Democracy and Ukraine

The greatest test of a nascent democracy is the response of a governing party when it loses. The strongest statement of the success of American democracy is images of George H.W. Bush sitting as a guest of honor at Bill Clinton's inauguration, of Al Gore sitting in a place of honor at George W. Bush's inauguration. American democracy passes the test time and time again, because the governing party gracefully acquiesces to the will of the people and accepts their verdict.

News out of Ukraine this past week tells the opposite story, much like news out of Yugoslavia a few years ago. The governing party, facing defeat at the polls, rigs the process to have themselves declared the winner rather than accepting the people's choice. This situation is a blight on the development of democracy in the former Soviet Union. Let us hope it can be resolved peacefully, as happened ultimately in Yugoslavia, and not degrade into civil war as some alarmist observers have predicted.

Ricky Williams' Return

Yahoo columnist Charles Robinson makes this astute comment about the latest round of "Ricky Williams is RETURNING!!!" hype and hooplah:

Most mystifying about this whole affair is the depth and volume to which Williams' possible return has been trumpeted. When we consider the realities of Ricky Williams the NFL player, it pales when placed against Ricky Williams the "idea." He's the player who gets more attractive the further he drifts into the distance.

In five seasons, Williams was named to the Pro Bowl once. That was his banner 2002 campaign, when he ran for 1,853 yards and scored 17 total touchdowns. The other four seasons, he never averaged more than four yards per rushing attempt. He never ran for double-digit touchdowns in any other season. His final year, he grinded through 3.5 yards per carry, and in the lone playoff game of his career, he carried the ball six times for 14 yards.

Now mix those rewards with all the weirdness, aloof nature and occasional fumbling problems. It's not like this was Jim Brown-cutting-short-something epic.

NFL Week 12 Predictions

With the short week, I have had little time to savor my best week of the season, an astounding 14-2 with picks. Ah. But I have to move on, so

Onto this week.

Colts @ Lions
The Manning onslaught rolls on against a weak Lion defense. Detroit fans will have a hard time downing their turkeys after this one. Eat early. Prediction: Colts.

Bears @ Cowboys
The Bears have a pretty good defense under Lovie Smith, something the Cowboys can't even dream of right now. With Drew Henson likely the starter, Dallas will have exactly one weapon on offense: Julius Jones. It won't be anywhere near enough. Prediction: Bears.

Bucs @ Panthers
The Panthers have put up some offense the last two weeks. But the Buc defense will slow them down. Prediction: Bucs.

Browns @ Bengals
I'll repeat what I've said for several weeks, the Bengals have turned a corner with Palmer and are starting to play well. Too late for this season, as I predicted, but things are looking good for next year in a surprisingly competitive AFC North. Prediction: Bengals.

Titans @ Texans
Despite the disappointment of last week, Houston is still the better team with the better offense. Prediction: Texans.

Chargers @ Chiefs
We all knew this game would feature one of the most explosive offenses in the league. Who knew it would belong to San Diego. Prediction: Chargers.

Jaguars @ Vikings
This will be a test game for the Vikings. They rallied to beat an NFC-average Lion team. But can they handle one of the better AFC teams? Are they really out of their funk? With Leftwich making his return, the Jag offense will challenge the so-bad-they-don't-have-an-adjective Viking defense. The Jags still aren't a high-power offense in terms of touchdowns. Leftwich puts up good yardage, and will again this week with the so-called Viking defense, but not too many touchdowns. Worse, he has almost as many interceptions as touchdowns, and if there's one element in the Viking version of defense that actually looks like it belongs in the NFL its their secondary. Prediction: Vikings.

Eagles @ Giants
Eli's baptism of fire continues. Prediction: Eagles.

Redskins @ Steelers
Against the relentless Pittsburgh blitz, will the Redskins even score? Prediction: Steelers.

Saints @ Falcons
Is New Orleans even trying anymore? Prediction: Falcons.

Ravens @ Patriots
I've been saying the Patriot weakness is defending against the run. With their beatup secondary, the problem is actually defending the outside by the secondary. The Chiefs dropped at least one big pass play to the outside against one of the backups, on a play much like their first touchdown (Patriot defender caught looking inside, allowing Chief receiver to the outside, having to jump to drop to bat an arching pass from Green.) There was also a potential touchdown pass up the middle, where the receiver beat double coverage and Green hit him right on the pads. Problem is it was the pads, not the hands. For this week, the Ravens, though Boller is improving, is not such a challenge to the Patriot secondary. Prediction: Patriots.

Jets @ Cardinals
With McCown's surprise benching last week, the Cardinals fell apart. That's not necessarily surprising. After a surprise cut of Lawyer Milloy last year, the Patriots came out and got blown out by the Bills to start the 2003 season. We remember how that turned out. Of course, the Cards are not the Patriots. Can they respond and get back to playing like they were? Against the Jets, I don't think so. Prediction: Jets.

Dolphins @ 39ers
(For an explanation of 39ers, see last week's predictions.) The battle for the worst team in the league and next year's first draft pick. Who is worse? Miami. Prediction: 39ers.

Bills @ Seahawks
With Buffalo rediscovering the joy of first downs and touchdowns, this game should be a surprising test for Seattle. The Bills bring a solid running game and strong defense. Bledsoe proved last week he still knows a thing or two about throwing a pass, too. Against this, the wavering Seahawks will again start Trent Dilfer at quarterback. I smell an upset. Prediction: Bills.

Raiders @ Broncos
The tradition of this rivalry always makes for a compelling game. Unfortunately, the talent on the visiting sideline does not. Prediction: Broncos.

Rams @ Packers
The Rams just don't seem to know who they are anymore. The only thing consistent about them is Viking-like defense. Gotta stick with the hot team. Prediction: Packers.

Last Week: 14-2 (ooh yeah!)
Season: 93-67

David Gergen: The Power of One

On the subject of the changes taking place in President Bush's cabinet in advance of his second term, David Gergen writes

The more immediate danger is that Mr. Bush and his troika are falling into a trap facing other re-elected presidents: hubris. When presidents win their first elections, they and their teams think they are king of the hill; when they win re-election, they too often think they are masters of the universe. As Richard Neustadt pointed out, even the best of modern presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, fell into the trap when he was first re-elected in 1936. He immediately started overreaching, as he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 and tried to purge Southern Democrats in 1938. F.D.R. nearly did himself in during his second term.

In Mr. Bush's case, his administration has already shown ominous signs of "group-think'' in its handling of Iraq and the nation's finances. By closing down dissent and centralizing power in a few hands, he is acting as if he truly believes that he and his team have a perfect track record, that they know best, and that they don't need any infusion of new heavyweights. He has every right to take this course, but as he knows from his Bible, pride goeth before. ...

Iraqi Occupation

In reading a post on The Buck Stops Here blog, about the long road of Iraqi reconstruction, I was reminded of the quite rosy pre-war predictions by the administration about the length of occupation. Reading this now is absolutely shocking. Shocking in how wrong the predictions were, and shocking that I appear to have had a better understanding of what would happen over there than the administration professionals did because I could see the stupidity.

