Friday Horse Race

The moves on the Tradesports map were incremental. The "George Bush Industrial Average" (the price of a single contract in each of the 50 states) continued its overall decline. The composite dropped by 33 points from 2876 to a lifetime low of 2833. Most of the movements however, reflected a move away from volatility. New Mexico and Pennsylvania dropped into strong Kerry territory and Arkansas slipped back into the strong Bush column. New polls out of West Virginia have indicated that it is back in play, and it's price plummeted accordingly, and Nevada has been trading on the threshold of Kerry's advantage, with the last contract price at 50.5.

Major movements since last week:

• Weak Kerry to Strong Kerry - Nex Mexico (32%), Pennsylvania (35%)
  
• Strong Bush to Weak Bush - West Virginia (52%)
  
• Weak Bush to Strong Bush - Arkansas (63%),

If each state has exactly as many voters in 2004 as in 2000, and each state voted according to the trading odds, Kerry would be leading the popular vote by a margin of +5.76 (a gain of 1.52% over the week), or 4.4 million votes (up 1.6 million over last week).

Odds

Bush: Strong - 206; Weak - 68; Total - 274
Kerry: Strong - 250; Weak - 14; Total - 264

On the popular map, there has been little polling, and what polling there has been has tended to mix things up a bit. Nevada has plummeted on the basis of some new polls, Kerry and Bush are still trading leads in West Virginia, and a poll was released indicating ties in Minnesota and Iowa. Albeit by many slim margins, Kerry is currently crushing Bush in the electoral college. Major movers:

• Strong Kerry to Weak Kerry - Minnesota (+4%)
  
• Weak Kerry to Strong Kerry - Michigan (+6%)
  
• Weak Bush to Weak Kerry - West Virginia (+1%)
  
• Strong Bush to Tied - Nevada
  
• Tied to Weak Bush - Ohio (+4%)

Polls

Bush: Strong - 177; Weak - 49; Total - 226
Kerry: Strong - 236; Weak - 57; Total - 293
Tied + Delaware: 19

If each candidate were to receive a proportion of votes cast in 2000 equal to their current poll-rating, Kerry would be leading the popular vote by a margin of 1.68%, which is a rise of 0.08% over last week, or 1.6 million votes.

Later today (after 5pm PST) I will update the TradeSports and Averaged Poll data tables (data for averaging available here.

Race - Native/Pacific Islander

The most Native county in the United States is Shannon County, South Dakota. Of it's 13,228 inhabitants, 12,349 are Native American or Pacific Islander (13 Pacific Islanders). Of all the counties in the United States, 26 have a majority Navtive population. Nationwide, there are 3.3 million such persons, representing 1% of the nation's population.

One trend which has emerged in the data so far is that generally speaking, the greater the concentration of one ethnic group in a county, the higher the rate of turnout. Multi-ethnic counties tend to have the lowest turnout rates. The one exception to this rule is predominantly Native American counties, where the turnout rate as a proportion of population declines steadily as the proportion of Native Americans increases.

90-100% Native 2 counties; average Bush margin (-33.2%); average 2004 unemployment (20.4%); average 2000 unemployment (12.3%); average population, 2000 (9,747); total population (20,485); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (20.4%)

80-90% Native 6 counties; average Bush margin (-27.3%); average 2004 unemployment (11.1%); average 2000 unemployment (8.3%); average population, 2000 (7,150); total population (44,498); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (22.2%)

70-80% Native 9 counties; average Bush margin (-1.9%); average 2004 unemployment (10.2%); average 2000 unemployment (10.1%); average population, 2000 (21,079); total population (187,582); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (27.7%)

60-70% Native 4 counties; average Bush margin (-0.4%); average 2004 unemployment (11.8%); average 2000 unemployment (13.4%); average population, 2000 (9,163); total population (36,723); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (35.5%)

50-60% Native 5 counties; average Bush margin (+16.3%); average 2004 unemployment (7.3%); average 2000 unemployment (7.1%); average population, 2000 (7,572); total population (36,948); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (31.7%)

40-50% Native 8 counties; average Bush margin (+12.6%); average 2004 unemployment (7.5%); average 2000 unemployment (8.4%); average population, 2000 (20,384); total population (168,360); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (33.0%)

30-40% Native 12 counties; average Bush margin (+6.3%); average 2004 unemployment (5.6%); average 2000 unemployment (6.4%); average population, 2000 (51,509); total population (638,244); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (35.1%)

20-30% Native 10 counties; average Bush margin (+15.5%); average 2004 unemployment (5.4%); average 2000 unemployment (6.5%); average population, 2000 (17,873); total population (181,191); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (34.1%)

10-20% Native 68 counties; average Bush margin (+14.5%); average 2004 unemployment (6.4%); average 2000 unemployment (5.8%); average population, 2000 (25,280); total population (1,741,802); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (37.0%)

0-10% Native 3015 counties; average Bush margin (+18.1%); average 2004 unemployment (5.0%); average 2000 unemployment (4.6%); average population, 2000 (92,342); total population (285,271,918); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (38.8%)

Race - Asian

The most Asian county in the United States is Honolulu County, Hawaii. Of it's 896,019 inhabitants, 430,739 are Asian. No counties have a majority Asian population. Nationwide, there are 11.5 million such persons, representing 4% of the nation's population.

I should make a note here. 2000 population is based upon the census. The race estimates are based upon census projections for July of 2002, which is the most recent estimate available. This explains how 1 county categories have a discrepancy between average population and total population.

40-50% Asian 1 county; average Bush margin (-15.9%); average 2004 unemployment (2.6%); average 2000 unemployment (3.5%); average population, 2000 (876,156); total population (896,019); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (27.5%)

30-40% Asian 1 county; average Bush margin (-64.9%); average 2004 unemployment (5.4%); average 2000 unemployment (2.7%); average population, 2000 (776,733); total population (764,049); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (37.7%)

20-30% Asian 7 counties; average Bush margin (-20.7%); average 2004 unemployment (6.4%); average 2000 unemployment (4.3%); average population, 2000 (888,29); total population (6,259,871); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (30.4%)

10-20% Asian 19 counties; average Bush margin (-12.8%); average 2004 unemployment (5.7%); average 2000 unemployment (4.8%); average population, 2000 (1,353,868); total population (26,500,838); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (34.3%)

0-10% Black 3112 counties; average Bush margin (+18.0%); average 2004 unemployment (5.1%); average 2000 unemployment (4.7%); average population, 2000 (80,351); total population (256,144,789); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (38.6%)

Race - Black

The blackest county in the United States is Jefferson County, Mississippi. Of it's 9,661 inhabitants, 8,343 are black. Of all the counties in the United States, 100 have a majority black population. Nationwide, there are 36.8 million such persons, representing 12.75% of the nation's population.


80-90% Black 5 counties; average Bush margin (-61.2%); average 2004 unemployment (10.4%); average 2000 unemployment (10.3%); average population, 2000 (20,252); total population (100,324); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (37.0%)

70-80% Black 11 counties; average Bush margin (-35.8%); average 2004 unemployment (9.4%); average 2000 unemployment (10.3%); average population, 2000 (15,675); total population (170,173); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (34.6%)

60-70% Black 32 counties; average Bush margin (-25.1%); average 2004 unemployment (8.3%); average 2000 unemployment (8.1%); average population, 2000 (89,258); total population (2,852,454); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (34.3%)

50-60% Black 52 counties; average Bush margin (-20.1%); average 2004 unemployment (7.7%); average 2000 unemployment (6.1%); average population, 2000 (67,296); total population (3,508,722); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (35.3%)

40-50% Black 90 counties; average Bush margin (-2.9%); average 2004 unemployment (7.0%); average 2000 unemployment (6.0%); average population, 2000 (136,756); total population (12,333,565); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (34.3%)

30-40% Black 138 counties; average Bush margin (+7.3%); average 2004 unemployment (6.1%); average 2000 unemployment (5.5%); average population, 2000 (68,006); total population (9,478,883); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (34.0%)

20-30% Black 183 counties; average Bush margin (+11.8%); average 2004 unemployment (5.2%); average 2000 unemployment (4.5%); average population, 2000 (213,176); total population (39,680,750); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (34.2%)

10-20% Black 282 counties; average Bush margin (+15.4%); average 2004 unemployment (5.0%); average 2000 unemployment (4.2%); average population, 2000 (212,302); total population (61,593,968); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (35.8%)

0-10% Black 2345 counties; average Bush margin (+21.7%); average 2004 unemployment (4.9%); average 2000 unemployment (4.5%); average population, 2000 (65,759); total population (158,769,716); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (39.8%)

Morning Jolt of Terror

On the morning commute today I was shocked out of my magazine when something brushed against my elbow. It was a dog, escorted by a policeman. Apparently, finally they're using bomb-sniffing dogs on the BART trains.

About fucking time.

