The Last Debate

Some background: Tonight's moderator wrote the book behind the enjoyable 2000 film of the same name. Let's pray that reality doesn't imitate fiction tonight.

Romney's to-do list:

1. Leave The Room: Romney wins the more that the discussion focusses on the economy. So he has to keep linking the foreign policy parts to his economic messaging.
2. Detail: By providing detail he looks in control, up to the task, and more compentent than his rival, whose incumbency and character bequethe an incentive to hide detail behing rhetoric.
3. Deconstruct: The following planks must come out of Obama's foreign policy story:
   1. Putin is defanged: Romney must press Obama to explain what the concessions are that Putin wants, which require post-election flexibility. Also, why the president is doing an end run around his bosses (the voters.)
   2. Bin Laden is Dead: While congratulating Obama for the assasination, Romney will downplay its strategic effect. This morning's Washington Examiner editorial finally said the obvious, "one kill doth not a policy make."
   3. Democracy Corpse: Sequeing, the vacuity of the Cairo Speech should be contrasted with the dithering inconsistent reaction to the Arab Spring.
   4. The Iraqi Withdrawal: There's a generally available tactical opportunity to lampoon Obama's vaunted break with Bush. But Romney would do to call him on appropriating Bush's status-of-forces agreement, while failing to get one of his own. (Here the governer, following 2. above, will illustrate the cost of this failure.)
4. Be Firm: There's some requirement for poise, which his drama coaches would have walked him through.

General considerations of tedium prevent blow-by-blow preemption of the The Barry list. This debate is within my margin of error. Romney has every chance of fluffing it. Tune in, friends!

Oops, I'm late!

00h15: Syria
Syria ends in a draw. Romney looked informed and coherent. Obama stood his ground.

00h27: Egypt
"I felt the same as the President did." Sounds like a draw. The question vanishes as quickly as it arose.

00h30: America's role in the world.
Obama leaves the room. This converts a soft philosophical question into a target for Romney's talking-points.

00h41: Military Funding
Romney throws out some detal, but it misses the question.
Obama punches with a bayonet.

00h47: Israel, Iran and red lines
An Obama defensive win. Theater and content.

01h05: Afghanistan
On this, and other questions, Obama does a better job of looking personally connected.

00h10: Pakistan
Tee hee. The moderator says Obama bin Laden. Lol.
Romney allows Obama to lie his way to the end of the segment.

01h15: China
zzzzzzzzzz
(but with enough interruption, to prevent anyone from actually dozing off.)

closing time. Barry first.

I was wrong. Tonight was Bob Shiffer (pardon the spelling)and it's the guy from the first debate who wrote The Last Debate. Romney repudiates McCain by finding the right way around the table. And not sticking out his tongue.

Obama won. It'll help stablise the race for him, bit it stays drawn.

The Rematch

As is well known, Barry has to win this one in order to salvage the election. More than before, a draw is a Romney win.

To Do:
Pretty much the same as before. MR must ramp Bengazi. Look alive and connect personally. He must communicate detail. BO must be on the offense, and not offensive.

Predictions: 1. Candy Girl: The moderator will be more of a pushover than is popularly anticipated.
2. 41 Redux: Mitt won't be as wooden as imagined.
3. 42 Redux: Barry won't be as "connected" as anticipated.
4. Verdict: A narrow (whence overwhelming) Mitt win.

The seconds tick... Candy Crawls in...

00h00
(*swoon*) The room is pretty. BO looks tense. MR scores an early victory by looking taller at the handshake.

00h01
Q1: Youth and jobs.
Barry sets a himself a Detroit trap. Will Mitt use it? Yes he will! But then "what governor Romney says just isn't true!"

00h01
The heat is on. BO doubles down on Detroit and offshre tax breaks. MO swings back hard. Q1 winner: MR

00h01
Q2: Should the govt lower gas prices.
A stammering BO swings at MR "he doesn't have the clean energy part." Second self-trap set. It's gonna be easy for MR to win if this trend continues. All he has to do is refute and counterattack. That makes BO look mean and weak.

The birds again! (small this time.)

MR looks tired and BO looks more cheerful than last time.

00h20
Boom! BO hits MR on coal.

Q2 winner: Draw

00h26
Q3: Tax deductions - which are safe under MR's cuts?
MR reveals hitherto unseen detail on his/her tax cut plan.
In split-screen, BO strikes the perfect medium between his round1 performance and Biden's.

00h35
Boom! BO hits MR on tax. The adage that you can't attack in the town hall is under serious threat.

MR dodges artlessly. Q3 winner: BO

00h39
Q4: How to crack the glass ceiling.
MR is gonna say "90% of the layoffs affected women."
(he says it - effectively.)
(I still hate the CNN live-poll curves.)

BO wisely(?) segues to healthcare. MR is gonna link "Obamacare" to an increase in taxes.

Q4 winner: Draw

00h47
Q5: Is MR Bush?
BO improvises impressively.

