On This Election Eve

"Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right?"     - Robert Orben

Ten months ago I made six predictions for the 2012 elections.  Romney won the Republican nomination as I predicted, albeit not quite as handily and a bit more annoyingly.  On the other hand, Romney didn't pick Florida Senator Marco Rubio as his running mate.  I guess I underestimated the Republican obsession with orthodox conservative white men.  The other four predictions will be put to their final test tomorrow, but one out of two isn't bad.

I'll revisit all six of the predictions after the election results are final, but on this Election Eve, here's my final election forecast.  

You can find a Google Spreadsheet with a detailed breakdown of the numbers here.

1.) Republicans maintain control of the House of Representatives.

Democrats will pick up between five and tens seats in the House.  It looks like the 2010 redistricting was a wash between the two parties, with Republican legislatures largely deciding to protect incumbents rather than spread themselves thinner and gamble on more seats.  There really wasn't any need to be greedy since Republicans hold their largest House majority in many decades.  The few instances of Republican redistricting that will knock out Democrats will be balanced by states where either Democratic legislatures or non-partisan commissions did the same to Republicans.

Similarly, polls have shown voters split down the middle on which party they would prefer control the House.  This is a substantial shift from 2010 when the electorate preferred a Republican House, but redistricting has limited the number of places Democrats could capitalize.  There just aren't enough competitive seats for Democrats to contest while defending their own.  In the absence of a wave election (like 2002, 2006, 2008, 2010), the partisan make up of the House is pretty much locked in by design.  The Republican tide of 2010 will recede a bit, but far from the 25 seats needed to shift control.  There have been so many wave elections in the past decade, all but one, we've forgotten about the structural resistance to partisan control shifting that has been built into the House.

2.) Democrats maintain control of the Senate.

Democrats entered the 2012 elections as underdogs in the Senate, defending 23 seats to the Republicans ten as a result of the 2006 elections. Most pundits declared it nearly impossible for Democrats to hold the Senate at the start of this cycle.  With substantial help from Republicans, it now looks certain Democrats will control the Senate in 2013, and perhaps with the same number of seats as they hold now.  Republicans were hurt by primaries where conservative candidates beat more electable moderates (Indiana and Missouri) and sudden retirements (Maine).  Democratic losses in Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota will be offset by pickups in Indiana, Maine, and Massachusetts.  There is the potential that surprise victories by great candidates in North Dakota and Montana will let Democrats actually add to their margin.

Not only will Democrats retain the Senate, their caucus is likely to be more liberal than it is now.  Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, Mazie Hirono in Hawaii, Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and even conservative Indiana Democrat Joe Donnelly are all more liberal than the Senators they are replacing  The Senate could be an unexpected bright spot for die-hard progressives.

3.) President Obama wins reelection.

The polls are simply not in Romney's favor.  Some pundits like to claim the race is a toss-up, citing numerous polls that have Obama and Romney within the margin of error.  Yes, the race is close, but it is also clearly tilting in Obama's favor.  Obama led in nine of thirteen national polls yesterday, Romney in none.  Obama led in 25 of 31 swing state polls, Romney in only six.  Either Obama will win or the polls are statistically biased against Romney.  The latter is possible, but not likely.  Obama is close to a 9-to1 favorite for reelection.  He's likely to carry all but Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina from his 2008 tally (303 Electoral Votes), winning approximately 50.5% of the popular vote.

Obama will be declared the winner some time around 11:30pm, with Ohio being called for the Obama.  Colorado and Virginia will not be called until at least the next day, those being the two closest states.  Pundits will be declaring how this "status quo" election is a message to politicians to "come together, leave partisan bickering behind, and solve the nation's problems."  Romney will graciously concede, Obama will give a swell address, no recounts of consequence.  A slim but solid victory - four more years.

Bonus: Marriage equality ballot questions win in Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

Six for '12

"Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right?"
     - Robert Orben

With the Iowa Republican Caucuses set to get underway tonight, the Political New Year is here.  In the great tradition of annual prognostications, here are six political predictions for 2012.  Whether I'm right or wrong, it's going to be an exciting year for politics.

1.) Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination.  

Santorum will win Iowa (or maybe Paul), but Romney will win New Hampshire.  From there on out, Romney will win most major contests that don't take place in the South.  He's the only one with the organization and the money who is not named Ron Paul.  Plus, Romney is the only Republican who doesn't regularly say things that make him unelectable and doesn't have fatal flaws.  The Republican Party is pretty crazy, but they won't nominate a nominee with zero prospects  against Obama.  Ron Paul will be a minor presence in the race, but he is simply unacceptable to the majority of GOP voters and elites.  The others will fade from view by mid-March.  The Anyone-but-Romney Coalition can't decide what it wants, nor is there any viable alternative.  Expect Romney to have it sown up by Super Tuesday.  He may not be a Tea Party darling, a social conservative crusader, or an Audit the Fed crazy.  But he'll have survived the nomination  generic Republican.