Some officials at the Pentagon and State Department tell Newsweek they hope to be able to withdraw U.S. troops in as little as 30 to 90 days after President Saddam Hussein's ouster...But more "realistically," says a Pentagon official, the talk is of a maximum five-to-six-month occupation...Most outside experts insist any Iraq occupation will be costly and messy, lasting a year at the very least.

Appalling.

NFL Week 11 Predictions

Another 7-7 week last week, my third of the season. I picked far too many upsets. But I have to keep going with my gut. At least I am guaranteed there will be no more 7-7 weeks. With no more byes, there will be sixteen games each week.

Onto this week.

Cowboys @ Ravens
Baltimore is improving and looking like a playoff team again, whereas Dallas is falling apart. The defense, which should be so good, is terrible. Look for Jamal Lewis to exploit that fully, and for the Raven defense to peck away at the inexperienced Cowboy receivers. Prediction: Ravens.

Rams @ Bills
The Bills have finally started producing some points on offense with the emergence of McGahee at running back. That's really the only weapon they have. (It works for Baltimore.) The Rams will have a hard time dealing with that attack, which will also free Bledsoe to stay off the ground and maybe complete a pass or two. The Bill defense will shutdown the Rams. Prediction: Bills.

Cardinals @ Panthers
Did you hear the news? A Panther starter was lost for the season due to injury. Shocking! Seriously, the Panthers finally put up some offense last week against the 49ers. (It's a statement of how bad San Fran is that the Panthers, starting a team with so many second and third stringers, put up 37 points and a win against them.) The Cardinals are hot, though, having won 3 of their last 4 and 4 out of 6. They sit one game out of first place in the division. Even when they've lost, they've been competitive. Dennis Green has done a fine job in his first season there. Prediction: Cardinals.

Colts @ Bears
The Bears are on a hot streak, winning 3 in a row behind Krenzel. Actually, Krenzel has been along for the ride. The Bears beat Tennessee last week behind Krenzel's impressive 19.3 QB rating. The Bears are winning by playing good defense against lesser offenses. They haven't faced anything like the onslaught that will be coming from Peyton Manning. Prediction: Colts.

Steelers @ Bengals
Both starting quarterbacks were picked early in the last two drafts, but Roethlisberger has already made a name for himself while Palmer is still struggling with the typical first-year starter blues. As I've said for a couple of weeks, Palmer seems to have turned a corner and is settling down. Of his 12 interceptions on the season, only 4 have come in the last four weeks, and in that stretch the Bengals have gone 3-1. Most of those games have been against lesser talent. The Steelers are one of the best teams in the league, with a punishing running game and a stifling defense. The poor Bengal defense will struggle just to slow Jerome Bettis down. Prediction: Steelers.

Jets @ Browns
Many commentators are saying that the Jets are in trouble with Quincy Carter under center instead of Pennington. These observers seem to overlook the fact that with better clock management late in the game, the Jets had an excellent chance of beating the playoff contending Ravens. They should have won that game, but blew the clock at the end. The fault there falls squarely on the shoulders of the coach. Jordan throwing an interception in the endzone on a trick play didn't help either. The point is, the fault does not lie with Carter. This is still a good team, and the Browns are not. Prediction: Jets.

Titans @ Jaguars
The Titans have few weapons this season, and those are sitting on the sidelines nursing injuries. Prediction: Jaguars.

Lions @ Vikings
Detroit, after a strong start, has dropped three straight, including two on the road. The Vikings, despite losing three straight and raising the specter of another meltdown like last year's, have been very competitive in both of the last two games. As my rebel son (he's a Viking fan in Packer-ville) likes to emphasize, both games came down to last second field goals and so could have gone either way. Whatever their slide says about their place in the elite of the NFC, the Vikings do not give the impression of a team heading for a meltdown. Getting a game against a down-trending team like Detroit is just what they need to get back on form. Prediction: Vikings.

Broncos @ Saints
The Saints will field the worst defense in the NFL against one of the hottest quarterbacks in the league. They are not even a speedbump to opposing teams. New Orleans can move the ball on offense, but that will be of little help, the occasional Saint drive to breakup the steady stream of Bronco touchdowns. Prediction: Broncos.

49ers @ Bucs
The Bucs are clicking on offense. The 39ers (you can't put these guys in the same franchise as Joe Montana's or Steve Young's 49ers) are perhaps the worst team in the league. Prediction: Bucs.

Chargers @ Raiders
The Chargers are one of the hottest teams in the league right now, led by one of the most explosive offenses. As I've pointed several times before, the Chargers under Schottenheimer have a history of starting strong and collapsing in the second half of the season. The second half starts now, so collapse watch can begin. Luckily for them, they face the Raiders who apparently want another high draft pick next year. Oakland is doing its best impression of the 2003 Chargers. If any collapse is on the horizon, and I don't think there is, it won't begin this week. Prediction: Chargers.

Dolphins @ Seahawks
The inconsistent Seahawks face off against a demoralized, bad team in Miami. (They were bad before, now they are demoralized and bad. Actually, they are demoralized, bad, and led by an interim head coach making his NFL debut. Wait, they are demoralized, bad, led by an interim head coach making his NFL debut, and with a quarterback making his 13th appearance in the NFL over three years.) Prediction: Seahawks.

Falcons @ Giants
As I've written elsewhere, the Giants are basically conceding the season by starting Manning instead of Warner at quarterback. That bad decision is compounded by sending him out in his first start against one of the best defensive fronts in the league. The Falcon defense has 27 sacks this season. The porous Giant offensive line, one of the main reasons they have struggled in recent weeks after a good start, should allow the Falcons to easily push that total over 30. The injury depleted Giant defensive line will have a hard time slowing Warrick Dunn and Michael Vick. Prediction: Falcons.

Redskins @ Eagles
Joe Gibbs has finally replaced Brunell with Ramsey. Unfortunately, Ramsey will make his first start of the season against a sack-happy Eagle defense. Prediction: Eagles.

Packers @ Texans
Both these teams have been my nemesis in making picks this year. I am almost always wrong. This ought to be a shootout, with two top tier offenses squaring off against bottom tier defenses. Shootouts have not been friendly to Green Bay this season, but this time they have the better offense and the better imitation of a defense. Prediction: Packers.

Patriots @ Chiefs
If the Chiefs were at full strength on offense, this would be an interesting game. I have been saying for a while that the Patriots' weakness is run defense, and the Chief running game can overwhelm an opponent. Just ask Atlanta. But Holmes is out and will be replaced by a less experienced running back. The potent Chief offense cannot be overlooked, especially with a beat up New England secondary. But the Pats can grind it out on the ground with Corey Dillon and keep the ball out of Trent Green's hands. The Patriots can exploit any opening an opponent gives them, and the Chiefs are one of the most penalized teams in the league. Prediction: Patriots.

Last Week: 7-7
Season: 79-65

The Second Term

Now that President Bush has been re-elected, attention turns to his second term. What are the top issues the administration will have to deal with in the second term? Here are my top three.