Q5 winner: Draw

00h53
Q6: Why vote Bo again?
Q5 winner: MR (the easiest question so far. BO struggled to defend his record. MR's tired stump lines were redeployed effectively. Ironically, the tedium of hearing these lines again invokes the fatigue of the jobless recovery itself.)

01h00
Q6: What to do with cardless immigrants?
MR gives BO the Gingrich treatment. We now know (courteousy of an immigration question) that BO is invested in China and Cayman Islands trusts.
BO tried (again) to appeal to the moderator to save him, which'll be replayed on the replays.

Q6 winner: MR

01h10
Q7: Who denied Bengazi security?
Bo makes it worse! ("as soon as I heard that the consulate was under attack, I called for more security" so much for proactive leadership.)
BO tries to politicise the question by accusing MR of politicising the question.
(just by the way, he's completely dodged the actual question.)

MR is noticebly - apparently deliberately - soft on the issue. There may be a calculation that the media is running the accusations hard enough.

MR fluffs the attack somewhat. BO then fillibusters out of it. There's too much reliance on Bidenesque theatre.

Q7 winner: Draw (but lossy in the aftermath.)

01h20
Q8: What's been done to limit assault weapon proliferation?
Fast and furious raises its head.
This is a boring, inherently drawish question. BO magically converts it to education.

Q8 winner: Draw (see above.)

01h28
Q9: How do we insource?
I won't tire you with the detail. Q8 winner: (slight) MR win

01h35
Q8: What's been said about you that's wrong?
Barry disavows "you didn't build that" and Mitt embraces the full 100%.

Q9 winner: MR win. Barry's last-minute 47% shot looked like a sucker punch.

Verdict:

A transcript draw (perhaps) but BO looked dodgy and offensive. BO scored with the base, but would have lost the undecideds. They would tilt to MR. Importantly, BO didn't make his liar charge stick (or try to.) This is a Romney win.

Baby Talk

Wherein we (actually just I) live-blog the #2 debate.

Biden's objectives:

1. Redo#1. He's under pressure to show what would've happened had his boss been less polite last week. Specifically, he must make the "liar-Mitt" charge stick.
2. Go wonky. He can undo Ryan's geek image by discussing detail at his level. That's the easiest way for Biden to win the debate.
3. Mellow. He risks looking cantankerous next to Ryan. He did a good job of looking mellow next to Palin. Expect more.

Ryan's goals:

1. Parry More than with Romney last week, Ryan wins by drawing. A draw affirms the correctness of what his boss said last week.
2. Job Spring Focus on unemployment, Al Qaeda and healthcare.
3. Be natural Left to their own devices Ryan beats Biden.

What to expect:

1. Aggression: Biden's had his work cut out for him. He has to make Romney look like a liar. Ryan has to make Obama look like Jimmy Carter.
2. Specificity: Each will try to out-wonk the other. For those listening, this will be a battle of competence.
3. Violins: There'll be weepy stuff for sure.

Prediction: A Ryan win. This is only because Biden has such a large, defeasible task before him. Again, a draw is a win for Romney/Ryan.

A hush (and wives and coughing) fills the room.

They're off.

(An unexpected camera angle shows the anchor wearing a suicide-bomb-like belt)

00h00: Boom! The anchor kicks off with a Ryan gift, asking about Libya. Biden waffles off the script. Ryan rips into Obama.

00h09

Biden sees the wisdom in smirking through Ryan's answer.

00h10

Boom! Biden lays on the malarky. "Let me go back to Libya," quoth the anchor, after lengthy uhhming and ahhing from the veep.

00h20

If anything, Biden is refreshingly folksy. He's being goaded though. Ryan struggles with his words. Poor thing.

00h26

The 47% show up. Biden punches hard. Ryan hams up the violins. What happened to "managed bankruptcy?"

00h30

Ryan scores the first laugh. He's losing an easy thread though.

00h45

Biden hits hard on Medicare. There'll be no Democratic complaints about THIS moderator. The Biden filibuster rolls on and on...

00h58

The moderator is in over her head. She welcomes (again) the opportunity to move on.

01h06

Our moderator joins the debate. Back-and-forth with Biden on the nittygritty of civilian control of the army. Audaciously Ryan reinserts himself.

01h09

"It's a different country." In five words, Biden undoes the humanitarian basis of his boss's Libya strategy. Folksy has morphed (a while ago) into curmudgeony.

01h16

It's hard to say who won the foreign intervention piece. Biden looked firm (which translates into Hawkish) and kept his ground. Advantage veep.

01h19

Verdict: With help from the moderator, Biden won this one. It was a risky win, as it may not resonate with voters already disgruntled with the debate's tone.

epilogue

Biden authors a set of GOP ads "When I talk I say what I mean."

Meet MR BO

C-Span-willing, we kick off 2012 election fever coverage with the inaugural presidential debate. As usual, I disance myself from all spelling, grammatic and factual errors.

BO's objectives:

1. Make the whole thing go away. The less this debate is spoken of the better for the incumbent.
2. Look detached. Very few people will follow the soundtrack, BO has to look unrattled, and like he has better things to do.
3. Look happy. His reelection hinges on likeability, so he has to draw a contrast with MR's deep-set eye sockets.

