Deja Vu All Over Again: The West Wing

Does TV foreshadow events in real life? Does life imitate art?

In an excellent piece, the New York Times outlines the eerie similarities between the sixth and seventh seasons of The West Wing television series and the current Presidential Election.

Is Barack Obama foreshadowed by Mathew Santos? Is John McCain foreshadowed by Arnold Vinick?

If so, will Election Night bring the same result? (For Joe Biden’s sake, I hope not entirely!)

Love the West Wing? You can win the complete first or seventh season by participating in Demockracy’s electoral college projection contest.

Tracking Poll Update: 5 Days To Go

With five days to go until Election Day, it’s official that McCain is surging. Surging to a five or six percentage point deficit that is. The movement appears to have occurred Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. As you see in red below, Obama was up by about eight percentage points in the sample (10/25) that included last Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Next, also in red, you see that Obama was up by six percentage points in an independent sample (10/28) from Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Based on my massaging of the data, the worst day of polling for Obama appears to have been Sunday. Over the course of the campaign, there has been some convincing evidence that Obama polls slightly worse over the weekend when many of his younger supporters are not as likely to be home to answer pollster’s calls. However, since today’s results include Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday interviews, they should be a fairly accurate gauge of the current state of the race.

Date	Gallup	Rasmussen	Hotline	Research 2000	Zogby	IBD/TIPP	ABC	7-Poll Adjusted Average
10/20	9	4	5	8	6	6	9	6.7
10/21	10	4	6	8	8	6	9	7.2
10/22	8	6	5	10	10	4	11	7.6
10/23	6	7	5	10	12	1	11	7.3
10/24	7	7	7	12	10	4	9	7.8
10/25	8	8	7	12	9	4	9	8.1
10/26	9	8	8	11	5	4	7	7.6
10/27	10	5	8	8	5	3	7	6.7
10/28	7	5	8	7	4	4	7	6.0
10/29	7	3	7	6	5	3	8	5.5
10/30	7	5	6	5	7	4	8	6.0

What does this mean? Well, Obama was up by about seven or eight percentage points last week. This week he is up by about five or six percentage points. I think it’s likely that McCain will pick up another percentage point or two this coming Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, which will make the difference three or four percentage points in the final tracking poll numbers. If I had to guess the popular vote, based on current trends, I’d have to go with a four-percentage point Obama victory. However, your guess is as good as mine.

The next update will be Saturday.

Republicans, Real America, and S&M

John McCain’s arguments about Barack Obama’s tax plan rely upon a misunderstanding of how taxes work, in much the same way intelligent design proponents rely on a misunderstanding of how evolution works in order to get people to believe them. The Internet would call this tactic “FUD,” which stands for “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt,” and it is largely the way McCain has run his campaign. By planting fear of Barack Obama (he “pals around with terrorists”), uncertainty about Barack Obama (he’s inexperienced) and doubt about Barack Obama (he hasn’t even done anything significant in his time as a senator) in the minds of American voters, McCain can focus more on the qualities Obama lacks than the qualities that he, McCain, possesses.

On Meet the Press Sunday, McCain said that “CEOs” of companies like FedEx pay a 35% marginal tax rate. This is an intentionally misleading statement; CEOs do not personally pay any taxes for their companies. A “corporation” is created for the purpose of doing business without fear of personal liability. If the corporation incurs debts, then it is the corporation that is liable for those debts; the personal assets of the employees of that corporation cannot take the place of the corporation’s assets.

The separated assets of the company and its employees mean that the company doles out salaries to its employees. The corporation has a payroll, and employees – which includes CEOs and other executive officers – are compensated out of that payroll budget.

CEOs pay 35%? No, “CEOs” don’t pay 35%. Their companies pay 35%. They don’t personally pay anything, except their own personal taxes. A company pays 35% on its revenues. A person pays depending on his salary. Now, a business owner may decide how much to pay himself as an employee, but that does not change the fact that what the business makes and what the owner makes are separate things. As Obama has observed, 90% of small businesses make less than $250,000 and are therefore incapable of paying their owners an amount that would cause the owners’ taxes to go up. How many small business owners do you know who pay themselves more than $250,000? And if a small business owner does personally make more than $250,000, then he can certainly afford the tax increase. That’s the point of a graduated, or progressive, tax: the marginal tax rate increases as income increases because people who make a lot of money can afford to pay more than people who don’t.

