Turnout!

With less than a week until the election, political polling is in high gear.  But what if you want to get a “sense of the electorate” rather than just the results of telephone polling?

In Colorado, we have early voting taking place, and it tells us how things are going.  Scott Gessler, the Colorado Secretary of State releases voter turnout figures on a daily basis.  Here they are as of today.

What story do they tell?  If you look at the participation of voters who are registered as Democrats, Republicans and Unaffiliated, these are the voting percentages through 10/30/2012:

R – 439,269 (38.5%)

D – 404,870 (35.5%)

U – 295,122 (26.0%)

Total: 1,139,261

We have about 2,587,835 active voters in Colorado, and probably no more than 2,300,000 will vote in 2012.  As a result, about ½ of our voters have already cast their ballots, with another week to go before the election.

What’s an easy way to judge the way the election is going?  Simply assume that all Republicans will vote for Mitt Romney, and all Democrats will vote for Barack Obama.  That leaves the independent voters as the unknown.

If we take the polling done by Purple Strategies over the period 10/23/2012 to 10/25/2012 as a guide, they conclude “…the race is tied among independents.”  We can therefore split the 26% independent vote into 13% for Mr. Romney and 13% for president Obama.

Adding those percentages to the R and D figures sets the overall race at 51.5% for Mitt Romney and 48.5% for Barack Obama after half the votes have been cast in Colorado.

Maybe not earthshaking, but a pretty good indicator of what is happening in Colorado.  As each day is reported, we can track the direction of the election, and gain confidence in the outcome.

We can also shade the results based on additional information.  Here are my thoughts:

--This election will probably see a tendency for Democrats to vote against their party more than Republicans.

--Independents may also swing more toward Romney than Obama.  We see anecdotal evidence of Hollywood figures and sports figures “coming out” for Romney/Ryan more so than Republicans switching to Obama.

I would give a total of 2.5 percentage points to the Republican ticket because of this, so my prediction is that Romney/Ryan will take Colorado by at least 54% to 46%.  Those of you following this blog might try a similar exercise in your own states.

Right now, Rasmussen polling suggests that an 8-point spread is far-fetched.  They predict a 2-point spread in Colorado.

But then, which is the better indicator: actual voting or a telephone survey?  We will know in less than a week.

In the meantime, for all you political junkies in battleground states, if you’ve got access to voter turnout, do the R/D/U calculation and see how it relates to polling data.  It’s interesting and fun!

UPDATE 11/1/2012:
Resurgent Republic has a more optimistic take on the inclinations of independent  voters.

UPDATE 11/2/2012:
Colorado Peak Politics has data out as of 11/1/2012.  It shows about three-quarters of the Colorado electorate having voted (1,447,116 out of about 2.3 million).  The breakout is R - 547,150 (37.8%), D - 509,091 (35.2%), and U - 390,875 (27.0%).  Adding half the independent voters to the Republican ticket gives a 51.3% to 48.7% advantage to Republicans.

The Republican ticket still receives my 2.5% subjective advantage,  based on the Benghazi coverup, the anti-Catholic HHS actions, and the objectification of women campaign strategy used by the Democratic party.  Those factors weigh against Barack Obama, and make the race 53.8% to 46.2%.

That percentage difference is a minimum.  In Colorado, the race will end up at least 54% / 46%.

UPDATE 11/5/2012:
The Colorado Secretary of State has the breakout the day before the election at R - 624,788 (37.0%), D - 590,417 (35.0%), and U - 474,437 (28.0%).  Adding half the independents to the Republican ticket makes the Republican advantage 51% to 49%.

This is  no change since last week, so I still expect at least a 54% to 46% win for Republicans in Colorado.

UPDATE 11/6/2012:
The final report from the Secretary of State has R - 675,797 (36.5%), D - 642,834 (34.7%), and U - 534,012 (28.8%).  Add 14.4% independents to 36.5 % Republicans gives a 50.9% to 49.1% lead to Republicans.  That continues to indicate a 54% to 46% race.

UPDATE 11/7/2012:
Boy was I wrong!  The Colorado race is now being called 50% to 48% for Obama.  That means only 40% of independents favored Republicans.  With such a large swing in the Unaffiliated bloc, that is a very bad sign for Republicans.
 