MR's goals:

1. Look in control MR wins by drawing this thing. His #1 goal is to look like he's playing at the same level as BO.
2. Job Spring Focus on unemployment and Al Qaeda.
3. Defend the obvious Taxes cuts for the rich, Bain, the 47%, Paul Ryan. None of that must be made to stick.

What to expect:

1. Knockout blows: Likelier for BO than MR to land one. The latter is too unfunny.
2. Specificity: Each will try to out-wonk the other. For those listening, this will be a battle of competence.
3. Violins: There'll be weepy stuff for sure.

Prediction: A Romney win. Remember, a draw is a win for him.

They're off.

00h20: BO blasts MR on tax. The expected attack that there aren't enough deductions. MR sounds plaintiff. BO hits back running on Clinton's record.

00h27: SEG II - the deficit. (I'ts irksome to watch the Independents applause line trailing the bottom of the screen.) Also MR has retained his primary debate smile starch.

00h36: That mesmerising line shows a consistent gender gap. MR wins men, BO wins women. But it closes as BO presses the case against tax cuts for Exon and job-exporting companies.

00h40: "I've been in business for 25 years, I don't know what you're talking about." This line will be spoken of. For better or worse. What quoth BO?

00h41: SEG III - entitlements. (apparently BO's not challenging 'that line.') BO ramps up the violins (granny raised me, etc.) If those lines mean anything, the music falls flat. He sets a trap for himself by raising the imperative to lower costs.

*bandwidth flutter*
We miss about a minute as the Internet goes cold

0052: SEG IV - regulation.

The Internet freezes afresh

MR seems to have held his own on regulation.

00h58: SEG V - healthcare
(The curves suggest that women like the sound of BO's voice. Will they vote that way?)

BO appears to have made a trap for himself by trying to damn MR with feint praise. As BO seems to get lost in the weeds in defending the Death Panel, MR dances smirks and squirms like he's smelled blood. For a (long) moment MR's body language is in synch with the curves. This segment has a winner.

01h15: SEG VI - the role of government

MR seems to have scored with the early philosophical exchange.
BO umh and uhs through the riposte, parrying at Paul Ryan.

01h25: SEG Final - Washington gridlock

MR's soaring rhetoric appears to have prevailed. BO struggles to defend his leadership credentials.

Just when I'm waking up - Closing statements

BO lost the toss and goes first. This is hard for him, because the audience must have BO-rhetoric overload, after five years. The challenge for Romney is to stay positive.

Wisely, MR spurns my advice.

This looks like an MR win. It is in fact, not a draw (which would have been an MR win.) It also seems as if MR has more takeaways (for advertorial reuse.)

Looking back to the objectives (see above) MR gets a probable 2.5/3 and BO 0.

Eid (non-Hosni) Mubarak!

Ramadan 1432 - the month we felt the world shift axis. Let's relive the history:

Give us this day our DailyBeast

Recipe: Tomasky post-hoc potpouri
Ingredients: time, a large weasel.
Method:
1. Wait for a foreign-policy crisis to arise.
2. See what Obama says.
3. Wait.
4. Keep waiting.
5. See how things turn out.
6. If it turned out well (e.g. Libya), credit Obama's speeches.
7. If it turned out craply (e.g. Bahrain) write something about Tea Party terrorists.
8. Stew a little.

What makes this recipe a fail-safe success is that Obama's foreign policy is a textbook case of Implausible Deniability (ID(TM)). ID(TM) works according to a simple formula:
1. Wait for a crisis to arise.
2. Wait for it to disappear as quickly as it arose.
3. Keep waiting.
4. If the clock runs out, then say/do something ambiguous.
5. Get senior staff to make unambiguous, mutually inconsistent remarks.
6. Wait and see.
7. If the outcome was favourable, interpret your speech/action in 4. to paint you as a causal factor.
8 If the outcome was unfavourable, interpret your speech/action in 4. to paint you as sufficiently removed so as not to be blameworthy.
9. Pick one of the statements in 5. to support the interpretation in 7/8. Since they were mutually inconsistent by design.

President Kgalema Petrus Motlante

Since a lot of rubbish has been written about this week's municipal election, please allow me to break my silence on the matter (by the way, apologies for not telling the result in advance - I was uncharacteristically clueless.)

The election results can be viewed at the splendidly put-together website of the Independent Electoral Commission. The summary of the all-in Vote:

ANC 63.65%
DA 21.97%
IFP 3.94%
NFP 2.58#
COPE 2.33%
Independents 0.89%

Bottom line: This was a good election for the National Freedom Party, and a crap election for everyone else:

1. The National Freedom Party (NFP).
A party born three months ago to a woman (Zanele kaMagwaza-Msibie) whose name is totally unknown to South Africans, managed to tear in half the baby born to Gatsha Buthelezi in 1975, finishing fourth overall. This at a time when a KZN homeboy is national president. They'll continue to grow in the Eastern province, and will eclipse Inkatha unless Buthelezi is dispensed with.