1. Iraq This one is obvious. Polls show the public is not too happy with the way things are going in Iraq so far. Since the election, major fighting has broken out in Fallujah and Mosul, resulting in casualties on both sides and the PR nightmare of video showing a Marine executing a defenseless man, in a mosque no less. Critics of the Iraq war have always loved to trot out the specter of Vietnam. With the war becoming an expanding civil war against a committed guerrilla enemy, this comparison is becoming more apt. In 1968, the stench of Vietnam transformed American politics, with the sitting president all but run out of town and the Democrats, who had controlled the White House since 1932, giving way to an era of Republican domination of the presidency. If we are still talking about Iraq in four years, the same effect could take place. Bush has been given a reprieve by the electorate to finish the deal in Iraq. He has his second term to do it, which means at a minimum ending the fighting. If he succeeds, Iraq could well be his legacy, as Germany and Japan were for Truman. If he fails, Iraq could well be his legacy, as Vietnam was for Lyndon Johnson.
2. Social Security In the next decade, the baby boomers are going to hit retirement age and begin drawing their social security benefits, which threatens to overwhelm the system through sheer numbers. Politicians have raided the social security accounts for decades to compensate for mushrooming budget deficits. Now, the bill is coming due. If social security is to have a long life, the president must reform it in the next term.
3. Health Care This issue never got the attention needed in the campaign, but threatens to be perhaps the biggest domestic issue in the coming years. The cost of health care is skyrocketing, resulting in equally alarming increases in the cost of health insurance. This insurance cost places a tremendous burden on employers. My employer alone estimates a cost in excess of $50 million in 2004 for health insurance, and we're not exactly a Fortune 500 sized company. Those costs are estimated to increase 15-20% next year. This becomes an economic issue, among other things. Providing insurance to new employees is a significant cost for an employer to bear, and so becomes a disincentive to hire people. I believe this is one of the reasons unemployment has stubbornly refused to fall back to the levels seen in the Clinton years when insurance costs were much lower. It is much more costly for companies to hire people today relative to the boom times of the 90's, so employers are less inclined to do so. As costs continue to explode, unemployment will increase, dragging the economy down. Shifting the cost more to employees, while helping the employer, will reduce the amount of disposable income in the marketplace, resulting in a reduction of spending and consumption, again dragging the economy down. The president must do something in the next term to deal with this. As I have noted elsewhere, it is not merely a question of controlling the cost of insurance. Costs must be viewed in a comprehensive way.
   

More on Bush's Gains

I have previously noted that Bush "gained his share of the popular vote relative to 2000 in just about every state, even where he lost; where he won in 2000, he won by a larger margin in 2004, where he lost in 2000, he lost by a smaller margin in 2004." The Galvin Opinion, who previously analyzed results from New York City, has expanded his radius, analyzing counties around the city from three states. Galvin summarizes his findings by saying

Kerry got fewer votes than Gore did in the New York and New Jersey counties. Kerry did improve on Gore's output in Connecticut by 15,964 but Bush did much better than Kerry him by increasing his Connecticut vote total by 78,354.

Once again, Democrats should stop pointing fingers at the Midwest, Southern and Sun Belt states for Bush's victory because they fail to realize that their neighbors turned in impressive numbers for the president as well.

Warner to Manning

Regarding the New York Giants switch from quarterback Kurt Warner to Eli Manning, Jeffri Chadiha writes

It's one thing for the New York media to clamor for Manning to replace struggling starter Kurt Warner. But for Coughlin to move to Manning now -- with the Giants sitting at 5-4 in a conference in which nine victories might secure a playoff spot -- smacks of sheer lunacy.

The Giants sit at 5-4 and are very much in the hunt for a playoff spot. Not only are the other four contenders for wild card spots sitting at the same 5-4 record, the Giants have beaten two of them (Green Bay and Minnesota), giving them an edge in tie breakers. To go with a rookie quarterback is to basically throw away the season. No rookie quarterback, even one named Manning, is likely to have a positive impact out of the gate, unless he is named Ben Roethlisberger who has a supporting cast far superior to Manning's. Look no further than the Bengals with Carson Palmer to see that. Why would you give up on the season when you are in the hunt for the post-season? Not only that, Manning will get his first two starts against Atlanta and Philadelphia, the teams with the two best records in the NFC, both with pretty effective defenses. That is not exactly the way to get a rookie some constructive experience. Chadiha finishes with

Given Warner's experience in big games and handling a roller-coaster career, there's a good chance he might have weathered this stretch of adversity. He understands the ups and downs of NFL life as well as anybody, which would certainly give him an advantage in this season of ebbs and flows. Look around the NFC. Green Bay and St. Louis are sitting in first place in their respective divisions after many miserable moments. Minnesota and Seattle have cooled off after inspiring talk that they could reach the Super Bowl. None of these teams has panicked. The Giants, however, have done just that by going with Manning. He's definitely their future. But right now, that future looks far brighter than their present.

One expects more stability from a coach with the experience of Tom Coughlin.

The Galvin Opinion

Commenting on Bush's gains even in solid blue New York, the Galvin Opinion says

Liberal New Yorkers like to blame the red states, evangelical Christians, and "dumb hicks" for helping Bush retain the White House. But, it was Americans of all stripes, from Alaska to Kansas to Brooklyn, who supported President Bush in larger numbers than they did 4 years ago. The truth is that the chattering class liberals are not only out of touch with America's heartland but they are just as clueless about their own neighbors in New York City and its suburbs.

History in the Making

Kerry supporters will often point out that Bush only won 51% of the popular vote in the 2004 election, hardly a mandate. I've said that myself. While it is a true statement, it glosses over some very ominous trends in the election that the Democrats ignore at their peril. Mary Matalin said on Meet the Press

But there's also a generational thing going on here as well. It started about in the '60s but accelerating in the '80s when I came to town with President Reagan, the Democrats controlled every level of government and now the Republicans control the Senate, the House, the governors, and most importantly the legislative chambers. It's 50-50 now, which is the bench. And in the Democratic Senate chamber, 15 of the--a third of the Democratic senators are from red states. So those people--Bush increased his margins in the red states. He also increased his margins exponentially in the blue states, in New York, in Massachusetts, in New Jersey, in Rhode Island, in Hawaii, in Connecticut.

So I think he ran on an agenda, he increased his margins everywhere with every--almost every demographic in particular for the future, Hispanics and the black vote, women, seniors, across the board. So that is pretty much grounds for a mandate, and we're predicting some progress on that agenda.

The Republicans have won an historic victory. The party has more power now than it has had in my lifetime. One would have to go back to the 50's or perhaps even the 20's to find the party with such a grip on government. Reagan, at his most popular, had to work with a Congress controlled in both houses by the Democrats. The best he could muster was a short period of weak Republican control of the Senate. When Reagan came to the White House, he had to contend with a Supreme Court largely the same as that which decided Roe vs. Wade. After the 2004 election, the Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress (and with fairly strong majorities in both, large enough that it will take several election cycles to erase the deficit), the Supreme Court, plus a majority of state governorships and legislatures. James Carville puts it, "Now, we don't control any branch of government. We've lost three out of 10, or if you want to call it count the tie in 2000, that's fine, too. I mean, we've won three out of the last 10 presidential elections."