One thing that has amazed me about the last three years is the continued neglect of obvious security vulnerabilities. The BART train carries hundreds of thousands of people during a two-hour timespan over a region larger than many eastern sea-board states. Though it may be a little discomfiting to get sniffed by a dog, it's reassuring to know that they're at least taking SOME precautions.

Race - Hispanic

The most Hispanic county in the United States is Starr County, Texas. Of it's 56,686 inhabitants, 55,358 are Hispanic. Of all the counties in the United States, 54 have a majority Hispanic population. Nationwide, there are 38.7 million such persons, representing 13.44% of the nation's population.

One interesting trend I've noticed is that unemployment has fallen most heavily over the last four years in concentrated-minority counties. That's not what I would have expected.

90-100% Hispanic 5 counties; average Bush margin (-42.6%); average 2004 unemployment (11.1%); average 2000 unemployment (14.8%); average population, 2000 (62,717); total population (332,270); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (39.4%)

80-90% Hispanic 11 counties; average Bush margin (-30.6%); average 2004 unemployment (10.1%); average 2000 unemployment (11.0%); average population, 2000 (154,190); total population (1,779,544); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (37.1%)

70-80% Hispanic 12 counties; average Bush margin (-17.8%); average 2004 unemployment (7.0%); average 2000 unemployment (7.9%); average population, 2000 (28,711); total population (348,566); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (33.7%)

60-70% Hispanic 5 counties; average Bush margin (+0.8%); average 2004 unemployment (5.9%); average 2000 unemployment (6.0%); average population, 2000 (50,526); total population (256,328); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (32.6%)

50-60% Hispanic 21 counties; average Bush margin (+14.0%); average 2004 unemployment (8.1%); average 2000 unemployment (7.0%); average population, 2000 (292,666); total population (6,325,860); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (31.6%)

40-50% Hispanic 59 counties; average Bush margin (+25.6%); average 2004 unemployment (5.9%); average 2000 unemployment (5.8%); average population, 2000 (269,229); total population (16,418,944); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (29.7%)

30-40% Hispanic 64 counties; average Bush margin (+26.1%); average 2004 unemployment (4.8%); average 2000 unemployment (4.5%); average population, 2000 (272,580); total population (18,206,933); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (30.8%)

20-30% Hispanic 89 counties; average Bush margin (+26.7%); average 2004 unemployment (4.5%); average 2000 unemployment (3.7%); average population, 2000 (328,062); total population (30,084,112); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (30.4%)

10-20% Hispanic 240 counties; average Bush margin (+23.0%); average 2004 unemployment (4.5%); average 2000 unemployment (3.9%); average population, 2000 (177,026); total population (43,961,179); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (27.6%)

0-10% Hispanic 2632 counties; average Bush margin (+17.1%); average 2004 unemployment (5.1%); average 2000 unemployment (4.7%); average population, 2000 (63,697); total population (170,612,430); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (22.0%)

Race - Whites

The whitest county in the United States is Slope County, North Dakota. Of it's 747 inhabitants, 745 are white Anglos. There is also one Hispanic person and one Native American. Of the 3138 counties in the United States, 2865 have a majority white population. Nationwide, there are 196.8 million such persons, representing 68.26% of the nation's population.

There are strong correlations, but strange movements too.

95-100% white 938 counties; average Bush margin (+23.4%); average 2004 unemployment (4.7%); average 2000 unemployment (4.5%); average population, 2000 (24,905); total population (23,553,374); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (42.3%)

90-95% white 555 counties; average Bush margin (+21.0%); average 2004 unemployment (4.7%); average 2000 unemployment (4.2%); average population, 2000 (51,105); total population (28,922,853); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (40.6%)

85-90% white 320 counties; average Bush margin (+20.6%); average 2004 unemployment (4.7%); average 2000 unemployment (4.1%); average population, 2000 (84,973); total population (27,977,278); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (40.1%)

80-85% white 227 counties; average Bush margin (+22.3%); average 2004 unemployment (4.6%); average 2000 unemployment (4.1%); average population, 2000 (115,389); total population (26,821,246); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (38.0%)

75-80% white 184 counties; average Bush margin (+20.8%); average 2004 unemployment (4.9%); average 2000 unemployment (4.1%); average population, 2000 (127,789); total population (24,165,348); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (37.2%)

70-75% white 167 counties; average Bush margin (+20.0%); average 2004 unemployment (5.1%); average 2000 unemployment (4.3%); average population, 2000 (148,676); total population (25,471,104); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (35.8%)

65-70% white 147 counties; average Bush margin (16.1%); average 2004 unemployment (5.2%); average 2000 unemployment (4.7%); average population, 2000 (103,791); total population (15,630,957); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (34.3%)

60-65% white 135 counties; average Bush margin (+15.2%); average 2004 unemployment (5.4%); average 2000 unemployment (4.7%); average population, 2000 (133,647); total population (18,648,785); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (33.8%)

55-60% white 112 counties; average Bush margin (+9.9%); average 2004 unemployment (5.8%); average 2000 unemployment (5.4%); average population, 2000 (129,558); total population (15,162,080); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (33.4%)

50-55% white 85 counties; average Bush margin (+12.8%); average 2004 unemployment (6.1%); average 2000 unemployment (5.4%); average population, 2000 (189,505); total population (16,470,731); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (33.9%)

45-50% white 72 counties; average Bush margin (+0.6%); average 2004 unemployment (6.7%); average 2000 unemployment (5.8%); average population, 2000 (215,065); total population (15,782,223); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (32.5%)

40-45% white 48 counties; average Bush margin (-0.6%); average 2004 unemployment (8.0%); average 2000 unemployment (6.3%); average population, 2000 (317,420); total population (15,653,846); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (31.7%)

35-40% white 48 counties; average Bush margin (-16.7%); average 2004 unemployment (7.7%); average 2000 unemployment (7.2%); average population, 2000 (122,063); total population (5,955,525); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (32.2%)

30-35% white 24 counties; average Bush margin (-22.9%); average 2004 unemployment (8.4%); average 2000 unemployment (8.2%); average population, 2000 (738,314); total population (18,111,302); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (31.4%)

25-30% white 20 counties; average Bush margin (-26.5%); average 2004 unemployment (8.8%); average 2000 unemployment (8.9%); average population, 2000 (85,634); total population (1,717,131); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (33.3%)

20-25% white 14 counties; average Bush margin (-13.8%); average 2004 unemployment (7.6%); average 2000 unemployment (7.9%); average population, 2000 (132,567); total population (1,907,989); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (31.8%)

15-20% white 18 counties; average Bush margin (-25.7%); average 2004 unemployment (8.8%); average 2000 unemployment (9.6%); average population, 2000 (185,203); total population (3,433,915); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (30.5%)

10-15% white 17 counties; average Bush margin (-39.7%); average 2004 unemployment (11.0%); average 2000 unemployment (9.7%); average population, 2000 (113,799); total population (1,974,835); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (27.8%)

5-10% white 4 counties; average Bush margin (-52%); average 2004 unemployment (9.5%); average 2000 unemployment (11.4%); average population, 2000 (150,376); total population (647,024); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (23.0%)

0-5% white: 4 counties; average Bush margin (-23.7%); average 2004 unemployment (17.2%); average 2000 unemployment (16.7%); average population, 2000 (75,260); total population (320,205); Average Turnout, as % of total pop. (19.2%)

Not Exactly Subtle

So, David Brooks, the Antonio Gramsci of the American Right, has picked up a neat litle rhetorical trick in today's column - innocently imply that Kerry is like a Communist in his attention to detail.

"Every time he'd launch into another Castroite soliloquy - on the history of the Middle East or the pay structure of the civil service - the audience would groan."

Of course, the speech isn't Castroite in outlook, merely in length. But in case you missed the reference, he throws in another Communist orator:

"I didn't realize that a country barraged by a decade of Gingrich, impeachment, hanging chads and war may actually be looking for a Brezhnev to give it a break."

I know David Brooks commands a lot of respect among the lefterly, but I find him a pretty slimy pundit. The strategic assertion of this campaign is that the Democrats are rabid, wild-eyed haters. But the campaign isn't really reflecting that. So, in Brooks' prose, it's focus on outlining an affirmative vision naturally reflects sublimated hatred!

"If the convention program reflected the collective party subconscious, the first night would feature a life-size rubber Dick Cheney doll, and the speakers would take turns throwing it around the stage."

We have to find a way to slide in our spin on the events that didn't happen... From the article's false air of studied boredom to the slippery deployment of classic outrageous smears masked as innocent metaphors ("really, Communists talk more than red-blooded Americans!")... it's a masterpiece of insincerity.

Unemployment

It's often assumed that the unemployment rate exerts an effect in elections. I'm not sure that it's so clear-cut as that. In 2000, Al Gore is what you would consider the incumbent. We would expect that a high unemployment rate would translate into an anti-incumbency vote. In truth, the opposite was more often the case.