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Authoritarianism on Display

 

He’s a Bullshitter!

That’s the headline from last week’s Drudge Report as captured by Sister Toldjah.  The remark was NOT made about president Obama.  It was made BY the President as a characterization of his election opponent.

Matt Drudge, employing his genius for juxtaposition, helps us draw the proper connection.

Republicans will note the coarse language as "unbecoming of the President."  Barack Obama supporters will give the President high marks for “telling it like it is.”

I think all of this forms the basis for a case study on Authoritarianism.

Those who support the remark are people who admire Authoritarianism, and they (unfortunately) make up the majority of human beings.  We are all inclined to approve of Authoritarianism, and when we see the arrogance and moral authority that typically accompany it, we tend to view it in a positive light.

That’s the human conundrum, and political forces raise the stakes.  The Democratic Party defends the taunt, and the President’s followers point to the cleverness of the “dash of snark” that is implicit in the characterization.

Now take a moment to look at the downside of the Authoritarianism embodied in this situation and in our President.

It is not unusual that various authoritarians endorse president Obama’s re-election.  These world leaders show the same reverence and respect that is exhibited by Sean Penn and Harry Belafonte. 

We also take note of the “authoritarian salute” (bowing) that president Obama tenders to authoritarian leaders.  In the 21^st century, this mutual admiration is reserved for those who are at the pinnacle of Authoritarianism.

As individuals, we acknowledge authoritarians in our daily lives with a mixture of fear and admiration.  If we are caught up in an authoritarian group, we attempt to get on the “right side” of the power spectrum.  We learn to acknowledge the authoritarian gestures that define the group and know that we ignore the necessary “choosing of sides” at our own risk.

But all this is covered in an earlier post and a subsequent post.

Keep in mind that a hallmark of Authoritarianism is that authoritarians are never wrong.  President Obama has no need to walk-back his “bullshitter” remark because he knows he is right.  If the political ramifications attending the remark become untenable, the President will simply revise his position and note that he has “evolved.”

A recent example of this “evolving” effect was on display with Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of Bashar al-Assad as a reformer.  When it became painfully obvious that her assessment was in error, she simply evolved, contending that her remark was misinterpreted.

People see Authoritarianism as a fact of life.  America’s founders understood this, and put in place a governing system for America that was anti-authoritarian.  The last few years of the Obama administration have shown how easy it is to mount attacks against “checks and balances,” “separation of powers,” and “the rule of law.”  It’s just what authoritarians do, and most Americans accept it.  (Defenders of the Constitution, gird your loins!)

We still don’t know if the ‘bullshitter” characterization will cause difficulty for president Obama’s re-election.  The last week of an election cycle is volatile, and there are crosscurrents of influence at work.  But the remark does bring Authoritarianism into sharp relief, and that might be worthwhile.

Here’s why:  Follow me in a “flight of fancy” for a moment…

Mitt Romney was confronted at a rally by an individual who was concerned about the issue of free contraceptive services.  Mr. Romney made the point, “If you want free stuff, vote for the other guy.”

What if president Obama, in a moment of candor, made a similar point:

“If you don’t want Authoritarianism, vote for the other guy!”

UPDATE 11/2/2012:
Peggy Noonan has an article up today in The Wall Street Journal that speaks of Authoritarianism and the presidency of Barack Obama.  The best quote:
"It is one thing to think you're Lebron.  It's another thing to keep missing the basket and losing games and still think you're Lebron."

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Civility

Sean Kedzie of Whitewater, Wisconsin

You are probably not familiar with Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie’s son being beaten last week.

Nor would you be aware of death threats being received by Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, you no doubt know that Sarah Palin tends to incite right-wing fanatics to murder.  You also know that Tea Party supporters spit on legislators from the Congressional Black Caucus.

Our culture makes certain Americans know who is wearing the black hats.

Subsequent to the final political debate of 2012 between president Obama and governor Romney, this clip made the rounds.  Have you seen it?  It is being featured extensively by our media.