2.) Marriage equality wins in Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota.

Minnesota will likely be the first state to reject a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage discrimination in their state constitution.  It simply isn't 2004 anymore.  Even if support for marriage equality hasn't reached a critical mass, support for overt discrimination has collapsed.  Especially in a state like Minnesota.  Defensive win.

Maine had marriage equality.  Maine repealed marriage equality.  Same-sex marriage will likely be on the Maine ballot again this year.  After a narrow defeat in 2009, expect it to pass with a healthy margin in 2012.  Public opinion is shifting quickly, pro-equality campaigns are getting better at articulating a positive pro-family/pro-good neighbor message, and a boost from presidential turnout should help.  Offensive win.

Maryland came close to legislating marriage equality in 2011, but intra-party squabbling killed the bill.  After Mario Cuomo became a progressive rock star during his deft handling of marriage quality in New York, expect fellow 2016 Democratic presidential nominee prospect Governor Martin O'Malley to push hard in Maryland next year for the legislature to act.  Offensive win.

The Tea Party dominated legislature in New Hampshire will try to repeal marriage equality there, but will fail miserably.  It will be a public relations nightmare for them.  Defensive win.

3.) The Republicans maintain control of the House of Representatives.

But barely.  The Democrats will net approximately 18 seats, +/- 5, bringing them within inches.  It's hard to forecast so many individual races, but based on my sense of how the 2012 campaign will play out, the current Congress will be a popular target for everyone.  Redistricting will end up being close to a wash for both parties, the Republicans having so few states to improve their standing in, while a more balanced national mood will see the Republican tide of 2010 recede.

4.) Democrats maintain control of the Senate.

But barely.  I'll give specifics on this one, since I'm feeling foolhardy.  The Democrats will control 51 seats, and so will maintain control regardless of the outcome of the presidential election.  Democrats will lose North Dakota and Nebraska, and two of Missouri, Montata, and Virginia (in that order of likelihood).  Republicans will lose Massachusetts and Nevada.  No wave election this year.

5.) Mitt Romney chooses a Hispanic running mate.

An attempt to broaden the coalition will turn ugly as it will serve to only highlight the GOP's racist undercurrents and extreme policies.  Marco Rubio is the obvious choice.  Even though there are pitfalls to discussing immigration for both Obama and Romney, Romney has a much more unruly base.  (There's a small chance he goes with Nikki Haley...but a woman in her first term as Governor of a small state...not to cast aspersions on Governor Haley, but the last time it didn't turn out well.) What should have helped boost the Republican performance in a key demographic, will do just the opposite, and contribute to number six...

6.) Obama wins reelection.

Obama will win reelection with no fewer than 300 Electoral Votes and no fewer than 50% of the votes.  The economy will be functional and the recovery will be improving just enough to keep the campaign from being on the defensive the entire time.  Mitt Romney will have a hard time keeping enthusiasm among the Republican base alive, the key to Republican 2010 victories, while not alienating most voters.  Median Voter Theorem prevails in 2012.  Obama's successful strategy will be to highlight the choice voters have: pragmatic policies, even if they aren't the most popular -or the GOP platform on those same issues, which the general election voters clearly dislike by large majorities.  As much as the GOP would like it to be, this will not be an referendum on Obama.  The Obama campaign and its allies will have massive amounts of funding, more than the Republicans and their allies, and Obama will drive home the "choice" message with every campaign flyer, speech, talking point memo, and advertisement.

Key Demographic: Latinos + African Americans + Labor > Older Americans + Republican Base

Key States: Obama loses only Indiana and Florida from his 2008 roster (Obama 318, Romney 220).  Other Obama possible wins in order of likelihood: Arizona, Florida (up to Obama 358).  Other Romney possible wins: North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada (up to Romney 267).

Overall, a pretty disastrous campaign for Romney.  He won't be able to keep his head above water.  The big mistake people make in estimating Obama's chances is discounting his sleeping campaign machine.  No mores soaring rhetoric from Obama, no more hope or change, it's going to be "me or them."  And the country will go with The Adult in the Room.

Bonus Prediction: Hillary Clinton does NOT replace Joe Biden on the Democratic Ticket.  

If this happens, I resign my commission as a political prognosticator immediately.

The Peggy Olson Show

"But that's life. One minute you're on top of the world, the next some secretary's running you over with a lawnmower."
     - Joan Harris, "Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency"

My top favorite five episodes.
#5. "The Wheel" - The most powerful scene in the series.

Now that Mad Men has won the Emmy for Best Drama each of its four seasons, it's hard to dispute that the series has come to define a new genre of high quality story-driven television drama.  The acting is fantastic, the writing is solid, and while I'm not intimately familiar with the period, it's presented in an authentic manner.  Creator and producer Matthew Weiner has proven that even with the inherent limitations of television, a serious television show can thrive in the Real Housewives era.