The argument behind giving tax cuts to people who make a lot of money is that they are in a better position to take that tax cut money and purchase things or reinvest that money in the economy. This is called “supply-side” economics because it works on the side of people who, theoretically, provide the economy with goods and services; i.e., business-owners. Give business owners more money and they will employ more people – that is to say, people on the “demand side” of the economy. This is often referred to as “trickle-down” economics because the benefits of tax cuts given to the people at the top (in terms of income) will eventually trickle down to the people at the bottom (in terms of income).

Whether or not the trickle will ever come is unknowable. In the last eight years, we’ve seen the wealthiest classes increase in size, while the middle class has decreased in size. In 2007, the median household income in the United States was $50,740. 4% of households made $200,000 or more. 18.9% of households made between $50,000 and $75,000. In 2000, 2% of households made $200,000 or more, while 19% of households made between $50,000 and $75,000. On average, American households as a group have become wealthier, but only a small group of people has actually been the beneficiary of that wealth.

Obama’s plan to “spread the wealth around” sounds very much like the system Marx envisioned: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” The question is, what’s wrong with that? To criticize a plan as “Marxist” is to deploy an ad hominem attack, an attack that addresses the person arguing but not the argument itself. Calling a particular tax plan “Marxist” does not address the argument: okay, if it’s Marxist, what does that mean? What’s wrong with that? Conservatives use “Marxist” as a proxy for “bad” without ever mentioning what is actually bad about the plan.

S&M

The “S&M” from the title of this article, as you probably guessed, is not that S&M. It’s socialism and Marxism. The word “socialist” has been bandied about of late with regard to tax plans and bailouts of the banks. Either through willful or deceptive ignorance, the people who throw this word around ignore the extant socialist components of our economy. We have a government that collects taxes at all; we have regulatory agencies that limit the things that businesses can do; we even have socialized health care in the form of Medicaid (government health care for impoverished people), Medicare (government health care for the elderly), and the Veterans Administration. Yes, our American veterans, who spent their lives defending our freedoms, are beneficiaries of socialism! Any veteran can walk into any VA hospital anywhere in the country and get treated. And you, the taxpayer, are paying the bill.

Even Alan Greenspan, champion of capitalism, was hypocritically in charge of a government-chartered bank that holds tremendous influence in the free-market economy. And he never once denounced that institution.

There was a time in American history when the economy was more capitalist than it is today. Do you remember having to memorize, in American history class, all of the various “panics” that occurred from 1789 to 1945? Every ten to twenty years, there was a “panic” that crippled the U.S. economy. Each successive panic resulting in either the passage of legislation designed to stop whatever activity caused the panic or an infusion of cash by the government. The Panic of 1907 was notably stopped by J.P. Morgan himself, whose company injected money into the economy to keep it going. The Federal Reserve Act was passed into law six years later, creating the modern-day Federal Reserve system.

The Federal Reserve System helped put a stop to regular panics, but even more important was the influence of a British economist named John Maynard Keynes. Prior to Keynes, the government was viewed by politicians and policy-makers as just another consumer. The government bought things from private industry, entered into contracts with private industry, and collected taxes. But it was still seen as being on par with a consumer or company. And as such, conventional wisdom dictated that it should act like a private company or citizen. When the Great Depression began in 1929, Herbert Hoover’s response was to cut spending and raise taxes. For an individual, this would seem to make sense: when faced with declining revenue and a worsening economy, cut your spending to save money. Raise your taxes (if you’re the government) to increase the money you can bring in.

But that only made things worse. The government, said Keynes, is far more powerful than any single consumer or corporation. With its essentially unlimited capacity to borrow money, the government can influence the economy in ways that individuals cannot. In a time of crisis, the government should cut taxes and increase spending in order to inject money into the economy. Even though this will cause the government to incur a deficit, it should be done in order to repair the economy. When the economy recovers, the government should decrease spending and raise taxes in order to pay off the debt it incurred during the recession. This process of government intervention is known as Keynesianism, and it has been employed by the U.S. government since World War II. And guess what? No more regular panics. The first economic depression since World War II was the oil crisis of the 1970s, caused by a combination of inflation and recession (something that economists didn’t think was possible, by the way).