In November of 2000, 17 counties had less than 1% unemployment. Of these counties, 13 voted in favor of George W. Bush. Intriguingly, 9 were in the state of Virginia. None of these counties are majority non-white. In November of 2000, 26 counties had greater than 15% unemployment. Of these counties, 13 voted for George W. Bush. 8 were majority white. Of these 8 counties (majority white, greater than 15% unemployment), all 8 delivered a majority of votes to George W. Bush. The remaining five counties were either majority Hispanic (Tulare County, CA; Colusa County, CA; Luna County, NM; Yuma County, AZ) and one was in Alaska (the Wade-Hampton Census Area, majority native Alaskan).

It will be interesting to see if unemployment creates an anti-incumbent fervor this election. The Wade-Hampton Census Area, for example, has been rewarded for its vote for George W. Bush with both the nation's highest gain in unemployment, and the highest unemployment rate (a 14.6% rise and a staggering 30.8% rate). The second highest gain in unemployment was in Coal County Oklahoma (11.7%), which had an unemployment rate in May of 2004 of 16.5%. The county delivered a slim majority to George W. Bush in 2000 of 1196-1148. Overall, 1970 counties have a higher unemployment rate in 2004 than they had in 2000. 1089 counties have a lower rate of unemployment. The rest have staid the same.

The greatest drop in unemployment has been in Swain County, North Carolina, where unemployment has dropped by 11.2% from an absolute level of 15.9% to a currently level of 4.7%. Swain County preferred Bush by 2224-2097.

31 of the counties which have experienced drops of greater than 5% in the unemployment rate over the last 4 years delivered a majority of votes to George W. Bush. The remaining 6 such counties preferred Gore. Of the 46 counties which experienced a growth of more than 5% in the unemployment rate, 30 had favored George W. Bush in 2000. The remaining 16 gave their majorities to Gore.

In May of 2004, exactly ten counties had an unemployment rate of 1% or less. In 2000, Bush carried each of these counties by more than 60% of the vote. 3 of these counties are in Kansas, two in Oklahoma, two in North Dakota, one in Montana and one in Oklahoma. 23 counties had an unemployment rate greater than 15%. In 2000, Bush carried 12 of these counties. 6 of these counties are in Alaska, 3 are in Texas, 3 in South Carolina, 2 in Lousiana, 2 in California, 1 in Kentucky, 1 in Alabama, 1 in Virginia, 1 in Oklahoma, 1 in Mississippi, 1 in New Mexico and 1 in Arizona.

6 of the 23 counties with more than 15% unemployment have a majority white population. All of the ten counties with less than 1% unemployment have a majority white population.

Clinton's Speech

I caught the second-screening of the convention speeches on C-SPAN a short while ago. Seeing Gore, Carter, Hillary, then Bill Clinton in sequence like that really highlighted Bill's strength as an orator. None of the others held a candle to Clinton on pure mechanics.

What more can I say about Clinton's speech, other than it filled me with envy for his eloquence? Clinton laid his finger with concision and clarity on issue after issue which I feel like I've been struggling to articulate for the last two years. Judging from the audience reactions, the speech's strength was exactly that capacity to appear a statement of what you've been trying to say half so-clearly. The audience shots showed people leaping to their feets with an ebullient expression that seemed like recognition. You know, the "yes, yes" applause...

I'm not sure how many folks really watch Democratic Convention speeches... but for America's sake, I hope they were tuning in by the hundreds of thousands.

Small Counties

There are 1335 counties in the United States with a population less than 20,000 persons. This figure represents 42% of all counties in the United States. The combined population of these counties is 13,246,077 persons, or 4.7% of the population. Of these, Gore carried a total of 208 counties. The rest went to Bush.

The smallest county carried by Gore was Kenedy Texas, where Gore prevailed by 119 votes to 106 for Bush. The county is 19.33% non-Hispanic white (majority Hispanic). The second smallest is Taliaferro County Georgia. Gore won this county by a vote of 556-271. It is 37.99% non-Hispanic white (majoirty black). The third smallest county is Buffalo County, South Dakota (256-140). It is 18.5% non-Hispanic white (majority Native American). The smallest county with a majority Anglo white population to have been carried by Gore is Whitman County, Georgia (54.41% white, 542-348).The second smallest majority white population to be carried by Gore was Norton City, Virginia which is a strange political entity unique to Virginia. It is 91.79% white and went to Gore by 867-639 votes. The third smallest majority white county to go for Gore was Tyrrell County, North Carolina (54.71% white, 849-706).

81 of the counties with less than 20,000 people and a majority non-white population broke in favor of Gore. 43 such counties were carried by Bush. Of small counties with a majority white population, Gore carried 127, Bush carried the remaining 1192 counties.

I don't mean to overstate the significance of race (an issue I'll be covering later), but it would appear that it's not size per se which indicates voting preference. Within "rural America" (to the extent that our definition actually yields "rural" counties) there was a strong Republican preference in 2000. This preference is most especially marked in the case of majority white counties.

However, it doesn't appear that race is determinative of political preference. Later, I hope to probe some of the anomalous counties to see what more we can learn from them.

I also hope to discover how exactly it is that Loving County, Texas (pop. 67, America's smallest county) uniquely yielded a turnout rate of over 200% which broke in favor of Bush by 185%-43%...

I apologize for all the data-geekhood of all this... and realize that none of this is fully determinative. Right now, we're just circling around, looking at the broad trends. Later, we'll move on to some case studies and look at deeper at their attributes and histories.

Size

The first place to look for the qualities of Democrats and Republicans are the places where they gather in the largest numbers. So let us first look at those counties in which one candidate in the 2000 presidential election prevailed over the other by more than 100,000 total votes.

There are 23 such counties that plumped in favor of Al Gore in the 2000 election. The largest of them all is Los Angeles County, in which Gore bested Bush by over 838,000 votes. This margin is wider than that of the entire country. Los Angeles County contains over 9.8 million persons and Gore prevailed by a ratio of 2:1. This is far from the highest Democratic proportion, but in terms of sheer numbers it is unrivalled. Of course, Los Angeles County, more populous than the entire state of Georgia, is the home of the city of Los Angeles.

In fact, the most conspicuous patterns of the 23 counties which favored Gore by more than 100,000 votes is the presence of a major urban city. The second-place county is Cook County, Illinois, otherwise known as Chicago, where Gore surpassed Bush by 746,005 votes. Next come Kings County and New York County, both within New York City, where Gore won by 400,863 votes and 369,379 votes respectively. The fifth-place county is Philadelphia County home to, you guessed it, Philadelphia, where Gore prevailed by 348,223 votes. Other top contenders are Wayne County, Michigan (Detroit); Queens & Bronx Counties New York (more NYC); Alameda County, California (Oakland); Broward County, Florida (Ft. Lauderdale); Middlesex County, Massachusetts; King County, Washington (Seattle); San Franscisco County, California (SF); Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland); Prince George's County, Maryland; Washington DC; Santa Clara County, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Essex County, New Jersey; Palm Beach County, Florida; Nassau County, New York; Suffolk County, Massachusetts (Boston); Montgomery County, Maryland; and Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland).

Taken together, these 23 counties were home in 2000 to 44.2 million people, or 15% of the U.S. population.

By contrast, George W. Bush beat Al Gore by a margin of more than 100,000 votes in only 3 counties. The number one Republican vote-producing county in the entire United States is my home region, Orange County, California, where Bush won by 149,480 votes. Orange County, intriguingly is right next to Los Angeles County, and is also enormous, with a population larger than Iowa. As a native of the place, I can safely report that there is a proud mindset of partisan segregation, with county residents referring to the county line with L.A. as "the Orange Curtain." Second place was Tarrant County, Texas with a Bush margin of 113,163 and third-place was Harris County Texas, where Bush won by 110,892 votes. Harris County is home to Houston and Tarrant is home to Fort Worth, Texas.

Looking at this list, then, it is tempting to guess that Democratic preference is a function of size. But this would be a mistake.

Los Angeles County and Cook County are the largest and second-largest counties in the United States. Harris County is number three. The fourth largest is Maricopa County, Arizona (aka Phoenix), where Bush prevailed by 93,000 votes. Fifth is Orange County, sixth San Diego, both of which favored Bush. Seventh, eighth and ninth largest are Kings County, New York; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and Queens County, New York, each of which favored Gore. Rounding out the top ten is Dallas County, Texas, which plumped for Bush.

So, of the ten largest counties in the United States, 50% broke in favor of Gore and 50% in favor of Bush.

Though the differences in these counties may seem intuitively obvious, we will look at them in more detail later, as we pursue stronger correlations between demographics and voting patterns.

The Nature of Party

I apologize for the light blogging over the past week. I have, however, been hard at work on a question that's been nagging me for some time now... Why party?

Specifically, what is it about one party or another that attracts the allegiance of partisans or voters?

In my own case, I find that I admire the right-moderate side of the Democratic Party and the left-moderate side of the Republican party in roughly equal measure. My own party affiliation is weak, though I am a registered Democrat (for primary voting purposes). I have an "ideal party" for which I'm certain I would always vote, but neither actual party commands such allegiance, and I have voted third-party in both presidential elections which I have been able to vote in.