#4. "Shut the Door.  Have a Seat." - An exciting episode that keeps you guessing.

The series focuses on how individuals try to assert their self-determination in an otherwise uncontrollable, unpredictable, and sometimes unfair society.  The 1960's are the perfect decade to explore Mad Men's central theme - a decade of unmatched social and cultural change -- change that often felt unbounded.  But unlike most of the history books, the characters are not activists, politicians, or really much of anyone who cares about the larger social implications of the decade.  Instead, the large cultural changes are broken down into the everyday fictional choices of the people in a New York advertising firm.

In between the all the smoking, drinking, and sex, the personal self-determination theme is explored in nearly each character, but no character is more compelling to me than Peggy Olson, played by Elisabeth Moss.  It's simple character analysis, the kind we all did in 8th grade English class.

#3. "Three Sundays" - Thematically strong, but also a great ensemble episode.

As a character, even Jon Hamm's dashing Don Draper is no match for ambitious Peggy.  Don is predictable, even when he's unpredictable.  Every "come on, don't kiss her!" moment (or even "come on, don't marry her!" moment) from Don is entertaining, but doesn't develop the character.  Don's attempts to deal with his childhood and identity crises make for compelling television, but it's a two-dimensional struggle.  A struggle within himself and with those in his life.

#2. "The Suitcase" - Peggy and Don's often unstated, but series-defining relationship dominates the episode.

Peggy's challenges are three-dimensional.  She wrestles with the classic choices confronting an early career-woman.  Conflict comes from within, from her family and co-workers, and from society. Her decision to pursue a career comes up against internal pressure when her romantic choices fall flat.  Peggy's family is simultaneously proud and jealous and concerned.  And with the cultural revolution still in its infancy, the world is constantly pushing back against nearly all her life decisions.  The advice she receives from Don and the magnificently acted Joan Harris, is never satisfying.  There is no map, no instruction manual for intelligent, confident women who don't want to play by the sexist rules.

Looking back at the early episodes, it's wonderful to see how much the character has changed and completely within a single credible persona.  Not only is Peggy a three-dimensional character, she's an evolving character.  Unsophisticated as a secretary, but then hardened by an unwanted pregnancy, then ambitious.  As confidence develops, so does her relationship with the extremely (outwardly) confident Don. Yet, a thread of naivety always runs through her. Some changes came gracefully, some not, but all thoroughly believable. Can you tell that I'm a fan?

#1. "The Beautiful Girls" - Brings the theme of the show, as it relates to the women of SCDP, into focus.

Most of the characters in Mad Men aren't always likable -- especially Betty Draper.  Admittedly, all the main characters have strategically limited personalities so the show can explore the contours of the limits of their self-determination.  Whether by design or by accident, despite her struggles and faults, Peggy is the only thoroughly likable character and the only one who I feel comfortable identifying with.  Peggy doesn't just want a career, she wants to be respected and treated equally.  Of course it's an idealized character, a character created from the feminism everyone is comfortable with.  But I'm glad to have at least one character I can always root for.

Welcome to my blog

"At the beginning of a pestilence and when it ends, there's a propensity for rhetoric. In the first case, habits have not yet been lost; in the second, they're returning. It is in the thick of a calamity that one gets hardened to the truth -- in other words, to silence."
     - Albert Camus, The Plague

The act of blogging - what compels people to share their thoughts and feelings with an audience that may not even exist?

Perhaps it's an outlet.  An active mind fills with thousands of ideas every day.  For many of those thoughts, a person will have nothing material to show for them.  So we write our thoughts to create a place where our thoughts can exist for more than a moment and to give ourselves the chance to organize and better develop them.

Perhaps it's for dialogue.  Every day we go through our routines, compelled to communicate with those we've chosen to have in our lives and those who happen into our world by chance.  Yet so much of that communication is irrelevant to the thoughts that compel our minds. So we write our thoughts to allow others to enter into a discussion, challenge us, and help us refine our thoughts, all while we influence those who encounter our ideas.

I'm sure there are other reasons people write blogs, but those are my motivations.  It's been nearly two years since I stopped regularly writing a personal blog.  I've missed the outlet and the dialogue that came with writing it, so I'm committing to starting again.  I'm fully retiring the blog I wrote during the first year of law school.  It's time to put a period on those thoughts and start something new - even if in name only.

I plan to write at least three times a week on varied topics.  Anything that interests me is fair game, but the focus will probably be political, legal, and sociological with a fair dose of entertainment and food - basically a summary of my life.

Finally, a few words about the title. It's difficult to write something substantive and well-thought-out in the length of a blog post.  Writing succinctly is not an excuse to write without logic, reason, or deduction.  It's an invitation to perfect and strip your ideas of the superfluous.  Each sentence must be more than mere rhetoric.  As Camus said, rhetoric is a function of habit.  And truth is a function of the silence that accompanies brevity.