2. The African National Congress (ANC).
Gone are the heady days of two-thirds majority. They're back to slightly better than 1994 levels. But 64% is a landslide in anyone's vocabulary, and they held onto the Nelson Mandela metropole in spite of everything. Enough for contentment, but nothing to cheer about. Just because you're big doesn't mean you should stop growing. The euphoric celebrations are largely theatre, but partly testament to the fact that at least some factions in the party have given up on ever attracting White and Coloured voters.

3. The Democratic Alliance (DA).
Supposedly the big winners on Wednesday, they've finally managed - after seventeen long years - of surpassing the 20% gained in 1994 by FW de Klerk, the custodian of Bantu Education (and my poor spelling), askaris and the Transvaal faction of the National party. Congratulations, I suppose. What's happened is that the DA has acheived it's dream of locking up the opposition, without denting the bedrock of ANC support. Do the math. The ANC is at slightly better than 1994 levels. The ANC is at its worst level of rudderlessness in democratic history. Its hapless leader is clearly at sea. It faces the greatest, most open resistance to its rule ever. That the DA failed to capitalise on these laboratory conditions is a shocker. The party can crash through the ceiling, but it will do so at the price of it's current identity and cohesion. And not soon.

4. The Congress of the People (Cope).
Mosioua Lekota has finally accomplished his ambition of driving his party into the ground. There was no need for potshots from the opposition - the terror inflicted by the president did it all.

5. The Inkatha Freedom Party (NFP).
For whom this election was like having on-stage tickets to a performance of that well-loved conjuring trick called sawing-the-lady-in-half. Paradoxically, this strengthens Buthelezi's hold on the party, as there's less to fight for, and in the NFP his party rivals have an alternative home with better growth prospects.

6. Helen Zille (Botox Belle).
She'll maintain her hold on the party amid rising tensions. As the belief persists that the party is growing, it will attract greater numbers of the knife-wielding careerist who stab their way to the top of party structures. There'll be pressure to promote black branch leaders to senior positions of real influence within the party, and in the same way that the ANC struggled to control its candidate-list process, the DA's cohesion will give way to resentment from stalwarts, and White voters who feel increasingly alienated from the leadership crop.

7. Mangosutu Buthelezi kaShenge (Gatsha).
Just because you're a party head doesn't mean that you've political influence. Since South Africans have grown to love his droning magniloquence, there'll be plenty of airtime for him yet. RIP.

8. Patricia de Lille (The Mother).
She's reached the height of her political career. Well done. She'll be an inspiring mayoral figure, and a fitting leader for Cape Town. Unfortunately, she lacks a base in her new party, which expects her to be an order-taker. This will create tension, which she'll lose. Don't be surprised when she resigns, although I can't imagine where she'll go to.

9. Gedleyihlekisa Jacob Zuma wamSholozi kaNkandla (JZ).
There is something in the breakdown of the ANC's results to provide ammo to his rivals (see my ANC remarks above.) Also, the conduct of this election, with party leaders forgetting to register candidates, and branch level uprisings against the candidate selection process, and manipulation of the lists, and the open boycott by traditional supporters augur ill for his reelection hopes next year.

10. Fikile Mbalula (Bra Fiks).
He took time off from the Sports Ministry to play senior campaign manager for the ANC, and he came through. His career goes up from here.

11. The Dagga Party (DP).
The audacity of Dope!

South African Press Association in a war against arithmetic

And I quote:

"By 11.30am, the ANC had 11.9 million votes (63.31 percent) followed by the DA with 4.03 million (22.9 percent)...

There was a total voter turnout of 6 967 181 people." - Sapa

Let us pray

I’ve always had a problem with the word Islamist. We don’t speak of Christianists, or Judaists. People who believe in Islam are called Muslims. But it's rude to make sweepingly hostile remarks about Muslims, so we invented the word Islamist (which really just means Muslim) as a veil for anti-Muslim insults. After all, when’s the last time you heard the word Islamist deployed in a favourable context?

Here are sentences you'll never hear:

1. The President paid a visit to leaders of the local Islamist community.
2. Moderate Islamists called for restraint.
3. In a special address, His Holiness the Pope called for improved relations between Christians and Islamists.
4. Controversy followed proposals to open an Islamist preschool near Ground Zero.
5. In a day of fierce clashes, innocent Islamist civilians were set upon by Zionist settlers.

Wikipedia quotes a 2003 article in Middle East Quarterly:

In summation, the term Islamism enjoyed its first run, lasting from Voltaire to the First World War, as a synonym for Islam. Enlightened scholars and writers generally preferred it to Mohammedanism. Eventually both terms yielded to Islam, the Arabic name of the faith, and a word free of either pejorative or comparative associations. There was no need for any other term, until the rise of an ideological and political interpretation of Islam challenged scholars and commentators to come up with an alternative, to distinguish Islam as modern ideology from Islam as a faith

Sweet as it is, that rationale just begs the question as to why ideologues like George Bush and P.W Botha should not be called Christianists. Check Jy!?