Both parties are so broad and so vast that it seems much of our thinking about party affiliation in America gets rather mushy and muddle-headed. Party allegiance is real, but it seems it must be based upon abstractions. You often hear comments like, "I would vote for Republicans if only they weren't such racists" or "Democrats could win my vote if they'd only kiss-off the public employee unions."

Meanwhile, loads of evidence demonstrates that the division between Republicans and Democrats signifies a cultural divide more than a political one. We can observe obvious voting trends by demographic groups - men vs. women, blacks vs. whites, college graduates vs. high-school droputs.

Since I have neither the time nor the resources to travel the nation investingating these questions, I've taken the simpler method... analyzing and cross-tabulating the data available for each of the 3138 counties and municipalities of the United States.

So, over the next week or so I'll be trying to share the insights I can glean from this data. Some of it will be oriented towards delineating stark cultural divides which are suggested by disparities in the data. Some of it will be oriented towards projecting electoral dynamics in the upcoming election. And some of it will be oriented towards understanding what, if anything, the relationship between demographic data and political practices might signify.

Friday Horse Race

Not much news on the Tradesports map. The odds have swung back to Bush's favor with the move of Florida from "Weak Kerry" to "Weak Bush". This swings the electoral college, but the overall swing was only a few points. The "George Bush Industrial Average" (the price of a single contract in each of the 50 states) is still declining. It presently stands at 2876 with some ground lost in Nevada, Ohio and Arizona. There were no major movements during the week, however.

Major movements since last week:

• Weak Kerry to Weak Bush - Florida (53.6%)
  
• Strong Bush to Weak Bush - Arkansas (59.9%), Nevada (58%)

If each state has exactly as many voters in 2004 as in 2000, and each state voted according to the trading odds (an outrageous hypothetical, but fun), Kerry would be leading the popular vote by a margin of 4.24%, or 4.4 million votes.

Odds

Bush: Strong - 205; Weak - 69; Total - 274
Kerry: Strong - 224; Weak - 40; Total - 264

On the popular map, a spate of new polls have indicated a shift to the center among the electorate. Two polls in Missouri showed Kerry with a slight lead, his commanding margin dissipated in Florida, and an outlier from Arizona projects Kerry with a one-point lead. Major movers:

• Strong Kerry to Weak Kerry - New Hampshire (+2%)
  
• Weak Bush to Tied - Missouri, Ohio
  
• Strong Bush to Weak Bush - Arizona (+3%)

Polls

Bush: Strong - 182; Weak - 34; Total - 216
Kerry: Strong - 229; Weak - 59; Total - 288
Tied + Delaware: 34

If each candidate were to receive a proportion of votes cast in 2000 equal to their current poll-rating, Kerry would be leading the popular vote by a margin of 1.62%, or 1.6 million votes.

Later today (after 5pm PST) I will update the TradeSports and Averaged Poll data tables (data for averaging available here.

Notes on Ohio

#1 - Demographic changes have favored the Republican Party.

#1A - Based upon census projections, a disproportionate share of population growth has occurred in the last three years in counties that went Republican in 2000, and much of the population decline has been concentrated in Democratic counties.

For example, Delaware County, north of Columbus, went to Bush over Gore by a ratio of 2-1 (36k - 17k). The census estimates that the population of Delaware County had grown by 20.74% between 2000 and 2003. By contrast, Cuyahoga County, where Gore prevailed over Bush by a margin of nearly as much (360k - 190k), the population is estimated to have declined by 2.16%.

Unless demographic changes in Ohio are having a disproportionate impact upon voters of one party over another, Ohio is growing more Republican.

If each county were to deliver its votes, as a proportion of total population, in the same ratio as in the 2000 election, Bush would prevail in 2004 by a wider margin than in 2000 - 184 thousand votes in 2004, as opposed to 165 thousand in 2000. (i.e., Cuyahoga County delivered 359,913 Democratic votes with a population of 1,393,978 (25.82% of total population voted Democratic). If its estimated population is 1,363,888, then we are estimating it would deliver 352,155 votes, or 7,000 fewer than 2000).

#1B - The historical trend likewise favors Republicans. In 1992, Bill Clinton carried 31 of Ohio's 87 counties. In 2000, Gore carried 16. If 2000 represents the "basis" of party affiliation in Ohio (two relatively untested apparent moderates), then we can say that Kerry has a baseline handicap of about 200,000 Ohioans which he will need to persuade (or Bush to alienate) in order to swing Ohio into the Democratic column in 2004.

#1C - Turnout: Taking population without factoring out non-citizens and minors, the proportion of Ohioans who voted in 2000 is 39.97%. The highest turnout rate was in heavily Republican Delaware County (48.89%). The lowest turnout rate was in the sparesly populated but heavily Republican Holmes County (22.65%) in central-NorthWest Ohio. Of the 49 counties which had turnout rates below the statewide average in 2000, 9 were carried by Gore. Of the 37 counties which surpassed the state turnout rate, 7 were carried by Gore.

If just the "underperforming" Democratic counties were to vote in 2004 at the state-wide turnout rate, the projected "Bush handicap" falls from 184,000 votes to 161,000 votes. If just the "overperforming" Republican counties were to vote in 2004 at the state-wide turnout rate, the "Bush handicap" would fall from 184,000 votes to 146,000 votes. Even taken together (relatively depressed turnout in Republican counties and relatively high turnout in Democratic counties) this would not likely sway the election.

Looking at this another way - partisan turnout per county we find that the Democrats would need to boost party turnout by 2% of the population in each county in order to attain a slender winning margin in 2004. Equivalently, Republican turnout would have to fall by 2% of the population per county to likewise turn the advantage to the Democrats. This margin-making difference would be 228,000 persons added to the vote tally by turnout.

This seems to indicate that the hope of boosting turnout to make the difference is naive. It will make some difference, but it is extremely unlikely that it can make enough difference to put Kerry over the top. Ohio is one state in which Kerry cannot hope to prevail without persuading a significant number (100k-200k) of Republican-leaning voters to back the Democratic ticket in 2004.

The Canary in the Coal Mine

A question which constantly preoccupies Americans of a certain stripe is, "if my country went around the totalitarian bend, how would I notice?" I propose a simple empirical test:

If Paul Krugman should ever "disappear," panic.

As long as he's still safely ensconced on the op-ed page of the New York Times, I would say there is little cause for concern.

I'll be Damned

A brezy little article in The New Republic discussing Bush's decision to bring his daughters into his campaign makes frequent references to an allegation I hadn't heard before - that George Bush took off on vacation while his daughter was recovering from an appendectomy.

Sure enough, that did indeed happen:

President-elect Bush, his parents and other family members flew to a Florida vacation spot Tuesday, while one of Bush's twin daughters recovered in a Texas hospital after undergoing an emergency appendectomy. The president-elect's wife, Laura Bush, stayed behind to help care for her daughter.

``She's feeling great,'' Bush said of daughter Jenna, 19. ``My daughter's great,'' he told reporters, joking that if she cannot join the rest of the family in Florida, ``she can clean out her room.''

Wow. What's stranger is the timeline. The article's dated 12/26/2000. The appendix attack occurred the night before:

Jenna Bush was taken to the hospital, a five-minute drive from the mansion, after experiencing abdominal pains Christmas Day.

The president-elect said the family was having lunch at a friend's home when the attack occurred. The family returned to the governor's mansion, where Jenna's pain grew more severe.

Doctors performed surgery to remove the appendix, which is a small, finger-shaped pouch of intestinal tissue.

Now, it's not my place to criticize the family life of someone else. But at least let me remark my surprise that his daughter would be suffering pains which required emergency surgery on Christmas Night and he would be on a plane for vacation the next morning.

Friday Horse Race

UPDATE: Data tables are now current.

Big news on the Tradesports map. For the first time since I've started tracking, the odds favor Kerry in an electoral college majority of states. Confidence in Bush's standing has been dropping steadily and he's lost 10-20% in several states throughout the South.

Major movements since last week:

• Weak Kerry to Strong Kerry - Oregon (38%)
  
• Weak Bush to Weak Kerry - New Hampshire (47%), Florida (49%)
  
• Weak Bush to Strong Bush - West Virginia (64%)
  
• Strong Bush to Weak Bush - Missouri (58%)

Also, a new calcluation - if each state has exactly as many voters in 2004 as in 2000, and each state voted according to the trading odds (an outrageous hypothetical, but fun), Kerry would be leading the popular vote by a margin of 4.25%, or 4.5 million votes.

Odds

Bush: Strong - 216; Weak - 31; Total - 247
Kerry: Strong - 224; Weak - 67; Total - 291

On the popular map, Kerry continued to maintain the electoral lead which began to emerge last week, and several recent polls have indicated he's currently enjoying stronger support in several swing states. Major movers:

• Weak Kerry to Strong Kerry - Washington (+6%), Oregon (+5%), Minnesota (+5%), New Hampshire (+5%), Pennsylvania (+5%)
  
• Tied to Weak Kerry - Wisconsin (+1%)
  
• Strong Bush to Weak Bush - North Carolina (+4%)

We've moved into the mid-month polling slump. There will continue to be changes, but they won't be so dramatic again until the first two weeks of August. Also new, if each candidate were to receive the same percentage as their poll-standings of the votes cast in Election 2000, Kerry would be leading by 1.5%, or 1.5 million votes.

