Coal policy could swing the election

Forgive me for venturing out from strict horserace poll analysis, but given the the administration’s recent moves on coal power, I couldn’t help but wonder how that might affect the President in swing states, should prices rise in coal-burning states.

A check I made this morning suggests that the answer is yes, if coal is an issue in this election, it could swing close states.

Here’s a simple chart of the closeness of a state’s 2008 Presidential election result vs the state’s coal use as a percentage. Source for coal use: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, but they also cite their sources too if you’d like to dig in. Election margin source: the final column of the Wikipedia chart.

I asked OpenOffice to throw in the trend line. Additionally, the Pearson coefficient is -0.37. That means that the correlation is not small, and not strong, but medium, according to common Pearson interpretations.

Considering I’m not in any way predicting that coal use caused the 2008 gap, that’s an interesting finding. By chance, the closer a state was in 2008, the more coal it uses, on average. Of the states at 5% or less of a 2008 gap, only Florida doesn’t get a majority of its electricity from coal.

Again, I must stress the modesty of this find. I’m not predicting that the administration’s policies necessarily will cause shifts in coal energy prices soon enough or large enough to swing votes in coal-burning states. Nor am I predicting that the issue would necessarily be decisive of people’s votes.

I’m merely checking that if both of those things do happen, whether they would be happening in states where it would make a difference. The answer to that question is yes. Unluckily for the President as it may be.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

View the original article here

Toobin on Obamacare Supreme Court Arguments: ‘This Was a Train Wreck for the Obama Administration’

I’ll leave further commentary to our excellent lawyers, but here’s the video:

The CNN legal correspondent’s comments included the following:

This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it’s going to be struck down…All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.

…The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides, all four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were — they did not meet with their success with their colleagues.

View the original article here

Scapegoating Zimmerman

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

“Then he shall take the two goats, and set them before The Lord at the door of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for The Lord and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for The Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before The Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.” (Leviticus 16:7-10 RSV)

(www.keyway.ca)

George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in the chest and killed him on 26 February. Mr. Zimmerman was not charged and his actions remain under investigation by local and now Federal authorities. This has led to an outpouring of anger and several demonstrations by those who believe the American justice system has a strong racial bias against African Americans. Not all of this protest has remained within the bounds of civility. The New Black Panther Party has put a $10,000 price on George Zimmerman.

The President has done nothing that would lead to calm or pacification. He informed us that if he had a son, the boy could look like Trayvon. His campaign has sought to monetize the tragic shooting by selling Obama Hoodies for campaign money. He reminds us to search our souls over this as we rummage in our pockets for the $40 tab for one of his hoodies. Even the Commander-In-Chief wants his take from the till on Justice For Trayvon™ (and I’m not just being snarky about the trademark).

Sadly and predictably, 75% of America wants George Zimmerman dragged forth and shot this afternoon. Just kidding, folks. They weren’t quite that forthcoming and honest. CNN polled on whether George Zimmerman should be arrested and75% of those asked agreed. Better that than get the Scarlet Letter R (RACIST!) tattooed on your forehead.

Arresting George Zimmerman may or may not be the legally sanctioned and appropriate course of action. If the people investigating find reasonable evidence that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was not a defensive action or that if George Zimmerman had no legitimate reason to feel he was in mortal danger, he needs to be booked for manslaughter at the very least. Let the system operate and do its job.

Scapegoating George Zimmerman to prove we’re all too big for bigotry accomplishes absolutely nothing. It proves absolutely nothing. Let’s say Repair_Man_Jack is so !RACIST! that he will only order White Pizza at the local Italian Restaurant (adding pesto or tomato sauce would make it Pizza of Color which would defile his highly attuned palate.) RMJ could fool you all be demanding that George Zimmerman be waterboarded for Trayvon. “Dunk ‘em for diversity,” RMJ always says!

The immediate tendency to demand “justice” despite an incomplete grasp of the facts can only lead to travesty. Googling “Duke Lacrosse, Mike Nifong” and then reading a few of the links tells you far more than I could by belaboring the point. Try “Sharpton, Brawley” if you still remain unconvinced.

I’ll make one more point out of respect for the dead. I find it irrelevant outside the setting of a trial whether or not Trayvon Martin was more likely to end up in Harvard University or Folsom Prison. His initial beatification was somewhat nauseating in a Crystal Mangum sort of a way. But as someone completely unassociated with George Zimmerman’s legal defense team, I really don’t care why Trayvon Martin wasn’t in school for ten days. People with no personal dog in this fight should allow the dead their peaceful sleep.