In achieving this historic victory, the Republicans have made inroads in several seemingly solid Democratic bases, e.g. the black and Latino vote. Bush gained his share of the popular vote relative to 2000 in just about every state, even where he lost; where he won in 2000, he won by a larger margin in 2004, where he lost in 2000, he lost by a smaller margin in 2004. (Check out, for example, The Galvin Opinion's tally of the vote in New York City and suburbs in 2000 and 2004. Bush gained almost 150,000 votes in the city and Kerry lost 50,000 from Gore's 2000 tally.) Matalin also points out that a sizable chunk of what remains of the Democratic contingent in the Senate are Senators from red states, which spells trouble in future election cycles.

Democrats cannot content themselves with having almost won the presidency in 2004. The trends are going against them. After 2 victories, they lost narrowly in 2000 and more convincingly in 2004. The party needs a major reform of its approach and philosophy if they are to reverse these trends.

Evolution Law Suit

Oh brother. A school district in Georgia is being sued in federal court on the question of whether stickers in science texts that proclaim evolution a theory, not a fact, and that evolution should be "critically considered" is a violation of the separation of church and state. Evolution is a theory? Uh, duh! That's half of what science is all about, building theories! Everything in science is a theory. There are no "facts" in science. Should any scientific theory be critically considered? Uh, duh! The other half of what science is all about is testing those theories! So, this district is being sued for stating the obvious. Give me a break!

Why, one may ask, is separation of church and state invoked? Because the motivation for placing these stickers is not a simple statement of scientific truth, but an attempt to deny the status of evolution as the prevailing scientific theory for the origin of life by evangelical Christians afraid of science who want to make their decidedly unscientific picture known as creationism a "theory" on the same footing as real science. On that, give me another break! These people think calling evolution a theory is to somehow disparage it. Then they turn around and demand their idea be treated in the same way, but presumably without the disparaging element.

As a scientist, the whole debate appalls me. Both sides appall me. Neither gets it. One thinks far too highly of science, thinking its theories should be treated as fact. The other thinks so little of science that calling something a theory is considered insulting. The concern here is about the negative impact on education. I have to conclude science education is a joke in this country if it leaves us with two equally clueless groups making such silly and pathetic arguments. Give me a break!

Culture War and the Failure of Liberalism

Brad Carson, who ran for US Senate in Oklahoma as a Democrat eloquently writes

As a defeated Senate candidate in the most red of red states, many people have asked me for insights into the Democratic Party's failure to connect with culturally conservative voters. Much has already been written on this topic, and scholars will add more. But I do know this: The culture war is real, and it is a conflict not merely about some particular policy or legislative item, but about modernity itself. Banning gay marriage or abortion would not be sufficient to heal the cultural gulf that exists in this nation. The culture war is about matters more fundamental still: whether nationality is, in a globalized world, a random fact of no more significance than what hospital one was born in or whether it is the source of identity and even political legitimacy; whether one's self is a matter of choice or whether it is predetermined, before birth, by the cultural membership of one's family; whether an individual is just that--a free-floating atom--or whether the individual is part of a long chain that both predates and continues long after any particular person; whether concepts like honor and shame, which seem so quaint, are still relevant in a world that values only "tolerance." These are questions not for politicians but for philosophers, and, in the end, it is the failure of liberal philosophy that we saw on November 2.

As written elsewhere, liberals fail to understand their own defeats, writing it off to some flaw in the masses that don't respond to their moral superiority. On this theme, Carson goes on to write

For the vast majority of Oklahomans--and, I would suspect, voters in other red states--these transcendent cultural concerns are more important than universal health care or raising the minimum wage or preserving farm subsidies. Pace Thomas Frank, the voters aren't deluded or uneducated. They simply reject the notion that material concerns are more real than spiritual or cultural ones. The political left has always had a hard time understanding this, preferring to believe that the masses are enthralled by a "false consciousness" or Fox News or whatever today's excuse might be. But the truth is quite simple: Most voters in a state like Oklahoma--and I venture to say most other Southern and Midwestern states--reject the general direction of American culture and celebrate the political party that promises to reform or revise it.

Much comment has been made on the role of "moral values" in this election. While this is overblown, it does reflect what Carson is talking about. In the last year, there were two issues that rose up to define the so-called "culture war": gay marriage and the pledge of allegiance. The problem with gay marriage is not so much the issue itself, but the arrogant way some supporters responded. As George Will says,

Republicans should send a thank-you note to San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom -- liberalism's George Wallace, apostle of "progressive'' lawlessness. He did even more than the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to energize the 11 state campaigns to proscribe same-sex marriage. All 11 measures passed, nine with more than 60 percent of the vote. They passed in Oregon and Michigan, while those states were voting for Kerry. Ohio's measure, by increasing conservative turnout, may have given Bush the presidency. Kentucky's may have saved Sen. Jim Bunning.

Newsom's heavily televised grandstanding -- illegally issuing nearly 4,000 same-sex marriage licenses -- underscored what many Americans find really insufferable. It is not so much same-sex marriage that enrages them: Most Americans oppose an anti-same-sex amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is why it fell 49 votes short of the required two-thirds in the House and 19 short in the Senate. Rather, what provokes people is moral arrogance expressed in disdain for democratic due process.

This arrogance of people like Newsom and the Massachusetts Supreme Court trying to shove a certain point of view down people's throats is what angered so many.

Both gay marriage and the pledge were examples of the cultural left going too far, undermining American traditions and values in a way that hadn't been done before. In the past, liberals fed off American values. For example on race issues, it was liberalism that woke people up to the injustices around them, appealing to American values of justice and equality. Now liberalism was attacking American values for the sake of some small group. It was liberalism gone amok. All the frantic warnings emanating from the cultural right for decades suddenly found a resonance for many Americans, including those well outside the religious right.

The liberalism avowed by so much of the Democratic party is out of step with mainstream America. Carson concludes, "And, while the defeat was all my own, the failure was of the party to which I swear allegiance, which uncritically embraces a modernity that so many others reject."

NFL Mid-season Report

The NFL season has reached its mid-point, with the usual assortment of surprises and disappointments. Back in June, I made some predictions on how things would go. Let's see how I did.

AFC East
I predicted New England would control the division, which they have. But Buffalo, who I thought would challenge the Patriots have been a flop. I still don't really understand why. They still look like the most talented team in the division. That offense, despite the talent, just hasn't gotten anything done. The Jets, on the other hand, are battling New England for not only the division, but a first round bye. I didn't talk about the Jets in June, but I am impressed with what they have done. Pennington has made good on his 2002-generated hype and certainly looks to be one of the top QBs in the league for years to come.

The division is bifurcated between the flops (Miami and Buffalo) and the Super Bowl contenders (Patriots and Jets). With Pennington injured for the next few weeks, and New England facing a relatively soft schedule, with the exception of Kansas City, the Patriots ought to finish with no more than 3 losses and will win the division by a couple of games. The Jets will contend for a wild card spot.