Another clip is also available (h/t Power Line).  I imagine you have not seen it.  It’s Mitt Romney’s speech at the Alfred E. Smith Dinner in New York on October 18, 2012:

I guarantee if you watch the first 30 seconds, you will stay for the rest.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Emotional Response

 

Last night, Candy Crowley moderated a town hall presidential debate.  It had one interesting moment when Ms. Crowley stepped out of her moderator role to correct Mitt Romney’s description of the president’s response to Benghazi.

If you were watching the debate, it was an emotional, gasp-inducing exchange.  The president had expressed outrage at the pretensions of Mr. Romney, and Candy Crowley saw her opportunity.  She rose to the occasion and the audience reacted with spontaneous applause for her courage.

I’ve noted before how Ms. Crowley is able to exhibit her anti-Republican credentials and still comport as a professional journalist.  Here’s the takeaway from this occurrence:

1) Our culture teaches us to view Republicans as bad people.

2) The current Democratic Party theme is that Mitt Romney is an unhinged (lying) flip-flopper.

2) Candy Crowley used her power as moderator to portray Mr. Romney as a liar and to evoke an anti-Republican response.

Republicans point to the facts supporting Mr. Romney’s point of view, but the damage is done.

On national TV, before millions of viewers, we have been treated to a spectacle.  Republicans can try to set the record straight, but our culture will not be swayed from its “truth.”

UPDATE 10/18/2012:

Anti-Republican Culture categorizes its posts with four possible labels.  This incident has the extraordinary distinction of receiving all four classifications.

“Republicans Under Siege” is captured when Mitt Romney finds himself under attack not only from his debate opponent, but also from the moderator and a majority of the audience.  “So Right and Natural” is displayed in the spontaneity of the audience applause over the incident.  “The Themes” is present in the “lying Republican” characterization advanced by this incident (and also expounded by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog.com).  “The Ministry of Truth” is represented by the fundamental spin associated with a mention of the phrase “acts of terror” in conjunction with a Benghazi briefing.

The Candy Crowley incident is in a class by itself!

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Hardball!

The Presidential Debate this Wednesday creased the fabric of the universe.  The outcome was not what the Democratic Party expected.

We are now seeing the Democratic Party roll out a “take no prisoners” strategy.  Peggy Noonan goes out on a limb to describe it.  She points to the treatment of Jim Lehrer:

Jim Lehrer has been criticized as an inadequate moderator. He was old-school and a pro. He didn't think it was about him. How quaint. He asked questions, allowed a certain amount of leeway to both candidates, which allowed each to reveal himself, and kept things moving. Most of the criticism seems to have come from those who hoped Mr. Obama would emerge triumphant. Mr. Lehrer should not take it personally. Every shot at him was actually a warning shot aimed at the next moderator, Martha Raddatz. She's being told certain outcomes are desirable.

Ms. Noonan says the campaign “will probably get dirty” and we see David Axelrod already working the Romney unhinged flip-flopper characterization.

Should Republicans sit back and take it?

Definitely not!  They should push back on that “Republicans are bad people” theme of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party preaches that Republicans are liars, killers, and racists - and that’s just as they are getting warmed up.  Let’s confront them!

We each have friends and relatives who support the Democratic Party.  What stops us from asking them questions like, “Why are you attracted to a group that considers me a racist?”

Is it too uncivil; too confrontational?

Maybe it’s time to quit cursing at the television and pose a straightforward question to our political adversaries:

“Why are you comfortable supporting an organization that teaches Americans to hate?”

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Laffer vs. Poisson

Laffer (on the left) versus Poisson (on the right)
 

I’m still thinking about the current controversy on where the “hump” in the Laffer curve should be placed.

Maybe it’s time to do a little “thinking outside the box.”  What if the Laffer curve is not the proper representation for the economic situation we wish to model?

If you check out Wikipedia, you see that the Laffer curve is presented as a parabola, typically skewed to the right so that the peak in the curve is after the midpoint. Why is that? Why should the Laffer curve be based on a geometric shape?

Maybe it’s because a parabola implies a scientific basis.  We use a parabola to approximate the path of a fly ball in baseball.  It is based on scientific phenomena (drag and gravity) and allows us to predict where the ball will be at any given time if we know the velocity of the ball when it leaves the bat.

Does that sound like something that should be applied to economics?  Wouldn’t a statistical tool be better?