In conclusion, nobody will really fix American society by joining The New Black Panthers’ in their jihad against George Zimmerman. If you were racist beforehand, you’re still a bigot whether they arrest Mr. Zimmerman over this sordid affair or not. More to the point, you will not make anyone who believes you are a racist think better of you at all by demanding Zimmerman’s head on a platter. Display equipoise and let the investigators investigate. Scapegoats do not work any sort of biblical magic in the modern world.

View the original article here

Re: Santorum speaks at Supreme Court about Obamacare

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Santorum made a strong case yesterday at the steps of the Supreme Court that Romney cannot make the case against Obamacare in the general election since Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare. What a great move by Santorum on the first day that Obamacare is in the Supreme Court. I think for the first time his message that Romney is uniquely disqualified on this issue is getting heard by a much larger audience. Even with the bulls–t comment a couple of days ago, that was the argument he was making.

This one issue has now become his central issue, and it couldn’t be at a better time. Let’s hope people in Wisconsin are listening:

View the original article here

Here’s What The Court’s Going To Do On ObamaCare

It would be nice if the future of federalism did not rest on what Anthony Kennedy had for breakfast –- if Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell did not spend all of December, 2009, giving Harry Reid back-to-back votes on issues which allowed Reid to buy off swing senators.

But we are where we are. So…

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ONE ARGUMENT STANDING ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OBAMACARE: 116 BILLION.

That is the amount of cost-shifting Obama now claims occurs as a result of treating uninsured individuals.

Four problems:

First, 116 billion is nothing but a politicized magnification of the amount (43 billion) which the insurance companies claimed in cost-shifting from the uninsured to policy-holders during their ObamaCare lobbying campaign. (The 43 billion figure is where the $1,000-per-policy cost-shifting figure comes from.) But both the 116 billion and the 43 billion figures are fraudulent numbers which interested parties simply pulled out of the air.

Second, the administration understands the inherent bias in insurance company numbers when it suits its purposes. When Price-Waterhouse, in the eve of the passage of ObamaCare, estimated that it would increase the price of family policies to almost $25,000 a year by 2019, the Obama administration mercilessly attacked the number. 116 billion -– or 43 billion -– or $1,000 per policy — is no different. In their hearts, the administration understands it is lying to the court.

Third, whatever cost-shifting problems there are, over 68% of them are due, not the “young invincibles,” who are nothing but, once again, hapless “cash cows” who are being bled to fund a system which transfers their assets to those who, in some cases because of their own choices, are less healthy than they are. Rather, current cost-shifting problems, to the extent they exist, are as a result of the poor. But here’s the problem: Under ObamaCare, the poor (anyone with an income under 133% of the poverty level) would be put on Medicaid — AND TURNED FROM DE FACTO “FREE RIDERS” INTO STATUTORILY MANDATED “FREE RIDERS.”

Which leads to: Fourth, everyone understands that the reason for the mandate was not to address the “free rider” problem (which could have much more easily been done by modifying the 1986 treatment mandate in minor ways), but rather to bribe the insurance companies into not running Harry & Louise ads.

NOW FOR A LITTLE LEGAL REALISM

The justices are only human.

And conservatives have fallen down in failing to make a bigger issue over liberal attempts to threaten and intimidate the court -– first, in the New York Times, then in the Washington Post [“Will Conservatives save Obamacare?” by Robert Barnes, the Washington Post, March 18, 2012, page B1] -– and repeatedly by Bob Beckel and others on Fox.

All of the threats are thinly veiled (“Roberts is protective of the court’s reputation, however, and sensitive to the perception that its decisions are politicized.”), but they are nothing more or less than disguised threats to attack the court if it doesn’t do as liberals want.

Interestingly, speaking of politicized justice, both the New York Times and the Washington Post, in their court “vote-counting,” start with the proposition that the four liberals on the court will “jump” when told to by the Obama administration. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the independence or the judicial integrity of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

True, Kennedy has shown, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that he is not oblivious to a firestorm of public opinion swirling around him. But, with Gallup showing that between 72% and 76% of the public believes ObamaCare is unconstitutional, and with other polls showing that 67% of Americans believe that either ObamaCare or the mandate is unconstitutional, liberals are making a threat which they can’t enforce.

And, lest anyone believe that liberals believe their vote-counting bravado, Friday, two Columbia Law professors [Abbe Gluck and Michael Graetz] published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that, should the mandate be overturned by the court, the statute should nevertheless be severed. (More on this later, but what does that tell you about their assessment of the likelihood of success?)

They understand, as do most court-watchers, that there are legal realities which are never vocalized, but are true nonetheless:

WICKARD V. FILBURN DOESN’T REALLY GIVE YOU ANY CLUE ABOUT WHAT THE COURT WILL DO: This is the 1942 case where a farmer was penalized for growing wheat for his own consumption because, were everyone to do the same, it would impact commerce.