AFC North
The big surprise here, of course, is Pittsburgh. Coming off a 6-10 season, no one expected much from them. But the team had won the division and a playoff game two of the last three years. The prolific receiving corps from 2002 was intact. Originally, I said, "they haven't done much to address their problems, so the Steelers will likely not contend for the title." Obviously, by changing the coordinators and offensive approach (to a more traditional Steeler bludgeoning rushing game), they really did address the problems. It hasn't hurt that Ben Roethlesberger has emerged.

As I've noted in one of my weekly predictions, my expectations, at least the part where they would struggle early and drop a lot of games, of the Bengals have been validated. It does look like they have turned a corner, so maybe the second part will be come about too.

This division belongs to the Steelers. They have proven themselves one of the best teams in the league so far, having beaten both New England and Philadelphia. Baltimore, with its anemic passing game will not catch them. (Yes, the Ravens account for Pittsburgh's only defeat this season, but that was with Maddox at quarterback during a weak start. That was then, this is now.)

AFC West
Denver is on top, as expected, but the surprise of the league is San Diego. Last year's worst team has become one of this year's most explosive offenses. With Denver playing so inconsistently, the Chargers have a shot at actually winning the division.

Kansas City has to be one of the great disappointments of the year, having gone 13-3 last year and looking to be a top Super Bowl contender, the Chiefs have gone a miserable 3-5. The offense has started showing life again, but the defense has not improved at all. Facing some pretty potent offenses (San Diego twice, Denver, New England) in the second half of the season, they have little chance of catching Denver or San Diego.

Denver should be one of the top teams in the AFC and a viable Super Bowl contender. They have a good balance of offense and defense. But they play inconsistently. Jake Plummer continues to make too many mistakes (500 yards in the Falcon game, and they still lose because of interceptions). But I'm still not sold on the Chargers. They have started fast under Schottenheimer before. In fact, last year's disaster was the exception; usually they are only bad in the second half. They have a tough schedule ahead (KC twice, Indy, Denver, and Tampa). Even if they can win some of those games, they lack the veteran presence to adequately deal with the rising pressure of success as the season wears on. So, look for Denver to win the division and the Chargers to finish maybe 9-7 and out of the playoffs.

AFC South
I actually predicted this one pretty well, with Indy and Jacksonville competing for the division title. What is surprising is to see Houston sitting just one game back. Also surprising is that the Colts are only 5-3. Their defense is quite atrocious, so they have been vulnerable to high octane offenses. This is a problem for a team having to play Houston twice, San Diego, and Denver in the second half.

Jacksonville, on the other hand, faces Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Houston in the second half. But they have a better defense. On the other hand, they will field a backup quarterback for a couple of weeks.

Given the depth of experience in Indy and the injury to Leftwich in Jacksonville, I will still go with the Colts to win the division. Jacksonville will have a shot at a wildcard.

NFC East
I ended up being exactly right in my revised prediction that Dallas would struggle, but I was right for the exactly wrong reason. The offense, especially the passing game, has been the lone bright spot in the Cowboy season. Their problems start and end on defense, which was expected to be their strength.

Philadelphia has been much better than I would have thought. Adding Terrell Owens has revitalized McNabb, who now is ranked among the top quarterbacks in the league. They own the division, and really the conference. The rest of the division will end up with between 6 and 9 wins each, but nowhere close to the Eagles.

NFC North
This division is going pretty much as expected. The Vikings are still on top, the Packers are up and down, and the Lions are a surprising team on the fringes of contention in an weak conference. As I said in this week's predictions, the Vikings have had a problem dealing with adversity for a while. Things go great when they are going great, but they have a hard time overcoming struggles. And the Vikings are struggling again coming off back to back losses. Their lead is a mere one game.

Can the Packers overtake Minnesota? At this point, they control their own destiny. They are one game behind and play the Vikings twice. But they have a bad defense that has been victimized by strong offenses this year, and they have a schedule full of strong offenses (Minnesota twice, Houston, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Jacksonville in the second half). The Vikings have a slightly easier schedule ahead, so I have to go with them to win the division, but only if they can overcome their funk and get their act together. They couldn't do it last year, but presumably they are more mature because of it.

What about Detroit? They have done reasonably well and sit at 4-4, but they have been hit hard by injury. In big games, they have wilted. Things look promising for next year, but this year will probably end on a losing note.

NFC West
Seattle, at one point, looked like the only team in the NFC to challenge Philadelphia. Then came their first game with the Rams. More precisely, then came the second half of the fourth quarter of their first game with the Rams. Their vaunted defense collapsed. Their explosive offense whimpered. The Rams pulled off the second biggest comeback in history. The biggest was last year's Colt recovery against the Bucs, which essentially doomed the Buc's season; they never recovered. The Seahawks started following suit, dropping the next two games to fall to 3-3. But, hitting a soft spot in the schedule, the appear to have gotten back on track. With a win or two against quality opponents, they will resume their place as the other top team in the NFC.


The Rams are looking more and more inconsistent, winning some, showing they still have something in the tank, losing some, showing they are not what they once were.

The Cardinals are playing hard and competing in every game they play. Things are looking good for them for the future, but this year? I'm going to go out on a limb and predict them to compete hard with the Rams for second place in the division.

NFC South
Boy was I wrong about this division. Rather than Carolina controlling the thing, they are vying for the title of biggest Super Bowl bust ever. They have been hit so hard by injury, I think half their starting team were backups when the season started.

Atlanta has taken a clear lead in the division, ahead by a full 3 games. Their schedule ahead is not daunting (New Orleans twice, Carolina, Oakland, Giants), though they have some potentially difficult games (Tampa twice and Seattle). I'm still not convinced of Michael Vick. He's still too much running back, not enough quarterback. Exciting? Yes. A good QB? Maybe someday.

Tampa has suddenly become a factor in the NFC, being a 3-1 record under Brian Griese, their third starting quarterback this year. The offense is clicking, and their defense, while weak relative to the Dungy years, is still something of a force. But can they overcome a three game deficit? They do play Atlanta twice, and they have a good history against the Falcons. They would pretty much have to win out the season, and get some help, to overtake Atlanta. With San Diego and Arizona (in the desert, where they are tough) on the plate, in addition to the games in Atlanta, that will be a tall order.

Overall Thoughts

• The AFC is better than the NFC. Everybody has noticed this, because it's obvious. Just about every time a top AFC team faces a top NFC team, the AFC team wins. Beyond that, the AFC has more teams at or above .500 at the mid-point of the season.
• Parity rules. Another obvious statement, but important. One of last year's best teams, the Panthers, are contending for worst team this year, and one of last year's worst teams, the Chargers, are contending for a division title. Of the four teams that chose first in last year's draft (San Diego, Oakland, Arizona, New York Giants), two are in second place in their division and contending for at least a wild-card, and Arizona is on the fringe, two games out of their division lead.
  