These calls of “socialism” fall mostly on ignorant ears. Socialism is already here! If you pay taxes, you’re engaging in socialism. The question is, what degree of socialism are we talking about? Some countries have national monopolies that are endorsed or partly owned by the government. Think of Telefónica in Spain, Petróleos Mexicanos, or Petróleos de Venezuela. The United States would have to go a long way toward purchasing ownership stakes in our industries. Although, at least one industry – the railroads – are partially owned by the government. The U.S. government took control of the railroad system in the late 19^th century in order to cut down on corruption. Today, the government still owns the railroads, but not because of corruption. It’s because the costs of running railroads are so high that railroad companies would go bankrupt without government support.

Socialism is alive and well here, and it’s helping Americans in ways that they may not be aware of.

Tracking Poll Update: 7 Days To Go

With one week to go until Election Day, the trackers are showing some movement toward Senator McCain. Let’s take a look at the last nine days:

Date	Gallup	Rasmussen	Hotline	Research 2000	Zogby	IBD/TIPP	ABC	7-Poll Adjusted Average
10/20	9	4	5	8	6	6	9	6.7
10/21	10	4	6	8	8	6	9	7.2
10/22	8	6	5	10	10	4	11	7.6
10/23	6	7	5	10	12	1	11	7.3
10/24	7	7	7	12	10	4	9	7.8
10/25	8	8	7	12	9	4	9	8.1
10/26	9	8	8	11	5	4	7	7.6
10/27	10	5	8	8	5	3	7	6.7
10/28	7	5	8	7	4	4	7	6.0

These numbers tell us how important context is. First, look at the movement only in the last four days (numbers in red). From this perspective, it appears that McCain is gaining ground at a steady pace. Next, look at the last nine days as a whole. Here we see that the race has been relatively stable, albeit with an overall .7 percentage point movement toward Senator McCain.

Therefore, what these numbers mean depend largely on your perspective. If you view the results simply in the vacuum of the last four days, then yes, McCain is surging. However, if you view these numbers in the context of the last nine days, the race is relatively stable. Statistical training teaches me to err toward the latter, unless shown otherwise. This is because you probably need at least a week of data in order to truly flush out any noise.

Another reason not to make any assumptions quite yet is that the state polling results released today show a steady race and/or a slight movement toward Obama.

In other words, if you want to know whether this movement toward McCain in the composite is real movement, check back in a couple days.

10/28 Swing State Power Rankings

Based on campaign visits, polls, and the visceral reactions of Demockracy writers, we’ll be doing state power rankings for the final week of the campaign. Here are the rankings for Monday, October 27:

5. Pennsylvania

Although not competitive in the polls, three out of the four presidential candidates visited here Monday. This alone guarantees the commonwealth a spot in the top five. However, because of recent polls, we can’t legitimize putting it any higher.

4. Colorado Over 100,000 showed up strong for Senator Obama in Denver on Sunday. Although Senator McCain has reportedly pulled some resources out of Colorado, it still remains relatively close. Obama was here in an attempt to seal the deal.

3. Florida

Florida appears to be trending back to McCain and is again a true tossup state in our eyes. Having 27 electoral votes, its sheer size keeps it near the top of the list. Joe Biden will making two stops in the sunshine state on Tuesday.

2. Virginia Virginia continues to lean heavily toward Senator Obama. With 13 electoral votes, it is the largest Bush state that looks very likely to turn blue this year. Senator Obama will be here on Tuesday to try to put this state away.

1. Ohio Ohio jumps to the top of our list day, largely because Obama launched his “closing argument’ speech/message in Canton, Ohio on Monday. This fact, combined with relatively tight polls that are trending slightly in Senator Obama’s favor, give Ohio the top spot for today. We believe that all the signs are on the wall for Ohio to be one of Obama’s final stops next Sunday or Monday.

Party Unity Numbers

According to a new Newsweek poll, former Hillary Clinton supporters are supporting Senator Obama over Senator McCain by a margin of 86%-7%. So much for the PUMA (party unity my ass) vote. In other crosstabs from this poll, Obama is winning more (91%) of the Democratic vote than McCain is winning of the Republican vote (86%). This is significant because the Democrats have a 5-10 percentage point advantage in party ID this year. Therefore, even relative parody parity in party-line vote, combined with a split among independents, would lead to a big Obama win. In order to win, McCain must win independents and more of his party than Obama does of his party.