Polls

Bush: Strong - 177; Weak - 70; Total - 247
Kerry: Strong - 243; Weak - 48; Total - 291
Delaware: 3

Later today (after 5pm PST) I will update the TradeSports and Averaged Poll data tables (data for averaging available here.

This is just so wrong

In response to the attempt to pass the Gay Marriage Amendment, a Washington Blogger has been outing the gay staffers of Republican legislators. A typical letter reads as follows:

How can you Gay Person serve as an assistant to Conservative Legislator when you are yourself an openly gay man?

It's an interesting twist on the usual "outing" scenario, because it's taking persons who are already out, and trying to publicize their sexual identity to the widest audience possible. According to this article in Salon, the blogger claims "we don't want to get anyone fired." His only goal is to destroy their credibility (and thereby careers) within the Conservative movement - in one case by exposing an old photo spread done by one of the staffers.

Even if Rogers were right, and he's doing no harm to the careers of those he is exposing, the very question is despicable. People of conscience have to make their own decisions about their choices, methods, and priorities. I am a gay man, and you wouldn't catch me dead crusading for the social conservatives of the Republican Party. But this man's campaign represents the very worst of identity politics. Taken to this extreme, it proudly asserts that the interests of an identity group, transcend the private decisions of conscience.

When one white calls another a "race traitor" for holding the common good above the interests of "the white race," we see him exposed as a racist. When one gay calls another a "gay traitor" for following his consience against the interests of his identity group, it is the same.

These people never took a pledge to support Michael Rogers' politics or to advance Michael Rogers' interests. The man has no moral grounds for undermining their careers.

"Gay" is an adjective, and it is accidental. Some of us realize that gays are united by common challenges and faced with common injustices, and work to advance our common interests. But that is an election - a choice to be made, a calling to be answered. It does not fall upon the Michael Rogers' of this world to punish for their failures those who are unable or unwilling to make those choices and face those challenges.

The Sound of Silence

The Kansas City Star writes, based upon a Knight-Ridder story:

A suicide bomber killed at least 10 people and injured 40 at a busy checkpoint in Baghdad on Wednesday, ending a quiet spell since the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty with a powerful blast outside the new government's compound.

Between July 1, 2004 and July 14 2004, we've lost 21 servicemen in combat. There was a mortar attack upon U.S. troops, a mortar assault on the home of Iyad Allawi, a car bomb in Baquba, a major pipeline attack, an engagement in Ramadi...

I don't bring this up to be doom and glooming. But the lead-in to all the stories of this suicide attack seem to postulate a quiet spell which has now been shattered. Though the news has been receiving less coverage, there hasn't been appreciably less news.

I'm not arguing that they're putting a gloss on the situation or that there's a bias here. Just shocking to here the headlines of the last several days described as a lull. What exactly makes a "quiet period" quiet?

Miscellany

There's an interesting article over at Salon on Fahrenheit 9/11. The author took a group of infantrymen stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia to see the film and get their feedback. Their response? They hated it. And have some pretty insightful reasons on why. It's worth reading... or rather, page 3 is worth reading. You have my permission to skip pages one and two... nothing much there...

I saw Spiderman 2 last night. I really enjoyed it. Personally, I'd like to see more serials in the world of film. It always mystifies me that ideas as uneven as Star Trek or James Bond manage such serial success, while such a perfect serial genre - the comic book - seems to yield consistently good movies with so much less success. As long as Sam Raimi stays on the job, the promise is high (maybe it's his experience with television serials that gives him such a good ear for it). Let us give thanks that he didn't make the Burton mistake and try to throw the entire kitchen sink into the sequel.

War isn't an apt metaphor

A reader offers a response to the possible postponing an election:

One hundred and fourty years ago the Union held a bitterly fought election in the middle of the Civil War and survived. They had anti-war Democrats wanting peace at any price and the Republicans telling the folks to hang tough. Sound familar?

Now someone is saying that we would be incapable of holding an election because of some terrorist incident that could only seem trivial compared to that war. Come on, let's give the American people some credit!

The notable difference is that the Civil War battles didn't occur within cities upon election day. Same with all the other wars America has faced. How feasible would it have been to hold elections in a city that was suffering aerial bombardment on the day of the election? 9/11 forced the evacuation of several cities (San Francisco, where I would otherwise have been working, for one). The evacuation of cities would skew elections far beyond it's impact on people's decisions about who to vote for. The need to evacuate a city would prevent people from voting, and thereby skew the results. Given the concentration of Americans in really dense cities, such an infringement would be far from trivial. Cities on the scale of Chicago or New York have more people in them than some entire states.

The time to figure out how to give people deprived by a terrorist strike the opportunity to vote would not be after the strike with the outcome of a national election hanging in the balance.

Postponing an Election

I haven't yet read the original Newsweek article about the possible need to postpone a federal election in the event of a terrorist attack. I have read several articles and much commentary on it. Much of the sentiment is best epitomized by the quote from Nancy Pelosi in this Washington Times article: "Instead of focusing on changing the date of the election, the Department of Homeland Security should focus on reducing the risk of an attack."

I find the idea of mucking around with elections to be a very grave matter and I absolutely reject any suggestion that this authority should be vested in a single individual or outlined with ambiguity. But I can't personally dismiss the suggestion out of hand.

Much of the criticism of the inquiry trivializes the seriousness of the issue at the core of the suggestion. The U.S. Constitution prescribes the following:
Art. II §1 Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

If a catastrophic attack were to befall a major U.S. city on an election day, necessitating an evacuation, what would happen to the results of the election? Two major states of America, Illinois and New York, possess a conservative hinterland and large predominately liberal cities. Elections in Missouri, Florida, Washington, or Oregon could easily be swung by evacuations of Saint Louis, Miami, Seattle, or Portland. What would be the just response to such a scenario?

Suspend the elections within the state for the day and hold it again later? Would it be conscionable for the election outcome to hinge on a belated retry of New York state's election? Would it be conscionable to decide an election based upon partial returns reflecting only the regions of a state which would not be materially impacted by a major attack? Would it be appropriate to have a national "do-over"?

This isn't an issue to be resolved lightly. It's hard to imagine a second assault on the scale of the one we've already experienced. But it is no longer inconceivable.

This is an issue that all Americans of all affiliations should actually take quite seriously. To some extent, it seems absurd that it's only hit the public discourse today... though I confess I've never seriously considered it myself before now.

Based on what I've heard so far, too many aren't weighing the issues with the gravity that it should demand. It's easy to make a conspiratorial assertion that the very notion is a power-grab by the Bush Administration or to take comfort in the platitude that terrorists cannot disrupt our democratic process. It's easy to give the non-answer of Nancy Pelosi that we should just ensure it never happens.

Such responses strike me as inadequate. I can't pretend to have a ready answer to this question. Whatever answer would be proposed would need to have strong safeguards against abuse. But I can't take this issue so lightly as some seem to.

To give some heft to the discourse I'm talking about, here's a snarky example from a journalist I respect - Josuah Micah Marshall:

There certainly is an unseemly eagerness on the part of the White House to canvass ideas (embodied in legislation) for a possible delay of the November election in the event of a terrorist attack, as this and other articles explain. The rationale is that we need to have some policy in place for a possible election postponement before some precipitating event actually occurs. But my understanding is that we already have a policy in place on postponements: i.e., we don't do them.

Added to my suspicion is the increasingly common refrain from the White House that the Madrid bombing was responsible for Spanish 'appeasement' in Iraq and the obvious subtext that the answer to any future terrorist attack would be to 'not give in', i.e. reelect President Bush.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly is on target in this discussion. He's got readers too, so you can get a good cross-section of responses on this topic:

What's intriguing, though, is that the paranoia is so thick that no one is bothering to talk about whether this is a good idea on a substantive level. Should a nationwide election be cancelled in the event of a major terrorist attack? And if so, should a federal commission be allowed to make the call?

Only if they wash their hands after.

From the California Medical Board FAQ:

Are medical assistants allowed to perform nasal smears?

Yes. Only if the procedure is limited to the opening of the nasal cavity.

Are medical assistants permitted to perform "finger sticks"?

Yes.

Challenged on Fact

That's just something I can't let slide. Either I'm wrong, in which case as an honorable man I must concede, or I'm not, in which case I must demonstrate it. A reader objects to my assumption that San Diego is liberal below:

San Diego is not Dem territory. Count the D/R districts in the county and the pop. of those districts. SD County would be two more R senators to balance MA or CT

In Election 2000:
George Bush prevailed over Al Gore in San Diego County by a margin of 4%.
Dianne Feinstein prevailed over Tom Campbell by a margin of 11%.
San Diego sent 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats to the House of Representatives.
It sent 1 Dem and 1 Rep to the State Senate
It sent 5 Republicans and 3 Democrats to the State Assembly.

