreover Obama won Independents 55-45 last night in Indiana. What's striking is that since the Reverend Wright scandal broke, he's actually done better among Independents in two demographically similar states to Ohio.
This leaves Hillary with one argument that we heard repeatedly last night from Clinton surrogates. She does better against McCain than Obama does in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. While true at the moment, it omits the obvious that I hinted at above. There was no exit polling in Florida. However Obama outperformed her among Independents in Ohio and Pennsylvania and he seems to be improving in the key demographics in those states. Moreover Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in all of the following possible battlegrounds: MI, CO, NV, NM, WI, MN, WA, OR, MO, IA, VA, and NJ. In other words out of 15 realistic (16 if you count Arkansas) battle grounds, Obama does better in 12. He wins among Independents in 14 of them. Who's the electable one, again?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Still Beating those War Drums
As if the election weren't providing enough reasons for Americans to collectively pull out their hair, we have that wonderful cauldron of instability, the Middle East. Particularly is the latest in the round of hatchet-wielding rhetoric to gin up support for what is likely some action against Iran. Some stories of note:
US Cites New Evidence of Iranian Support for Taliban
Iran tops state-sponsored terrorism
US Military Chief Slams Iran's 'Irresponsible Influence'
Gates says 2nd carrier in Gulf is 'reminder' to Iran
It seems irresponsible and dangerous for such rhetoric to emanate from the highest levels of American government. If I'm remembering Daniel Ellsberg's critical risk concept correctly, this increase in accusations and movement of ships into the region make war with Iran more likely. The possibility of an accidental launch or mis-step increases (due to misinterpretation on either side). The potential for an Iran first-strike increases because the value of waiting for an American first-strike decreases (the rhetoric increases Iranian fears which decrease their reasons to wait for something that is likely to happen). It puts Iran into a corner.
But, are we dealing with a rogue regime? I don't think so, and it's very easy to see why that is.
1. Russia has faith in the Iranian program and has stated that the country will work with Iran to resolve this issue. A re-emergent Russia, regional power that it is, is a formidable and credible ally to have to counterbalance the pressure from the US, Israel and other allies. This alone ought go go a long way to refute the (mis)perception that Iran is a "rogue" state.
2. Iran seeks to develop stronger ties with regional states. An example is India, which has recently concluded a recent meeting with the Iranian president. Iran is an important ally to India for a few reasons: it is the 2nd largest exporter of oil to India; it has influence in Afghanistan, whose stability is a security concern of India, and, Iran has an influence on India's Shi'ite Muslim India population. Iran is also involved in a pipeline with India (Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline; though the competing Turkmen-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline may have more support). Both of these pipelines will connect the countries (and the region) closer together and allies them with each other which has the potential to undercut American influence (a concern the US already has given the decision by India to meet with Iran and extend a relationship with Iran contrary to American requests and law).
3. Iran has recently transferred its reserve currency from dollars to a currency basket (yen and euros). This decreases the pressure of the American sanctions and economic power on Iran. Iran is also developing energy deals with individual European countries, such as Portugal, Italy and Austria. These deals can decrease the reliance of European countries upon Russia for its energy supply. Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserves and also the 2nd largest natural gas reserves (behind Russia). It presents a valuable alternative to the European countries as well as a valuable resource of energy for Central and Eastern Asia (e.g., India, China and Pakistan).
4. Iranian sponsorship of terrorism is rational, if condemnable. It serves to balance American power in the region; counterbalance Sunni influence in the region; and, permits it to assert influence in its traditional spheres (e.g., Afghanistan). The Taliban is still the enemy, for example, but it is less of an enemy than the US (which is saying a lot, because Iran does not like the Taliban). The same can be said for its support of proxies in Iraq or against Israel: it serves to destabilize the area and permits Iran to assert its role as a regional power.
Iran can be balanced, deterred and engaged diplomatically. It is within the US' regional interests to avoid war and to strike out on a new policy toward Iran.
There is a great fear that this rhetoric, which continues a history of misinterpretations, misunderstandings and miscalculations on both sides since the advent of the Islamic Republic, will lead to conflict.
That's all for now. More needs to be discussed and developed, however.