• Peyton Manning will break at least one of Dan Marino's single season passing records. He has 26 touchdowns (and a measly 4 interceptions) through eight games. That pace will not slacken and he will break 50 touchdowns, beating Marino's record of 48 in a season. The caliber of offenses the Colts will face the rest of the way, against their own weak defense, will ensure he will keep on slinging those touchdowns. He also has a chance to break Marino's yardage record. The buzz earlier in the year was for Culpepper, but he has really fallen off the last three weeks, with just 3 touchdowns and 2 interceptions. He is passing at under 200 yards per game the last three weeks. Manning has overtaken him in all the key stats, and Jake Plummer is coming up fast on Daunte's yardage and touchdown numbers.
• Having broken Marino and set a truly audacious statistical standard for all other QBs in the league, present and future, Manning will be MVP. His stats are unbelievable. His worst single game QB rating all season is 93.5, better than the vast majority of quarterbacks get on their best days. He's on a pace for 52 touchdowns and 8 interceptions for the year, which is unheard of. He has only been sacked 5 times all season (compared to 20 times for Culpepper), never more than once in game. He won't win a Super Bowl this year, but neither did Marino.
• San Diego will slap the franchise tag on Drew Brees in the off-season, and then let him go to Miami or maybe even Green Bay. That's the only way they will get anything for Brees after his phenomenal season. It may not work, but they will try.
  

Playoff Predictions - AFC

1. Pittsburgh. They have a reasonably soft schedule and the head-to-head tiebreaker against New England.
2. New England.
3. Denver. They are more balanced than Indy, and should take the head-to-head tiebreaker when the Colts and Broncos face off later this year.
4. Indianapolis.
5. New York Jets. These guys are for real, have a balanced offense, veteran leadership, and a capable defense. They just have the misfortune of sharing a division with the Patriots.
6. Jacksonville.

The Steelers and the Patriots are head and shoulders above the rest of the conference. Denver has the talent to join this group, but are inconsistent. The Colts lack even a semblance of a decent defense, which will keep them in the second tier of the conference.

Given that the Steelers and Patriots are so much better than everyone else, I expect they will meet in the AFC title game at Heinz field, just as they did after the 2001 season. Belichick has a great record of winning rematch games, and the pressure on Big Ben playing for a Super Bowl in his rookie year will eventually get to him. But the Steelers are very much a veteran team and have quite few players who have been to the semi-finals before. Cowher, a great coach, is 1-4 in conference title games, whereas Belichick, also a great coach, is 2-0 as a head coach (5-1 as a head coach or coordinator, 2 wins with the Giants and 3 wins with the Patriots, one loss with the Jets). Prediction: Patriots, in a close one.

Playoff Predictions - NFC

1. Philadelphia. Head and shoulders above the rest of the conference. Veteran leadership, strong defense, strong passing game.
2. Seattle. They have the balance to challenge the rest of the conference.
3. Minnesota. That offense is just too good, when Moss is healthy.
4. Atlanta.
5. Green Bay.
6. Tampa Bay. With a soft schedule and an improving offense, they should be able to reach the playoffs in a weak conference.
   

Philly and Seattle should be the best in the weak NFC, because only they have the defense to go along with a good offense. Seattle is better on both sides of the ball, though playing a conference title game on the road would be tough. They aren't the best road team. Unless Seattle can overtake the Eagles in the race for top seed, this should be the Eagle's year. Prediction: Eagles.

Update (11/15/2004): What was I thinking? Tampa Bay in the playoffs? I admit, I was unduly influenced by Dr. Z in Sports Illustrated who made that one of his surprise picks. With St. Louis now tied for first in the NFC West, two games ahead of Tampa Bay, and Arizona just one game back of Seattle and St. Louis, the race for the two wild cards comes down to whoever finishes second in the NFC West (Seattle or St. Louis), whoever finishes second in the NFC North (Vikings or Packers), Arizona, or Tampa. No one else with comparable records looks all that likely to win enough games to get in the playoffs. Clearly, the two second place teams, whoever they end up being, have the edge. Tampa's loss this weekend drops them 2 games back of the 5-4 pace set by those four teams and one game behind Arizona. I still have to stick with Seattle to win the West and Minnesota to win the North. So, the wild cards will be Green Bay and St. Louis, in that order. While I am still not overly impressed with Atlanta, they have a two game edge over the 5-4 teams, so it is hard to see them dropping all the way down to 4th seed. So, the revised placement is

1. Philadelphia
2. Atlanta
3. Minnesota
4. Seattle
5. Green Bay
6. St. Louis
   

Super Bowl Prediction
It will be New England against Philadelphia. As noted above, just about every time a top AFC team has met a top NFC team, the AFC team has come out on top. The Super Bowl will be no different, as the Patriots pull off their third title in four years. (If the Steelers confound my expectations and beat the Patriots in the title game, which I would love too, they will finally get one for the thumb.)

NFL Week 10 Predictions

Last week I got back in the win column, always nice.

This week saw Miami's Dave Wannstedt be the scapegoat for the Dolphins' miserable season. Without a doubt, they are arguably the worst team in the NFL this year, this for a team that hasn't had a losing season since Ronald Reagan was president. It must be noted that in his first 4 years as coach, when he had control of personnel decisions, the team won an average of more than 10 games per season. This year, Wannstedt lost control of personnel to Spielman and the team has tanked. It was Spielman, not Wannstedt, who made the bonehead decision of pursuing Philadelphia's third string quarterback as the solution to their ongoing problems at QB. It was Spielman who failed to bring in a quality backup for Ricky Williams. Miami's problems start with a distinct lack of talent on offense, exacerbated by the loss of Williams and by injuries to key players like David Boston. Those problems, in turn, reveal a lack of depth on the team, a failing Wannstedt must take a share of since he did have control for several years. But it would be hard for any coach to get this bunch to play well, especially when sharing the division with New England. The clamor for Wannstedt's head reflects more on the proud tradition of Miami than his actual performance. It's a shame he's being made to take the blame.

Onto this week.

Bucs @ Falcons
Since Brian Griese has taken over the Buc offense, they are playing well and winning games again. He has gone 3-1 as a starter, and some are starting to look at them as dark-horse playoff contenders. I am still unimpressed with Michael Vick as a quarterback (he's a great running back, but he doesn't play that position) and their defense is not as good as it appears (ask Priest Holmes and Derrick Blaylock, or even Griese's replacement in Denver, Jake Plummer). Prediction: Bucs.

Steelers @ Browns
Pittsburgh has proven its grit the last two weeks, beating two previously undefeated teams. The games could well be previews of the AFC title game and Super Bowl. Now they have to prove they can bring it just as effectively against a weak opponent rather than cockily overlooking them and getting caught. All the focus is on rookie Big Ben and the season he is having, but this is a veteran team, with many stars left from their 2002 campaign, plus Duce Staley from the Eagles' last three NFC title game runs. They will not make the rookie mistake of overlooking anyone, especially in a heated division rivalry. Prediction: Steelers.