Black Hawk Drowns

In the post-Christmas euphoria of that nice lady and the judge getting shot in Arizona, POTUS polled in the low 50's, and the pundits were over-the-moon (or rueful, depending) on his apparent unassailability. On the heels of His lame duck victories a regular (hence well-informed) reader of this blog was prompted to ask

Tax deal (yuck, but a success I guess), repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Zadroga bill for 9/11 workers, and the NewStart treaty all within a few weeks of POTUS being written off as useless ... will it go on?

As usual, the Truecents wet blanket was close at hand. In our SOTU note we remarked that

Last year saw the Republican's winning the battle of ideas, and consolidating their cooption of the Hope/Change strategy. The current political momentum is theirs to lose. I'm calling Barry at 47% on RCP (and a similar level on the rolling Gallup) by the end of March.

Today is March 31. The RCP average has Obama's approval rating at 47.2%. I say this as a prelude:

1. The downward drift confirms the oft-cited anomaly that people like Obama - except in his capacity as administrator. He did well at the New Year precisely because he wasn't doing anything, having handed over his legaslative agenda (DODT, Tax-Cut extentions) to Republicans. The bounce you saw then (as I may have pointed out at the time) was a reward for him faking not being himself. As soon as he'd get to act (which we'd predicted would have happened by the end of the first quarter) the kudos would be withdrawn.
2. I'm gonna stop calling the approval rating until closer to the election (i.e. not before 2012).
3. The Libyan misadventure has not been the fillip one would have expected. Remember, this poll was taken days AFTER Monday's over-hyped and belated casus belli.
4. The political momentum (remarkably!) stays with the GOP. In a weird sort of way (which I'll expound upon later, if I've not already done so) this is good for progressives. I mean real ones.

SOTU

I missed it.

In both SA and the USA I tend to ignore the SOTN/U address, as I've learnt that there usually is a chasm between its rhetoric and the ensuing action. The test is what the shape of WH policy will be. Surprisingly, the following two reviews - form opposite sides of the US political spectrum, are similarly guarded in their enthusiasm:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26assess.html?_r=1
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258016/what-crisis-yuval-levin

My own take (on a speech that I haven't, and won't view/read) is that Krauthamer's early definition of the "Obama three-step" is being played out, except with faster-paced music. Krauthamer's version is that Obama:
1. Begins with a fiery denunciation of Bush (read Republicanism)
2. Trumpets minor deviations from the Bush/Republican script.
3. Quietly proceeds with acquiescence to the core rightist script.

So, e.g, last night's soaring defense of progressive spending policy comes only weeks after the expansion of the Bush tax cuts. The continued rhetoric about Health Care reform (included in last night's speech) masks the reality that there hasn't been any (ignoring, of course, the lobbyist-friendly expansion of health insurance). And so forth.

Obama appears to be riding high on Tucson, but this isn't as good as it looks because:
1. This is an Oklahomaesque tragedy, which has propelled his ratings only back to the 50% mark. A 4% jump. Clinton's post-McVie jump was 5% (I quote Gallup, unless) - off the same base as Obama's - which he gave up two months later.
2. Tucson happened during a politically quiet period, when there wasn't negative news (barring the old-hat low joblessness figures) to counterveil.
3. Tucson happened right after Obama gained kudos amongst independents, by extending the Bush tax cuts (no-child-left-behind and NewSTART were relative grace notes).
4. As the normal post-holiday political season gets underway, the goodwill drag will resume.

Last year saw the Republican's winning the battle of ideas, and consolidating their cooption of the Hope/Change strategy. The current political momentum is theirs to lose. I'm calling Barry at 47% on RCP (and a similar level on the rolling Gallup) by the end of March.

Tosser

Barring things that won't be barred, I'll be up live blogging the mid-terms. Since this is truly boring I've availed myself of the following shortcuts:

1. No luv, guv: I can't even spell g-u-b-e-r-n-a-t-o-r-i-a-l and am definitely not interested.
2. No House Call: Since the House of Representatives is falling by a clear margin, there's little interest in anticipating that. I know no better than to go with the RCP consensus of 224 seats.
3. Upper tossers toss-ups only: All seven of the RCP Senate toss-ups have Democratic incumbents. I'll call them as follows:

a. CA Boxer/Fiorini: D
b. CO Bennet/Buck: R
c. IL Gianoulias/Kirk: R
d. NV Angle/Reid: R
e. PA Sestak/Toomey: R
f. WA Murray/Rossi: R
g. WV Manchkin/Raese: D

Which, if you assume (as I do) that both parties win the seats that are at least leaning in their columns splits the caucuses 50/50. Connecticut and Nebraska will (initially at least) stay on board, making Joe Biden descend to keep the gavels blue. I have the toss-ups breaking as I do because I think that the GOP will have a turnout advantage today, which'll push their candidates outside their respective margins of error.