US Cites New Evidence of Iranian Support for Taliban
Iran tops state-sponsored terrorism
US Military Chief Slams Iran's 'Irresponsible Influence'
Gates says 2nd carrier in Gulf is 'reminder' to Iran
It seems irresponsible and dangerous for such rhetoric to emanate from the highest levels of American government. If I'm remembering Daniel Ellsberg's critical risk concept correctly, this increase in accusations and movement of ships into the region make war with Iran more likely. The possibility of an accidental launch or mis-step increases (due to misinterpretation on either side). The potential for an Iran first-strike increases because the value of waiting for an American first-strike decreases (the rhetoric increases Iranian fears which decrease their reasons to wait for something that is likely to happen). It puts Iran into a corner.
But, are we dealing with a rogue regime? I don't think so, and it's very easy to see why that is.
1. Russia has faith in the Iranian program and has stated that the country will work with Iran to resolve this issue. A re-emergent Russia, regional power that it is, is a formidable and credible ally to have to counterbalance the pressure from the US, Israel and other allies. This alone ought go go a long way to refute the (mis)perception that Iran is a "rogue" state.
2. Iran seeks to develop stronger ties with regional states. An example is India, which has recently concluded a recent meeting with the Iranian president. Iran is an important ally to India for a few reasons: it is the 2nd largest exporter of oil to India; it has influence in Afghanistan, whose stability is a security concern of India, and, Iran has an influence on India's Shi'ite Muslim India population. Iran is also involved in a pipeline with India (Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline; though the competing Turkmen-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline may have more support). Both of these pipelines will connect the countries (and the region) closer together and allies them with each other which has the potential to undercut American influence (a concern the US already has given the decision by India to meet with Iran and extend a relationship with Iran contrary to American requests and law).
3. Iran has recently transferred its reserve currency from dollars to a currency basket (yen and euros). This decreases the pressure of the American sanctions and economic power on Iran. Iran is also developing energy deals with individual European countries, such as Portugal, Italy and Austria. These deals can decrease the reliance of European countries upon Russia for its energy supply. Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserves and also the 2nd largest natural gas reserves (behind Russia). It presents a valuable alternative to the European countries as well as a valuable resource of energy for Central and Eastern Asia (e.g., India, China and Pakistan).
4. Iranian sponsorship of terrorism is rational, if condemnable. It serves to balance American power in the region; counterbalance Sunni influence in the region; and, permits it to assert influence in its traditional spheres (e.g., Afghanistan). The Taliban is still the enemy, for example, but it is less of an enemy than the US (which is saying a lot, because Iran does not like the Taliban). The same can be said for its support of proxies in Iraq or against Israel: it serves to destabilize the area and permits Iran to assert its role as a regional power.
Iran can be balanced, deterred and engaged diplomatically. It is within the US' regional interests to avoid war and to strike out on a new policy toward Iran.
There is a great fear that this rhetoric, which continues a history of misinterpretations, misunderstandings and miscalculations on both sides since the advent of the Islamic Republic, will lead to conflict.
That's all for now. More needs to be discussed and developed, however.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Why the 24 hour newsmedia sucks (yet again)
What if two of the three major candidates running for president came up with a proposal that was so bad that economists from both the left and right opposed it? Would the 24 hour news media cover the story? Well, we're finding out our answer and the result isn't promising. Hillary Clinton and John McCain crafted a gas tax holiday proposal. From Gregory Mankiw to the Brookings Institute to Paul Krugman and the National Bureau of Economic Research, to Thomas Friedman; this is being hailed as possibly the dumbest economic stimulus proposal ever created. And yet, the news media has barely even mentioned this story. Instead they're focused on Jeremiah Wright who has already been repudiated by Barack Obama. Now maybe it's just me but when the two "experienced" candidates sign on to a terrible piece of legislation while the inexperienced candidate voices opposition, I'd say it's a huge deal. While I may not agree with Obama's choice of pastor, it doesn't personally offend me as much as two candidates using blatant pandering to support a bad piece of legislation. For the news media to miss this story is at best negligence and at worst a bastardization of their duties as journalists. Anyone who didn't cover this story should be ashamed or embarrassed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