Texans @ Colts
The Colts find themselves in a hot race for the division title, primarily with Jacksonville, but with Houston coming up fast. Both teams feature explosive offenses (Peyton Manning has overtaken Daunte Culpepper in the race to beat Marino's single season passing records) and college-caliber defenses. Teams coming off Monday night wins have an abysmal winning record this year, so I'm going to buck the trend and pick Houston in an upset. Prediction: Texans.

Lions @ Jaguars
The Lions are on the road again, which has become quite friendly this season. The Jags will be without Byron Leftwich. Detroit's offense is still ranked low, and will face the strong Jaguar defense. I don't see the Jag offense doing much without Leftwich, and the Lions should be able to do something. It will be low-scoring, but the Lions will take another road victory. Prediction: Lions.

Chiefs @ Saints
The Saints were annihilated by San Diego last week. Kansas City looks a lot like the Chargers, though with a worse defense. Actually, they look a lot like the Saints could look if they could ever get their act together. But, as usual, they will not and the opposition will win. Prediction: Chiefs.

Ravens @ Jets
The Jets will be without Chad Pennington this week. Remember what happened last year when Pennington was out? Quincy Carter has had his moments as a starter in Dallas, but he is prone to interceptions and will face one of the better secondaries in the league. Baltimore has its own problems at QB, so this game will be decided between the two running backs, Jamal Lewis and Curtis Martin. At this point, Lewis is the better back and will face the lesser of the two defenses. Prediction: Ravens.

Seahawks @ Rams
The first time these two teams met, the Seahawks dominated for 3 1/2 quarters, then saw the Rams bring off the second biggest comeback in NFL history. The loss left the team in a funk, losing the next two games as well, dropping them from the very thin ranks of the top tier NFC teams. Seattle appears to have gotten over that funk, while the Rams have been playing inconsistent football. With a win this week, Seattle will regain control of the division and could ascend again to join Philadelphia as the only other really good team in the conference. Behind a strong running game, strong defense, and effective passing, the 'Hawks will overwhelm St. Louis. Prediction: Seahawks.

Bears @ Titans
The Bears have won some games, but they still aren't all that good. A rested Titan team should take them fairly easily. Prediction: Titans.

Bengals @ Redskins
Week in, week out, the Redskins always find a way to beat themselves when the opposition cannot. Against the Packers, the go-ahead and possibly winning touchdown was called back on a questionable penalty, followed immediately by an interception from the woefully inaccurate Mark Brunell. I said it last week, and I'll say it again: the Bengals look to be getting in some sort of groove. Prediction: Bengals.

Giants @ Cardinals
Arizona plays well at home. The Giants have become turnover machines, and the Cardinals have a knack for forcing turnovers (as anyone who has them as a fantasy defense, like me). Prediction: Cardinals.

Vikings @ Packers
During the Monday night game against the Colts, ABC showed an interesting stat. Under Mike Tice, when the Vikings are ahead at halftime, they have an overwhelming winning percentage. But when they are behind at the half, they have an overwhelming losing record. This suggests a team that is not able to deal effectively with adversity, a team so used to winning that struggles devastate them. This would explain last year's team, which started so strong, but when the losing started was unable to stop the bleeding and finished out of the playoffs. With Randy Moss out due to injury, for the first time in his career, the Viking offense has lost its edge. The losing has begun again, and if history is any guide, that spells trouble in Viking-land. The Packers, on the other hand, have responded well to adversity again this year, rallying from a 1-4 start to hit the mid-point of the season 4-4, one game out of first place. Admittedly, those wins have come against lesser teams, who have not been able to force the Packers out of their set offense. Green Bay has lost when opposing offenses have gotten out to big leads, forcing them to rely exclusively on the passing game. They have won when they haven't fallen behind and have been allowed to execute their Ahman Green-led running attack. With a weakened offense and non-existent defense, the Vikings will not be able to follow the path Indianapolis did. Prediction: Packers.

Panthers @ 49ers
In the battle for the basement, the 49ers have the advantage of having more starters on the field than Carolina's team of backups, and play at home. Prediction: 49ers.

Bills @ Patriots
New England got right back on the horse last week and blew away the Rams. They did it with an injury depleted secondary that featured wide receiver Troy Brown. While the Patriot secondary has not healed too much in one week, the Bill passing game is not much of a threat. I am still concerned about the Patriot rush defense. Buffalo has stepped it up a bit with McGahee replacing Henry at running back. But New England is still one of the best teams, if not the best, in the league, and Buffalo isn't. Prediction: Patriots.

Eagles @ Cowboys
The Eagles are really the only really good team in the NFC (and they have problems, but that's why the AFC is better and either Pittsburgh or New England will win the Super Bowl). Dallas is falling apart. The pressure is on for Parcells to give Drew Henson a try at QB, but the problems in Dallas are all on an underachieving defense that was best in the league last year and for some reason has fallen on hard times this year. The way to beat Philly is the way Pittsburgh (the only team to do it) did it: strong running game to exploit that weak run defense, and a good secondary to take Owens out of the picture. (A good pass rush helps too.) Dallas has none of these. Prediction: Eagles.

Last Week: 9-5
Season: 72-58

More Electoral Vote Historical Analysis

I was kind of intrigued by the electoral vote analysis I did last week, and so I tried to do some more to try to find some baseline for interpreting the results. Using the same data source, I determined the percentage of the electoral vote obtained by the winner of every presidential election. I also categorized each election into one of three categories:

1. Incumbent win. This is where the incumbent president is the election victor.
   
2. Incumbent lose. This is where the incumbent president loses the election.
3. First time. This is where the incumbent president is not involved in the election.

These data are shown elsewhere.

The most interesting result found in these numbers is a breakdown of average electoral vote percentage by election category. The results are

Average Electoral Winning Vote by Election Type Election Type Average Winning Percentage Corrected Average Incumbent win 79.7% (15.9%) 78.7% (15.6%) Incumbent lose 70.7% (13.9%) 70.7% (13.9%) First time 65.2% (15.3%) 65.8% (12.0%)

(Standard deviation is shown in parentheses.) The "corrected" average is obtained by removing Washington's two unanimous victories and John Q. Adams' peculiar victory in 1824 (with only 32% of the electoral vote). The primary impact of removing these two extremes is seen in the standard deviation.

So, typically, elections involving incumbents result in the most lopsided electoral victories, especially when the incumbent wins.

With these averages as baselines, we see that both of Bush's victories fall well below the historical average for the election type (50.4% in 2000, 53.2% in 2004), though the 2000 win is at the far lower end of the uncorrected first time range defined by the standard deviation. In contrast, Bill Clinton's first victory (68.8% in an incumbent lose election) is well in line with the historical data, though his 1996 re-election (70.4%) is somewhat below the historical average, though well within the standard deviation.

Previously, it was noted that the 2004 re-election is the second smallest such electoral college victory in US history. We also find Bush's 2000 election is the smallest "traditional" electoral college victory. (I define traditional as an election decided outright in the electoral college. The only smaller victories were those of John Q. Adams in 1824 and Hayes in 1876, both of which required intervention from Congress to decide.)