In Election 2002:
Bill Simon prevailed over Gray Davis by a margin of 11%.
3 Republicans, 2 Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives.
2 Republicans, 1 Democrat to the State Senate.
6 Republicans, 2 Democrats to the State Assembly.
6 Republicans, 0 Democrats for statewide executive offices (Lt. Gov., Controller, etc.)

Also, based on current registration there are 470,000 registered Democrats and 560,000 registered Republicans in the County of San Diego.

In sum, I was wrong, and I hereby retract the charge that San Diego is liberal. It seems that it has grown more conservative in the last 4 years, so it's possible at least that my memory has simply lagged behind the facts. I also grew up in Orange County, which made the entire state look like an undifferentiated land of hippies, so maybe I just had the wrong impression about San Diego County.

Most likely, however, I just spouted off an assumption without fact-checking it first, and thus made an error. So, I'm wrong, Anonymous is right, San Diego is not a liberal county.

Skewered

Hello to all the visitors from Slate's Fray. Ordinarily this blog sees a visitor every hour or two, but they've been rolling in at a rate of almost one per minute for the last twenty-four hours. I've gotten a lot of feedback from readers, and would like to take a moment to address one common refrain about the "dissolution" idea of California.

Several readers have noted that such a change would probably likely sway the country rightwards. This is true. Largely due to the liberalism of the major cities (San Diego, Los Angeles, the Bay Area), California is now a reliably liberal state... though if it had a decent Republican party my guess is that the entire state would be more consistently conservative than many realize.

So, the charge is likely true, but I disagree with the few who have expressed dismay at such a prospect. Orange County is a very conservative place, and has more people than the state of Iowa. This may or may not be an outrage, but it is manifestly unfair. Forcing Orange County to deliver its five electoral votes (5 Representatives) to the Democrats in an election is numerically equivalent to making Nebraska allocate its electoral votes based on the results of an election in Chicago.

If you trust the American system more than one party or another, such an outcome shouldn't be something to be afraid of. California's electoral situation wasn't created by design, and I'm not calling it an outrage. But, when judging the situation, it's important to keep in mind that American democracy is more important than partisan advantage.

It would be the easiest thing in the world to tinker with the electoral system so that it always yields results that you agree with. Having a partisan affiliation, I'm no more immune to such thoughts than anybody else. But that manner of thinking is an anti-democratic vice that shouldn't be indulged. It's as wrong to me to disenfranchise 2 million California Republicans every four years as it is to disenfranchise 1/3 of Florida's black men for life...

Troubling Article

USA Today:

Counterterrorism officials are looking into the possibility of postponing the November presidential election if there is a terrorist attack at election time, Newsweek reported Sunday.

Newsweek said DeForest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government power to cancel or reschedule a federal election. Soaries said New York suspended primary elections on the day of the Sept. 11 attacks, but the federal government does not appear to have that authority.

If this is truly under consideration, I'm not sure how they could do it in a way that protects against political meddling. Who would make the determination that an election needed to be suspended in mid-day and on what grounds? What would happen to votes already cast? Though I can imagine circumstances where this would be necessary and even a good idea, I'm not sure it'd be possible to write a law with tamper-proof safeguards that was flexible enough to be of use.

Foreign Affairs

Two noteworthy articles in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. One noteworthy for its substance, the other for its vacuity.

The more interesting article is called Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked by George Lopez and David Cortright. They point out that lost in all the brouhaha over the question of whether it was reasonable to believe Saddam had WMD is the simple observation that, whatever else may have been the case, we now know for certain that sanctions were actually working effectively. I was a critic of sanctions, and though I didn't think that this war at this time was a wise idea, it did seem to me impossible for the status quo to last for much longer. But given limited resources and what we now know about the costs of regime change and the effectiveness of sanctions, I'm willing to give their argument (that the sanctions regime points to a cost-effective approach to anti-proliferation) a second look. Money grafs:

...[M]issing from the discussion is an equally important question: What went right with U.S. policy toward Iraq between 1990 and 2003? On the way to their misjudgments, it now appears, intelligence agencies and policymakers disregarded considerable evidence of the destruction and deterioriation of Iraq's weapons programs, the result of a successful strategy of containment in place for a dozen years.
...
The adoption of "smart" sanctions in Iraq was a diplomatic triumph for the Bush administration. It was followed a few months later by Iraq's acceptance of renewed inspections and Security Council approval of a tougher monitoring regime in Resolution 1441. Indeed, the Bush administration spent its first two years methodically and effectively rebuilding an international consensus behind containment. By the fall of 2002, it has constructed the core elements of an effective long-term containment system - only to discard this achievement in favor of war.

I'm not prepared to endorse the argument of the article, but it's certainly compelling and provocative.

The other article of note is Chuck Hagel's A Republican Foreign Policy. He lays out seven "principles" for Republican foreign policy, but several seem freighted with empty notions. The seven core principles, taken literally read as follows:

1. [T]he United States must remain committed to leadership in the global economy.
   
2. U.S. foreign policy cannot ignore global energy security.
   
3. The United States' long-term security interests are connected to alliances, coalitions, and international institutions.
   
4. [T]he United States must continue to support democratic and economic reform, especially in the greater Middle East.
   
5. [T]he western hemisphere must be moved to the front burner of U.S. foreign policy.
   
6. [T]he United States must work with its allies to combat poverty and the spread of disease worldwide.
   
7. [T]he importance of strong and imaginative public diplomacy.

It's hard to object to any of these, but Hagel is frustratingly vague on evaluating where we presently stand and how we might measure any progress towards realizing any of these principles. Take principle number 3. The follow-up only asserts how important the U.N. and NATO are. There is no mention of whether we are truly alienated from these allies by Bush's actions or not, and all of Hagel's prescriptions are phrased in a curiously passive voice. He writes: "At times the United States can and must lead, but it would be wise to share the authority for - as well as the burdens, costs, and risks of - such operations with others." Well and good, but no mention is made of how the US might persuade the UN to recognize common goals and interests.

At other instances, the discussion lapses into the truly empty: "The relationship with Mexico, in particular, is as critical as any in U.S. foreign policy." Generally, when something is "critical" we think it is a priority, and thus, it is more critical than "any" other relationship. Perhaps something is co-equal with another critical priority... but then we can state "Mexico is as critical as China." Hagel doesn't state this. He just tells us Mexico's population and the length of its border.

Overall, I'd say the article is disappointingly slippery. It offers little clear-eyed insight into the successes or shortcomings of the current Administration's foreign policy, and without grounding its recommendations in a disciplined analysis of the present state of affairs, it ends up sounding like a long string of cliches and platitudes ("Public diplomacy initiatives require strategic direction.") Certainly I hope our entire foreign policy establishment isn't thinking in such muddle-headed terms...

Reimagining Federalism

I've long toyed with the notion of California seceding from the Union. Don't get me wrong, I really really love my country. But California is far and away its best part.

A friend recently groused to me how unfair it was under the federal system that the state of California had more people than the smallest 22 states combined. Any Californian can list the litany of woes this situation creates (from the electoral college to the Senate to the net transfer of billions of dollars annually out-of-state).

But it occurred to me today, why secession? Why not dissolution? In fact, I liked this idea so much that I've spent some time redrawing the state of California as several smaller states each of which had to be larger than Wyoming, and preferably would be larger than Vermont.

I was able to break the state into 23 new states, ranging in size from 9.8 million (the state of Los Angeles, which would be the 8th largest state in the new Union (between Michigan and Georgia)) all the way down to 609,313 (the state of Monterey/San Benito/Kings, which would be in between Vermont and DC and still larger than Wyoming, the smallest state). This would have the fortunate effect of giving California 46 Senators, and would allow California to more accurately represent the diversity of political opinions held throughout the state.