The Poisson distribution (see image above on the right) deserves a closer look.  It is meant to model the probability of actions, not to predict a specific action.  Furthermore, in contrast to the Laffer curve, it provides a better model of behavior near the 100% tax rate.  The Laffer parabola shows the tax collected will be zero, whereas the Poisson distribution has it tapering down toward zero.  It indicates that even though nobody should want to pay all their income in taxes, some idiot will do it.  That is a better model of reality.

And that’s important!  We should be using tools that represent actual data.  The model should reflect our reality, not a vision of what we want our reality to be.

The acceptance of the Laffer curve in our culture is based on the idea that the hump in the curve is skewed toward the right.  That implies higher tax rates will generate increasing tax revenue, even at tax rates over 50%.  The Poisson distribution skews the curve the other way.  It implies that if you set tax rates too high, you will see diminishing returns.

Do you see why the Poisson distribution is not being applied in our current political environment?

If our cultural narrative is to promote more federal government activity in our lives, then we need to be shown how greater government is good for us and makes us feel better.  One way to do that is to emphasize that increased taxes don’t hurt.

If the Poisson distribution shows the opposite, our culture will make sure it never sees the light of day.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Trouble with The Curve

 

Tim Groseclose has a video posted at Prager University postulating a relationship between tax rates and revenue.  It’s relevant to Hauser’s Law, which shows the relationship between tax revenue and income.

What’s an economic discussion doing on the Anti-Republican Culture site?  It’s all about testing our beliefs.

Mitt Romney makes a pledge to keep government spending constrained at 20% of GDP.  That’s in line with what is shown by Mr. Hauser.  If government can’t extract more than 20% in tax revenue, don’t spend more than 20%.

That’s the spending side.  On the income side, Mr. Romney wants to make permanent 20% cuts in marginal tax rates.  That assumes tax revenue increases with lower tax rates.  Mr. Romney believes America is to the right of the hump in the Laffer curve.

And that’s where there is controversy.  Where is that Laffer curve “hump?”  If it’s in the 33% area, Mr. Romney is right.  If it’s in the 50% area, the Democratic Party is correct.

How do we find out?  I guess we try to “tax the rich” and watch human nature come into play.

Can “the rich” avail themselves of more tax-avoidance schemes than the rest of us?  I imagine so, and this makes them more sensitive to the Laffer curve.  When increases in tax rates cause their net income to decline, they adopt the necessary tax-avoidance strategies.  Regular working people might not be able to stop working, but “the rich” will move their wealth into tax-free securities.

What’s the effect?  The Laffer curve will exhibit “dynamism.”  The hump moves left or right depending on tax policy, and – this is immutable – increasing overall tax rates moves the relative position of the hump to the left.

That may take an understanding of the mathematics of derivatives, but just realize that the slope of the curve begins at a peak value of one, and decreases from there.  Where the curve peaks with a slope of zero – the “hump” – is a function of our response to overall tax policy.

The Laffer curve is simply modeling human behavior.  It shows that if we get to keep more of what we earn, we keep doing what we’re doing.  If we get to keep less of what we earn, our sense of fairness causes us to look for alternative behaviors.

Tim Groseclose has a way of making the argument in a non-threatening way, but it is devastating.

The Obama Campaign preaches that it can get us free stuff and all we have to do is “tax the rich.”

At the risk of being less sensitive than Mr. Groseclose, let me pose this question:

What kind of masochist wants to re-elect president Obama just to see him proved wrong?
 

UPDATE 9/24/2012:
My wife and I went to see the Clint Eastwood film that is the title of this post.  It's a sweet movie, in the tradition of Gran Torino (with less bloodshed).  And who doesn't like baseball?

I don't mean to give economics a bad name, but when you've got the National Bureau of Economic Research showing the hump in the Laffer curve always at a tax rate of 60% or greater, and Mr. Groseclose saying it is closer to 33%, shouldn't someone in academia be interested in resolving that discrepancy?

What about Mr. Hauser?  If Americans historically balk at giving up more than 20% of GDP in federal taxes, shouldn't that appear as a discontinuity or inflection point on the Laffer curve?

Remember, "The Curve" is meant to model economic behavior, not to be an ironclad law.  Have we gotten things turned around?

Return to Top

Return to Bottom