Dave O’Gorman will have more on this later in the week.

Tracking Poll Update: 9 Days To Go

With nine days to go until Election Day, the race remains relatively stable. Overall,  there is not much change from yesterday’s composite. Today, McCain improved in three of the trackers, Obama improved in two of the trackers, and two of the trackers remained unchanged. Any day that does not see significant movement toward McCain is a victory for Obama. As we mentioned yesterday, McCain must gain, on average, around .75 percentage points a day in order to draw even. Here is a look at today’s numbers and recent trends.

Date	Gallup	Rasmussen	Hotline	Research 2000	Zogby	IBD/TIPP	ABC	7-Poll Adjusted Average
10/20	9	4	5	8	6	6	9	6.7
10/21	10	4	6	8	8	6	9	7.2
10/22	8	6	5	10	10	4	11	7.6
10/23	6	7	5	10	12	1	11	7.3
10/24	7	7	7	12	10	4	9	7.8
10/25	8	8	7	12	9	4	9	8.1
10/26	9	8	8	11	5	4	7	7.6

We’ll do updates again on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

Tracking Poll Update: 10 Days To Go

With 10 days to go until Election Day, Senator Obama maintains a significant advantage in the polls. Not only is Senator McCain not gaining ground, but he’s actually in worse shape today than he was even a few days ago. McCain must gain on average .75 points a day to have any shot. In comparison, Obama gained about .15 points a day from mid-September to mid-October during his rise in the polls. In addition, voters are much more committed than they were even a few weeks ago. Rasmussen’s tracker shows that Obama has “solid support” from 48% of the electorate compared to McCain’s 40%. Three weeks ago, Obama had roughly the same bottom line lead in Rasmussen’s tracker, but only had the solid support of 43% of the electorate. In other words, McCain now faces a scenario where he must win the support of virtually all truly undecided voters to have any shot. Good luck.

Date	Gallup	Rasmussen	Hotline	Research 2000	Zogby	IBD/TIPP	ABC	7-Poll Adjusted Average
10/20	9	4	5	8	6	6	9	6.7
10/21	10	4	6	8	8	6	9	7.2
10/22	8	6	5	10	10	4	11	7.6
10/23	6	7	5	10	12	1	11	7.3
10/24	7	7	7	12	10	4	9	7.8
10/25	8	8	7	12	9	4	9	8.1

Bob Barr: Obama will win Georgia

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr predicted on his Web site yesterday that Senator Obama would defeat Senator McCain in Georgia based on the fact that McCain is not a real conservative.

Further adding to the intrigue in Georgia is that many pollsters could be underestimating the black turnout. According to Nate Silver, most polls show African Americans only making up 25-26% of the electorate. However, African Americans have made up close to 40% of the electorate in early voting, and many experts are predicting overall turnout to be around 35%.

Brad Muller made many similar arguments about why Georgia could go blue a couple months ago.

A Lesson From Canada

An Economist.com article entitled The Conservatives by a bigger head notes that a fragmented Canada gave Stephen Harper another term as Conservative Prime Minister when his party won the October 2008 federal election, achieving a bit more strength in a minority government. While the Conservatives increased their share of the popular vote by little more than a percentage point to 37.6%, this will likely only be translated into about 19 more seats.

Harper and the Conservatives did solidify their western base of Alberta oilmen and Saskatchewan farmers, and picked up seats in suburban Ontario and the Maritime provinces. However, Harper failed to increase his party’s ten seats in Quebec. For the most part in Quebec, the separatist Bloc Québécois blocked any Conservative advance, even though independence never surfaced as an issue during the campaign.

However, more than the Conservatives failing to get a majority, the main lesson to come out of the Canadian election is that Liberals were the ones that really lost it. Their share of the popular vote fell to 26%, their lowest since 1867. The Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, a Quebecker, chose to fight the election on a bold plan for a carbon tax just when voters began to worry about the economy. (It didn’t help that Dion is not a good communicator in English.)

A broader lesson from the Canadian election is that a candidate should not impose a tax on all citizens, particularly on the middle class, when the economy is slowing. This is a lesson the McCain campaign has ignored with its proposed tax on employees for the value of employer-paid health care benefits. This tax has been one of Obama’s most effective campaign attacks and the focus of his prime literature drops over the past few weeks.

« Previous Page — Next Page »