Here is a list of your new Union, with California broken up into reasonable sizes:

STATE	POPULATION
Texas	22,118,509
New York	19,190,115
Florida	17,019,068
Illinois	12,653,544
Pennsylvania	12,365,455
Ohio	11,435,798
Michigan	10,079,985
Los Angeles	9,871,506
Georgia	8,684,715
New Jersey	8,638,396
North Carolina	8,407,248
Virginia	7,386,330
Massachusetts	6,433,422
Indiana	6,195,643
Washington	6,131,445
Tennessee	5,841,748
Missouri	5,704,484
Arizona	5,580,811
Maryland	5,508,909
Wisconsin	5,472,299
Minnesota	5,059,375
Colorado	4,550,688
Alabama	4,500,752
Louisiana	4,496,334
South Carolina	4,147,152
Kentucky	4,117,827
Oregon	3,559,596
Oklahoma	3,511,532
Connecticut	3,483,372
Orange	2,957,766
Iowa	2,944,062
San Diego	2,930,886
Mississippi	2,881,281
Arkansas	2,725,714
Kansas	2,723,507
Utah	2,351,467
Nevada	2,241,154
Riverside/Imperial	1,931,882
New Mexico	1,874,614
San Bernadino	1,859,678
West Virginia	1,810,354
Nebraska	1,739,291
Santa Clara	1,678,421
Alameda	1,461,030
Idaho	1,366,332
Sacramento	1,330,711
Maine	1,305,728
New Hampshire	1,287,687
Hawaii	1,257,608
Rhode Island	1,076,164
Contra Costa	1,001,136
Santa Cruz/San Mateo	949,040
Solano/Napa/Yolo/Mendocino/Lake/Glenn/Colusa	925,646
Montana	917,621
Fresno	830,325
Delaware	817,491
Ventura	791,130
South Dakota	764,309
San Francisco	751,682
Merced/Stanislaus	723,807
Plumas/Lassen/Modoc- Siskiyou/Shasta/Butte- Tehama/Trinity/Del Norte- Humboldt	723,663
San Joaquin/Calaveras/Amador	714,566
Kern	713,087
Marin/Sonoma	712,798
El Dorado/Yuba/Sutter/Placer/Nevada/Sierra	708,793
San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara	656,252
Alaska	648,818
North Dakota	633,837
Tulare/Inyo/Mon/Alpine/Madera/Mariposa/Tuolumne	631,335
Vermont	619,107
Monterey/San Benito/Kings	609,313
District of Columbia	563,384
Wyoming	501,242

Here is a map with the names of the counties outlined.

Friday Horse Race - UPDATED

UPDATE: - Several polls came out this afternoon. Since the tablemaker is here at home, I had to update my data and found the results are now significantly different than earlier today.

Over the week, we saw a sharp dip in Bush's odds ratings in several previously strong southern states. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee have each dropped into the 80% range. However, the only substantive changes were the movement of New Mexico from exactly tied to "weak kerry" and of Iowa from "weak kerry" to "strong kerry".

Odds

Bush: Strong - 222; Weak - 56; Total - 278
Kerry: Strong - 217; Weak - 43; Total - 260

On the popular map I've switched back to DC Political Reports from the LA Times because the LA Times simply wasn't updating their allegedly "most recent" polls, and thus were rapidly falling to the back of the sample herd. Since they were supposed to reflect the most recent poll, that was unacceptable. Also, though DC requires a subscription for detailed results, they do give the poll numbers if you mouse over a state long enough (thanks to k for pointing that out!) This was a busy week in polling, with Rasmussen planning to release over 20 states in the two week period. There has been some serious shifting of the maps.

West Virginia, and Ohio have shifted from "tied" to "weak bush." Pennsylvania has shifted from "tied" to "weak Kerry."

Wisconsin shifted from "weak bush" to tied. Florida have shifted from "weak bush" to "weak kerry." New Mexico shifted from "weak bush" to "stron Kerry".

Maine and Iowa have shifted from "strong kerry" to "weak kerry."

As it stands, Kerry is now leading the electoral college in the average of polls by a slender margin. It should be noted that some of this gain has to do with the very conservative results of FOX News getting cycled out, but that ARG, which polled New Mexico generally produces more conservative leaning polls than the other outfits.

Polls

Bush: Strong - 192; Weak - 55; Total - 247
Kerry: Strong - 187; Weak - 91; Total - 278
Tied (+Delaware): 13

Later today (after 5pm PST) I will update the TradeSports and Averaged Poll data tables (data for averaging available here.

Driving Miss Dopey

Interesting study from British researchers on the influence of cannabis upon driving. The methodology:

The research attempted to address these objectives using experienced cannabis users carrying out a variety of laboratory-based tasks and driving in a driving simulator under four cannabis conditions: placebo; low THC; high THC; and cannabis resin. The placebo, low and high dose THC conditions used herbal cannabis (‘grass’) cigarettes supplied by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), while the cannabis resin condition used cannabis supplied by Customs and Excise from seized supplies.

And the findings? Drumroll please...

The results of the driving related laboratory tests conducted in general did not produce statistically significant results. Although reaction times were found to increase with dose level, there was too much variability in the data for statistical significance. This suggests that there may be an effect on the reaction time of participants responding to hazards, but it is quite a small effect which would require a much larger sample to determine whether or not it was statistically significant. This again confirms earlier observations of the effects of cannabis on the various aspects of driver performance; the effect on reaction time being somewhat difficult to predict.
...
Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psycho-motor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.
In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects on various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.

TNR's Piece on Pakistan

Before continuing, I strongly recommend you read this article over at TNR.

The allegations of this article are significantly distressing. Most specifically:

What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] H[ighV[alue]T[arget] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

This charge is so outrageous, I have trouble believing it, even in the case of Bush - a man who has consistently lowered the bar of plausibility when it comes to scandalous abuses of office. However, I consider Spencer Ackerman a reliable source, so let's take a quick look at the various pillars of the story's credibility. First, the reporters:

• Spencer Ackerman - A liberal, editor at the TNR, and a hawk. Was in favor of the Iraq War, and started his blog Iraq'd when he felt that Bush had fucked up an otherwise noble venture. I give him props for pegging Allawi early as a potential autocrat in the making (scroll to 5/29, "Zipless Coup")
  
• John Judis - I don't know too much about Judis, but I consider him a bit of a goofball on the grounds of what others have said of his book The Emerging Democratic Majority co-authored with Ruy Tuxeira. I'd have to read it before I could say more, but I get the sense that he sees demographics as the forecaster of Democratic Party ascendance, which strikes me as reading political preference backwards... parties evolve to suit demographics, not the other way around.
  
• Massoud Ansari - I know nothing about him.
  

Now, the major sources of the article are ISI agents. There is no corroboration from current American officials (go figure), and it's important to take their testimony with a grain of salt. It is unlikely that the Pakistani intelligence services are the first not to have a disinformation/psy-ops unit, and it's possible that their snowing the journalists to advance some ulterior motives. It seems possible that Pakistan could have a motivation to swing the upcoming U.S. election results. It's also possible that this information could be used to sweat the Administration for some kind of political favor (say F-16's?). I'm not saying the story should be disbelieved, but it is important to at least bear in mind the possible profit that the "leakers" could see from this story...

Also, I would suspect that "Anonymous" (CIA Agent Michael Scheuer) could be the man behind the curtain in this story. He has been a source of Ackerman's in the recent past and it seems quite possible that he could have set up the journalists with their sources. It's foolish to speculate upon his possible motives for doing so, but I'm a fool. A disgruntled retiring CIA agent could conceivably be motivated by animus, or again by a political agenda. Again, I'm not saying that the presence of such motives should be taken as automatically discrediting the story. But they should at least go into the skeptical appraisal of the story's claims.

American Civilians

An anonymous respondent to my post on flag etiquette writes:
If military personnel are required to salute a foreign national anthem, affordint it the same respect as their own, then it stands to reason that civilians should do likewise.

This is a common misconception. In a nation where the people are sovereign, every American is in effect a "king"... an embodied fragment of the national sovereignty. Those who join the military perform a vital service, but by entering "the ranks" they are assigned a rank that civilians don't have. Every civilian effectively "outranks" every military soldier and thus no civilian is expected to follow military protocol.

According to the US Military:

Salutes are not required when—

• Indoors, except when reporting to an officer or when on duty as a guard.
  
• Addressing a prisoner.
  
• Saluting is obviously inappropriate. In these cases, only greetings are exchanged.
  
• Either the senior or the subordinate is wearing civilian clothes.

The flag code and military code often note the difference of protocols required for civilians and for the military. In the American system rank among civilians is explicitly repudiated by the Constitution. Thus, it is inappropriate for civilians to follow the same standards of protocol as the military.

Stratford High School

The school's principal defends the dramatic sweep, caught on the school's surveillance tape. Police came into the school with guns at the ready, ordered all students to lie on the floor and then handcuffed anyone who apparently didn't comply quickly enough.

"We received reports from staff members and students that there was a lot of drug activity. Recently we busted a student for having over 300 plus prescription pills. The volume and the amount of marijuana coming into the school is unacceptable," said principal George McCrackin.

Police didn't find any criminals in the armed sweep, but they say K-9 dogs smelled drugs on a dozen backpacks. Goose Creek police and school administrators defend the draconian measures as necessary for crime prevention.

The parents of some students who were subjected to the sweep disagree.

"I was just upset knowing they had guns put to their head and a K9 was barking at them and about to bite somebody. It was awful," parent Latonia Simmons told WCSC.

Nov. 2003

I Love Nixon

In a non-penetrating kind of way, of course.

Ever wonder what kind of deep policy discussions are taking place behind the curtains?

May 13, 1971, between 10:30am and 12:30pm -- Oval Office
Conversation 498-5-- meeting with Nixon, Haldeman and Ehrlichman

[The President and his advisors were discussing a recent episode
of "All in the Family," a television show on CBS. President Nixon
was offended by the show's favorable treatment of homosexuals.]