This is taught in law schools as a “can-you-believe-that?” case. It was the high water mark of politicized New Deal jurisprudence, and is now generally viewed by conservatives as the epitome of what was wrong with the Roosevelt court. And it would have to be extended even further to apply to someone who didn’t even grow wheat -– and, in fact, did nothing.

GONZALES V. RAICH DOESN’T REALLY GIVE YOU ANY CLUE ABOUT WHAT THE COURT WILL DO: This was the case about whether the federal government could preempt state laws on medical marijuana.

If you look at the way the court deals with “law-and-order” cases, it differs from its approach to other appeals. There was no way the court was going to, effectively, legalize all drugs in order to overturn Wickard. And the fact that it considered doing that tells you something.

THE FACT THAT THE COURT, IN THREE POLITICALLY DIFFICULT CASES, FAILED TO FIND A COMMERCE CLAUSE JUSTIFICATION FOR GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES, PARTS OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, AND PARTS OF THE BRADY LAW DOES TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE COURT’S -– AND KENNEDY’S -– PREDISPOSITION ON ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, ISSUES.

THREE OBSERVATIONS ON SEVERABILITY

THE FACT THAT THE COURT SET ASIDE AN HOUR TO ARGUE SEVERABILITY, WHILE NOT DISPOSITIVE, IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN LIBERALS WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE.

NOTWITHSTANDING EVERYTHING, I WOULD BET THE COURT WOULD REMAND THE CASE FOR AT LEAST SOME OF THE SEVERABILITY DELIBERATIONS.

WANT TO KNOW WHY THE SEVERABILITY CLAUSE IN EARLIER DRAFTS “MYSTERIOUSLY” DISAPPEARED? I have gone round-and-around with both House and Senate Legislative Counsel over this issue. And one or the other will regularly remove severability language from a draft because, while not irrelevant, it is not dispositive. It is a way that the Leg Counsel’s office asserts its authority against congressmen who “dare” to draft their own legislation.

Of course, as the mandate became more controversial at the end of the process, senators did begin to notice that the severability clause had disappeared.

Had Jim DeMint not objected to waiving the nine-day process necessary to send a bill to conference, the severability clause could have been easily reinserted in conference. But he did; and it wasn’t.

Finally, there was the opportunity to reopen the bill to further amendments, including an amendment on the severability clause, to assuage Democratic moderates like Ben Nelson, after the manager’s amendment had been presented. But, again, this would have required chopping apart the “tree” constructed to block DeMint, and that would have kept the Senate in session until well past Christmas. So that wasn’t done either.

But the point for the court to consider is that senators knew they had an opportunity to reinsert the severability clause, but with considerable pain, and chose not to.

by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89 and a Dunbarton, New Hampshire resident.

View the original article here

Obama in South Korea is no Reagan in Reykjavik

One the arguments Mitt Romney’s opponents have against him was defined by Romney’s own campaign’s “etch-a-sketch” comment. No one seems to know what Mitt Romney really stands for and the etch-a-sketch comment gave a visual image, created by Romney’s own campaign, to drive home the lack of trust in Mitt Romney.

With an open microphone, Barack Obama has now done the same to himself. One of the arguments Barack Obama’s opponents make is that after this next election, Obama will not have to worry about public support for his actions. Without having to worry about losing an election, the President who has already gone to war against religious groups, dragged his feet on oil drilling expansion, and sought to destroy private health care for American citizens will be even more emboldened to bring his European style socialist vision for America to reality.

Speaking before a live mic to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama explained to him that he and the Russians could find common ground, but Vladimir Putin would have to give President Obama “space” until after the election. Medvedev questions what President Obama meant about “space.” President Obama responded, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Just as Romney’s words reinforce people’s fears that he will say or do anything to get elected, President Obama’s words reinforce people’s fears that should he win re-election, he will say and do whatever the hell he wants since the voters won’t be able to toss him out of office.

More than that though, contrast Barack Obama dealing with the latest iteration of Russian thugocracy to Ronald Reagan dealing with the communists. In Reykjavik, Reagan was willing to walk away from the table to preserve his promises. In Seoul, Barack Obama just wants to appear to walk away from the table until after re-election. Reagan stood against the communists in Russia. Barack Obama is perfectly willing to stand with the Russian thugocracy, but they need to give him space until after the election.

If Republicans need a defining theme of who Barack Obama really is, that theme is increasingly clear. He is a man who wants it both ways on every issue, which ultimately makes the nation a loser.

View the original article here