This is the perfect result for the Republicans, who are rewarded for being the better (more consistent, more disciplined, sharper communicators, more populist, better adapted) party over the last two years. They score the following:

1. The power to command show trials in Congress.
2. In the Senate Democrats, a partner to blame for obstruction (which will be handy in 2012 when little has happened.)
3. A cornhusker option - to be used when they get momentum in pushing their agenda through the lower house. They trigger the option by enticing a Democratic with offers of shared goodwill if s/he cooperates in the Senate. This will require eight months (at least) to realise.

Some races to watch:

1. Angle/Reid is the most sensational (and heartbreaking, on my count) race...
2. ... followed by Boxer/Fiorini (but without the tears.)
3. It'll still be interesting to see with what margin O'Donnell is roasted at the stake.
4. Rasmussen/Shrum. After the latter's shrill recent remarks, I'd be keen to see whether Democracy Corpse is more or less (I'm betting less) accurate in calling the result than Rasmussen.

For those who care, this is my first misadventure as an RSS user. Time is EDT.

[16h42]
I see that Karl Rove differs with me by one seat (Washington, which he has in the blue column.) To my credit I never liked (or knew) him. A day-old post by Dick Morris paints it red.

By the way, Sage is a handy RSS aggregator, loaded as a Mozilla plugin (for Netscape and Firefox.)

[18h34]
ABC publishes a stunning exit poll showing high levels of voter dissatisfaction. 73% dissatisfied with the way that the federal government is working; two in three believe the stimulus hasn't helped; 62% believe the country is headed in the wrong track, etc. So now we no that the angry people have come to play. The next thing to find is turnout data, when we can see if they're large numbers of angryfolk. That's what my 50/50 hinges on.

[22h18]
I wake from a peaceful sleep. It's hard to read results when you're yawning. None of the tossups have declared, but with partial results it looks as if I'm coming unstuck in Illionois.

[22h19]
Seven minutes ago, Dick Morris left a podcast. "PA and Il continue to trend in our direction, though we trail in each." Then he talks about the the shrinking Republican minority in each, and concludes "who knows what's gonna happen there, but we're looking alright." MSNBC exit polling describes an older more conservative electorate.

NBC is calling the House 237 to 198.

[22h22]
Morris is on the verge of conceding Pennsylvania. This is weird as RCP has it 50/50 with 80% of the votes in. That sounds like a Republican advantage, as they dominate the late-reporting countryside.

[22h56]
The world awaits Jon Boehner's victory speech. Morris has retracted his concession, and now agrees with me about the outcome in PA and IL. All the polls have closed now. The inauguration of Jerry Brown (at last, and again) looms.

[23h06]
Russ Feingold passes away quietly.

[23:29]
This is officially bigger than '94.

[23h45]
Heartache. Boehner the crybaby cracks up during his victory speech. At one point in the jerk-and-sniff his wife responds with laughter. Barbara Boxer wins in California. This means that the Democrats have won both the Senate toss-ups I said they would. All they need do now is to lose the remainder.

[23h46]
In Pennsylvania Toomey comes through the hoop.

[0h05 - the next day]
Pumpkin time, and the Senate Democrats get to 50. In a devastating blow to Republicans, Dick Morris goes to bed.

[0h20]
As predicted Senator Obama's vacated seat goes to a Republican.

[0h37]
Harry Reid defies fate (and me) retaining his position at the Senate's helm. The fat laddie has sung. In a few hours we return for final tally.

Next week

My opinions have been outsourced (but not to China). This from STRATFOR

By George Friedman | October 26, 2010

We are a week away from the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. The outcome is already locked in. Whether the Republicans take the House or the Senate is almost immaterial. It is almost certain that the dynamics of American domestic politics will change. The Democrats will lose their ability to impose cloture in the Senate and thereby shut off debate. Whether they lose the House or not, the Democrats will lose the ability to pass legislation at the will of the House Democratic leadership. The large majority held by the Democrats will be gone, and party discipline will not be strong enough (it never is) to prevent some defections.

Should the Republicans win an overwhelming victory in both houses next week, they will still not have the votes to override presidential vetoes. Therefore they will not be able to legislate unilaterally, and if any legislation is to be passed it will have to be the result of negotiations between the president and the Republican Congressional leadership. Thus, whether the Democrats do better than expected or the Republicans win a massive victory, the practical result will be the same.

I'm freeboot, and I support this message.

We sue history

Following the successful repeal of Proposition 8, the confirmation of the fourth woman on the SCOTUS, and other stuff I can't recall, we (i.e. me) here at truecents are considering cashing in on the bouyance of the US courts by suing history. You heard right. We're taking Time (not the magazine, but the fourth dimension itself) to court for violating our sacred truecents IP by unfolding as predicted. In our Inauguration Special we warned that:

Unraveling: Obama's juggernaut-of-rivals will give way to a more focussed, coherent, administration. The peripheral elements (like Paul Volker) will give way to the core, so that within two years the administration will look a lot more trim. If this is well managed (gently picking off the elements one-by-one), it will herald an unremarkable transition from a campaign of transformative insurgence to a conservative administration. If it's poorly managed it could spark divisive revenge from the outgunned rivals. Either way, the implementors of Clinton's triangulation will reintroduce centreism as the animating theme of the adminstration. This time, the chastening effect of the economic fallout will double the conservatising impulse.