R[ichard]N[ixon]: "But, nevertheless, the point that I make is that God damn
it, I do not think that you glorify on public television
homosexuality. The reason you don't glorify it John anymore than
you glorify, uh, uh, uh, whores. Now we all know people who have
whores and we all know that people are just, uh, do that, we all
have weaknesses and so forth and so on, but God damn it, what do
you think that does to kids? What do you think that does to 11
and 12 year old boys when they see that? Why is it that the
Scouts, the, why is it that the Boys Clubs, we were there, we
constantly had to clean up the staffs to keep the Goddamned fags
out of it. Because, not because of them, they can go out and do
anything they damn please, [unintelligible] all those kids? You
know, there's a little tendency among them all. Well by God can I
tell you it outraged me. Not for any moral reason. Most people
are outraged for moral reasons, I, it outraged me because I don't
want to see this country go that way. You know there are
countries -- You ever see what happened, you know what happened
to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was
a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates."

JE: "He never had the influence that television had."

RN: "Do you know what happened to the Romes, Romans? The last six
Roman emperors were fags. The last six. Nero had a public wedding
to a boy. Yeah. And they'd [unintelligible]. You know that. You
know what happened to the Popes? It's all right that, po-po-Popes
were laying the nuns, that's been going on for years, centuries,
but, when the popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell, in, I
don't know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual. And
finally it had to be cleaned out. Now, that's what's happened to
Britain, it happened earlier to France. And let's look at the
strong societies. The Russians. God damn it, they root them out,
they don't let them around at all. You know what I mean? I don't
know what they do with them. Now, we are allowing this in this
country when we show [unintelligible]. Dope? Do you think the
Russians allow dope? Hell no. Not if they can allow, not if they
can catch it, they send them up. You see, homosexuality, dope,
immorality in general: These are the enemies of strong societies.
That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the
stuff, they're trying to destroy us."

Unknown: "Sure, sure. Yep."

RN: "And I don't know, I, we talk oh and I and Moynihan will
disagree with this, Mitchell disagree with this, [unintelligible]
will and all the rest. But God damn it, we have got to stand up
to these people."

May 26, 1971, Time: 10:03 am - 11:35 am -- Oval Office
Conversation: 505-4 -- Meeting with Nixon and HR 'Bob' Haldeman

RN: "Now, this is one thing I want. I want a Goddamn strong
statement on marijuana. Can I get that out of this
sonofabitching, uh, Domestic Council?"

HRH: "Sure."

RN: "I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them.
I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it.
You know it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are
out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the
matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I
suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists, you know,
there's so many, all the greatest psychiatrists are Jewish. By
God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it
right square in the puss, I want to find a way of putting more on
that. More [ unintelligible ] work with somebody else with this."

HRH: "Mm hmm, yep."

RN: "I want to hit it, against legalizing and all that sort of
thing."

June 2, 1971, Time: 3:16 pm - 4:15 pm -- Oval Office Conv. 510-3
-- Nixon met with John Ehrlichman

RN: "I know. Well, you know I suppose they could say that,
alcoholics don't think straight too, can't they?"

AL: "Yes. [unintelligible] Really. But, but another big
difference between marijuana and alcohol is that when people s-
smoke marijuana, they smoke it to get high. In every case, when
most people drink, they drink to be sociable. You don't see
people --"

RN: "That's right, that's right."

AL: "They sit down with a marijuana cigarette to get high --"

RN: "A person does not drink to get drunk."

AL: "That's right."

RN: "A person drinks to have fun."

AL: "I'd say smoke marijuana, you smoke marijuana to get high."

RN: "Smoke marijuana, er, uh, you want to get a charge --"

AL: "Right now --"

RN: "-- of some sort, you want to get a charge, and float, and
this and that and the other thing."

March 24, 1972, 3:02 pm - 3:39 pm -- Oval Office Conversation No.
693-1 -- press conference

Unknown reporter: "Mr. President, uh, do you have a comment sir
on the, uh, recommendation of your commission on drugs that the
use of marijuana in the home be, uh, no longer, uh, considered a
crime?"

RN: "Um, I met with Mr. Shafer, uh, I've read the report, uh, eh,
it is a report that deserves consideration and will receive it.
However, as to one aspect of the report I am in disagreement. I
was before I read it and reading it did not change my mind. Uh,
I, uh, oppose the legalization of marijuana, and that includes
the sale, its possession, and its use. I do not believe you can
have effective criminal justice, uh, based on the philosophy, uh
that something is half legal and half illegal. That is my
position, despite what the commission has recommended."

March 21, 1972, 1:00 pm - 2:15 pm -- Oval Office Conversation No.
690-11 -- in this segment, the President is meeting with H. R.
("Bob") Haldeman.

RN: "Well. Here's the thing to say, there's ways to handle it,
just, just kick the hell out of it. We enforce the law--"

HRH: "The way to talk, the thing to talk about, [unintelligible]
all the Jaffe crap is not the stuff to talk about. I mean-- "

RN: "That's what they hit me with [unintelligible]. Remember what
I said."

HRH: "I know."

RN: "You got to kick [unintelligible] when I got out there and I
didn't do it. I, but what gets, who cares about the Jaffe stuff,
the treating of the addicts."

HRH: "The mothers don't, because their kids aren't addicts. And
they're, eh, you just don't worry about that, what you worry
about is this son of a bitch that's going to come up --"

RN: "That's right."

HRH: "-- and try to slip a packet of marijuana to your kid."

RN: "Or, heroin."

HRH: "Or heroin."

RN: "Give them a fix. Or LSD, or something--"

HRH: "Or LSD, or slip something in his Coca-Cola."

RN: "Yeah. Right."

HRH: "That's what you worry about, you're not worried about
addicts. Nobody knows an addict, but everybody knows a kid who's
been smoking marijuana."

RN: "Bob, the truth's, people are not concerned about anybody but
themselves."

HRH: "Exactly."

RN: "They're not concerned about the other kids whose, uh--"

HRH: "Well kids aren't addicts anyway, I mean nobody, there
aren't enough addicts, addicted kids, to matter."

RN: "[unintelligible]. This is a typical thing, it's like the, a
black kid, [unintelligible], uh, everybody used, uh, you know
it's like old Jim Rhodes, he said, of course he's a typical
[unintelligible], I mean, 1960s something like, [unintelligible],
he said, you know he says all these people you know,
[unintelligible], they come down here, these people, three or
four hundred of them, they're picketing around, they're talking
to legislators and to press, he, he said [unintelligible] he
said, eh, mental health centers and all the other,
[unintelligible], he says, I didn't take the money,
[unintelligible] I just turned it down, and they gave the money
to the niggers."

HRH: "He's right, there's a hell of a lot more niggers than you
can buy them off."

RN: "He is [unintelligible, both RN and HRH speak at same time].

HRH: "Jobs, get them off the streets so they aren't killing
people."

RN: "Now we all know that mental institutions are a horrible
thing, I mean, we see, you know, people in them, I visited them,
just tears your heart."

HRH: "Oh there's no question."

RN: "But god damn it, why do we have a bunch of psychiatrists
sitting around, making people who are not mental cases, mental
cases? You know, psychiatry is a God damned racket."

HRH: "Yeah."

RN: "In my opinion, there are some that are important and
necessary, but most, most people would do a hell of a lot better
with a preacher than a psychiatrist."

HRH: "Pretty weird, some of them."

RN: "Oh sure."

HRH: "Uh, there's just, there's no question on the drug side
that, that stopping the supply is important because people know
if there isn't any, then nobody can buy it."

RN: "They like this stuff about the Turks."

HRH: "And that's good. And the other thing is getting the God
damned pushers."

RN: "Oh they want --"

HRH: "--and they'd like to frankly hang them. And then education,
educating the kids, they talk about that, but that, that's a
tough one to peddle, you know. You can educate the hell out of
them but it just--"

RN: "Educate them, shit."

HRH: "--doesn't get anywhere."

RN: "That's right. Enforce the law, you've got to scare them.
[unintelligible]."

HRH: "That's exactly it."

RN: "Right."

HRH: "But mostly the pushers. Let's get the guy that's peddling
it rather than the children, [unintelligible] the kid that,
that's got [unintelligible]. Because kids will try anything that
comes their way."

RN: "Yeah. Drug use, [unintelligible] our best, but let's think
about, about just doing a, the next speech on the damn thing. I
believe [unintelligible]. You know. But it's like why am I
against legalizing marijuana."

HRH: "Was talking about it last night, John was saying I wonder
what would happen if we did a drug thing every week, and I said I
thought that's what you were supposed to have been doing a year
and a half or two years ago, that's, that was our plan--"

RN: "Yeah."

HRH: "--just do a drug thing every week. Hit something hard every
week on, on something that we're doing on drugs. That doesn't
mean the President going out and selling, it's marijuana--"

RN: "[unintelligible] won't pay attention unless I do it."

HRH: "Oh I'm not so sure."