Greg Craig was damply squiby, but with Christina Romer's resignation the portents are clearer. This bit of deepthroatery from Hotline

"She doesn't feel that she has a direct line to the president. She would be giving different advice than Larry Summers [director of the National Economic Council], who does have a direct line to the president."

And you thought Bill was dead...

Florida comes to Whitehall

Dear readers, you've been let down. Apologies to the thousands of surfers fruitlessly coming here for first sight of Gordon Brown's demise. I'd recommend the Guardian liveblog instead.

This morning the Ghosts of Gerhard Schroeder and Al Gore jet into the UK to buddy-up to the (outgoing?) prime minister.

Brown's strategy now is to convince the Liberal Democrats that their best shot ever is to work together on a tight package of reforms (electoral, immigration and Trident) over a two year period. As time marches on Brown's fortunes improve.

In contrast, a delay - even a two-year one - may cost Cameron his party leadership. This was his election to lose, and he may well have done this. So his strategy now is to appeal to public sentiment, by getting the papers to describe him as the victor, and ingrain the narrative that Brown's exit is inevitable.

The optimal Lib Dem strategy is to cave in to Labour. It's a game-changing trajectory for their party, without the costs of incumbency. Also, they won't be rewarded for the "noble" recognition of the Conservative victory.

Although it could go either way:

1. Conservative/Unionist coalition. [40%]
2. Labour/LibDem coalition. [30%]
3. Conservative minority government. [30%]

Crossover

Today marks a special day, as Obama's presidential approval shows a negative spread for the first time since the Gallup organisation started taking his pulse. The pale green thumbs down line has broken through the dark green thumbs up curve, evincing the first negative week since polling began. The result reflects a rolling average of three-day polls.

In my inauguration special I wrote

Obama's initial rating is unprecedented. This means that he'll lose points during the first year. A twenty point drop will bring him into the mid 60's, which is an attractive rating anywhere in the world. When he breaches 50-something, he has cause for concern, as no full-term president other than Regan and Johnson has managed a V-shaped rating curve. And Johnon had victory in the World War II to help him.

Foolishly, I read his 68% rating as an 86% (I won't divulge what I was smashed on at the time.) I then went on to extrapolate a twenty percent decline taking him back into the sixties. Eish! Nevertheless, the substance of what I stood stands.

I omitted to say that the shape-shifting precedents I quoted came from Gallup. You would have guessed it though, given their monopoly on polling history. I also omitted to mention what Reagan did to make a V. You (seriously) don't want to contemplate that.

As of today, according to Gallup, 45% of Americans think that Obama is doing a commendable job, while 48% believe that he isn't. The difference falls close to the poll's (3%) margin of error, so should not be interpreted with too much foreboding. It's consistent with other polls.

That this ante-blip comes hot on the heels of Healthcare reform, Start III and the unveiling of the nuclear posture is no surprise. Expect him to remain range-bound between 46% and 52% until November. This'll have the predictable effect on his involvement in marginal races.

China, old and new

Ok, so here's a response to the recent request for me to update my predictions.

In my 2009 prediction I warned of an implosion of the Chinese bubble. I know it's next year already, but hey...

Back then I warned that "Initially, there'll be firesale attempts at prolonging the implosion." What I didn't think about was the timing of the long-awaited Renminbi de-float.

So much for old predictions, roll in the new:

1. We now know that in March China ran a trade deficit for the first time in six years. If (and only if) there are three more months of this, then China will weaken the Renminbi. The weakening may happen before the deficit reportage, as the Chinese may act on the basis of forecasts.
2. If this happens, it will be credited to the diplomatic savvy of Geithner and Obama, rather than Chinese competitiveness.

RIP(ped) ET

An email extract follows... best read from the bottom-up

Greetings

Yes, I've been running around so frantically, that I've neglected our little secret partnership. And then ET gets it in the neck, and then I'm like shiiiiiiiiiit... if only Name2 Withheld and I had done our doing, then surely the land would be all rainbow hugs instead of nazi rebirth, and then Name1 Withheld shared some thoughts with me.

When our theory was confirmed in the Saturday press, I had to drop the newspaper, and could only read it after a five-minute cool-off period. Then I was filled with regret that we didn't publish it (turning ourselves into instant rock stars), even though Name1 Withheld had off-handedly remarked about "Calling Deborah Patta." But given that, in spite off all the supervening nazism, the background story was still about some guy who gets discovered in the comfort of his own home with his face slashed, I think our near-silence was the write decision.

The reaction to this whole thing has been very revealing, and more grizzly than the murder itself. The way I see it (and partly argued last week) there are five candidate reasons why ET got it in the neck (or slightly north):

1. He was murdered on the orders of Julius Malema.
2. He was murdered as a consequence of his own brutal history.
3. He was murdered when an innocent burglary violently cascaded in typical Mzantsi fashion.
4. He was murdered in the heat of a mismanaged labour dispute.
5. He was murdered in the heat of a mismanaged sexual tryst.

In my view, I've arranged these options in increasing order of likelihood. But White South Africans latch onto the least likely explanation, largely because it melds into stereotypes of Black agency, and also because of intellectual sloth (the Malema theory is easy.)
If Juju himself were found face-down in a bowl of broth in his Sandton residence, and a pair of Afrikaans gentleman surrendered on account of it, my guess is that nobody would link it to the mobilisation of Steve Hofmeyer - even though he's been rather more pointed that JM.

tee hee
me

---

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:05:05 +0200
Subject: ET se bumhole
From: Address Withheld
To: Address Withheld

Hi Neil

I've been grooving for the last few days on the utter genius of Name1 Withheld's theory of Eugene the Paedophile, and now I discover that you are the co-creator of said theory, so I just wished to say..... high five!

Your colleague from the Group that So Secret that it Never Meets,
Name Withheld

The longest comment of my life

This is a reply to Lucretius's first response to my Birthday Wish. It was too long to make it into the 'comments' section.

Thanks for the comment Lu.

As for your a), I can't think of a single prediction that I've got to "update" (whatever that could mean.) In the interests of honesty, I leave my posts unedited, even at the risk of later face-egg. If you wanna know what I believed at the time, it's still there verbatim.

As for your b), regular Trucenteers will know that new remarks do arise in the foolness of time. Patience please.

I challenge you to pinpoint the shortcomings of my predictions. You haven't explicitly done this, so let's trawl through your hints:

1: "You... portrayed [Obama] as a useless sap".
Untrue. As far back as Jan 2009 I wrote "Obama won't be considered one of the worst." I presaged the triangulation we're now witnessing by writing that he'd pick his battles selectively, largely ditching his liberal base. You can read that on the blog post.

2: "Obama is now empowered by the biggest domestic policy coup of the past several decades". It's the biggest social security overhaul over that period, but I'm not sure that it's the biggest domestic policy coup. Bush's tax cuts and the domestic implications of his Iraq war probably are bigger (coup's don't always have happy consequences.) Nevertheless, in my inauguration special I wrote that "When Obama leaves office a remarkable number of Americans will have remarkably enhanced access to medical care. This will be the single biggest acheivement of his presidency." Following the Scott Brown coup I wrote that passage of the Senate Bill was the second likeliest path to healthcare reform. That happened. I gave failure only 5%. Failure didn't happen. I've nothing to revise. It's remarkable to see supposed progressives cheer at the federalisation of Mitt Romney's healthcare policy, but that's a good thing as it presages a move away from the contention that Republicans are inherently incapable of "progressive" reform.

3: "Obama is tough with Israel". Show me the tractor tracks. All the Israeli violations of international law that were in place in Jan 2009 still are. Settlement building (and the concomitant theft of land) continue apace. Obama's toughness (disregarding the finger wagging rhetoric) is measured by the fact that Israel still receives more US aid than the combined aid receipts to the rest of the world. Much of which finances the very settlement building that Obama supposedly is "getting tough" about. Meantime he continues to regard the despot Abbas (whose term of office expired years ago, and must therefor rank as a dictator.) The reason for that is that he's echoing Bush's view that a friendly and unaccountable despot is preferable to a democratically elected Hamas. Again, this is consistent with everything I've written before.


4: "Climate legislation in the mix". Dunno what you mean by that, but the legislation has been bogged down for a year now. I'd like to see it before I cheer it. Meanwhile, the arctic reserve is half-open for drilling. During the campaign this was a no-go area, but as has been pointed out before (not by me) it's okay for Barry to lie before elections.

5: "Nuclear weapons coup with Russia". Presumably the coup you refer to relates to the fact that he's renewed the expired SALT treaty four months after the expiry date. That's not some sort of revolutionary accomplishment. It's his job. As for the broader context, see my recent remarks about the posture.

6: "Financial legislation reform moving". You don't seem to care in what direction it's moving. Healthcare "reform" was really good for insurance companies. There's every indication that financial reform is gonna be great for Obama's Wall Street backers.

7: "Obama's an increasingly wily triangulator". Again, I predicted this not only after Scott Brown, but way back on inauguration day. It's funny how triangulation has now become a mark of progressive virtue.

It's also clear that there is (and always has been) a worrying conjunction between disregard for substance and outright double-standard. For the Obamaphiles, whatever the great man accomplishes is progress. If conservatives do the same things earlier (Romney on healthcare, Reagan on SALT, Bush/McCain on arctic drilling, Wall Street on Wall Street) it's regress.

A tale of two postures

One (and only one) of these gets a Nobel prize:

1: "We will develop nuclear capacity, but we'll use it only for energy generation. We'll develop neither offensive nor defensive military nuclear capacity, and (consequently) we won't engage either offensively or defensively with nuclear weapons, ever. And you have nothing but our word for that."

2: "We maintain and develop nuclear capacity, which we'll use partly for energy generation. We'll maintain both offensive and defensive military nuclear capacity, which we'll engage only defensively, and only in certain instances. And you have nothing but our word for that."

What would Alfred do?