Liberals Just Don't Get It

In the weeping and gnashing of teeth following Kerry's defeat in last week's presidential election, there has begun the process of trying to figure out why the Democrats lost, not only the presidency but the Congress as well. It really comes down to a simple fact: liberals just don't get mainstream America. David Brooks writes

If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

Watching news talk shows the last few days, I've seen this shown time and time again. I saw Paul Begala sarcastically ranting about how we should have a discussion on the conservative desire to "discriminate" against gays. Maureen Dowd writes

Even as a child, I could feel the rush of J.F.K.'s presidency racing forward, opening up a thrilling world of possibilities and modernity. We were going to the moon. We were confronting racial intolerance. We were paying any price and bearing any burden for freedom. We were respecting faith but keeping it out of politics. Our president was inspiring much of the world. Our first lady was setting the pace in style and culture.

W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches.

The common thread is that the liberals see a world where their views are glorious and liberating, and any deviation from that utopia is evil hate-mongering. As Brooks says, analysis of the defeat must "reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them." This is seen in Dowd's language. The liberal vision is "thrilling" and "inspiring", "confronting" injustice with great sacrifice (cue Lord of the Rings theme), whereas the opposing view is "backward..., stifling..., intoleran[t]."

Old-time liberals have faced a growing problem for years, but it has been largely ignored. Several years ago there was a big discussion about a survey of American women, which found that most younger women did not consider themselves feminists. Drilling down, the survey found that on typical "feminist" questions, e.g. equal work for equal pay, the women aligned with the typical "feminist" viewpoint. But they refused the label "feminist." The reason was that feminism, as it has come to be known through the workings of the liberal establishment, is a far more encompassing ideology that many women reject. Yet, the "feminist" establishment requires support for the whole agenda. That represents a growing disconnect between the liberal establishment and ordinary people.

This disconnect played out in this election, where gay marriage became a hot topic. To again quote Brooks, "This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top." Is opposing gay marriage tantamount to discrimination, gay bashing, and homophobia, as many liberals, including Begala, believe? No, it is opposing gay marriage. Most Americans support basic gay rights. They don't believe a man should lose his job or be denied housing just because he's gay. That doesn't mean they will support a legalization of marriage that will place a gay relationship on the same social (and, by implication, moral) footing as a heterosexual relationship.

Liberals have a tendency to lump an assortment of positions into one single viewpoint. To be a feminist is to support a laundry list of ideas, from equal access to the workplace to abortion rights. To support gay rights is to support a broad slate from equal access to housing to gay marriage. To have a more à la carte viewpoint is to reject the whole thing, so anyone who supports basic gay rights but opposes gay marriage is a homophobe, full of hate toward gays. Furthermore, this hate, according to the establishment, is rooted in ignorance.

Most America falls into this category, but the liberal establishment can only call these people ignorant hate-mongers. Then they are surprised that middle America votes Republican? The Democrats, if they ever want to connect with mainstream middle America must break out of the chains of outdated 1960's liberalism and recognize the distinctions those Americans make in viewing the world.

Get Out the Vote

I think it was Dick Cheney who described liberals as those who embraced the 1960's and never let go. In terms of political strategy, that certainly describes the Democratic party and its strategy in the 2004 campaign. As in most presidential elections, the strategy was to get out the vote in certain groups assumed to go Democrat and watch the victories roll in. While there was high voter turnout, the Democrats were firmly rejected.

I ride the bus daily to commute to and from work, and we riders were subjected to daily commercials starring Maya Angelou appealing to listeners to vote. (The ads were so desperate, in one she actually finished the script with a plaintive "Please?") The ads, while not explicitly stated, were targeted at black voters. All the images of people voting featured blacks, and there were mentions of people marching to secure the right to vote. The key to the ad campaign was that, if the listeners (which we understand as blacks) went to vote, they could "change the direction of the country," which is obviously a veiled reference to defeating Bush and changing control in the White House.

It is clear the strategists behind this campaign did not consider that black voters might support Bush. In the 60's, civil rights were a major issue which caused blacks to overwhelmingly and reliably vote Democrat. But the world has changed from the 60's. Black America has seen the rise of a vibrant, growing middle class, a group for whom racism is likely less important than it is to poor, urban blacks. Racism, at an institutional level, is far reduced from where it was in the 60's. Finally, many black Americans are also evangelical Christians and who therefore find a natural resonance with the more conservative, right-wing Christian views of the Republicans. To be sure, Kerry still won the black vote nationally, taking 88% of the vote. But at the same time, it must be noted that Bush increased his take of the black vote from 9 to 11%. Bush also saw gains in the Latino vote. In Florida, where so many were supposedly suppressed back in 2000 which supposedly fueled a strong anti-Bush outlook, Bush nearly doubled his take, from 7 to 13%. In Ohio, the key battleground state this year, Bush again nearly doubled his take, from 9 to 16%.

Mark Schmitt writes about a ballot initiative in Florida to raise the minimum wage. The strategy was to pursue this initiative as a means of increasing turnout in low-income voters. The initiative passed easily, and presumably low-income voters turned out in stronger force. But Bush saw significant gains in his take in Florida, easily winning the state that in 2000 he won by a disputed 500 votes.

Elsewhere, Schmitt says

whenever you see an analysis that begins with a phrase similar to, "We need to find a way to convince low-income/rural/evangelical whites to stop voting against their own self-interest," stop reading. If we start from the premise that we know what people's interests are better than they do themselves, that's part of the problem. People have many interests and motivations. If what liberals want them to do is put their economic interest above others, they should be clear about that, and explain why we should prefer people to prioritize their economic interests over others.

and elsewhere he says he is tired of arguments

about how we can encourage low-income whites to vote "their interests" rather than what they consider moral values.

This pretty much sums up the Democratic get out the vote strategy. "Get people whose interests align with ours to the polls and we will win." But interests are a complex consideration. Moral values is as much an "interest" as taxes. Democrats cannot continue to fight elections on the same tired approaches that worked thirty or forty years ago.

Richard Reeves' Summary of Kerry

I like Richard Reeves' summary of John Kerry:

If you teach (and I do), Kerry is of a type, a smart guy who gets it all down, synthesizes it beautifully, and then tries to give you back what he thinks you want. The defining moment of his campaign, I thought, was his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. It was an A paper without a single original thought. I counted 15 lifts from archived presidential speeches, most of them by John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Many in the coming months and years will attempt to discern the reasons for Kerry's defeat. But it comes down to his failure to elucidate a clear agenda for a Kerry presidency. Rather than standing for something, he threw out what he thought would resonate with voters. While it obviously got him significant support, it was not enough to push him over the top.

Bush's Election in Perspective

Elsewhere, I have commented that some Bush supporters are already calling his victory a "landslide" and talking about mandates. Out of curiosity, I checked elections where the incumbent president was re-elected, using data from the Federal Register. Below, I list the electoral vote for the victorious incumbent, as well as the percentage of the total electoral vote.

Year Winner Electoral Vote Total Electoral Vote Percentage 1792 Washington 132 132 100% 1804 Jefferson 162 176 92.0% 1812 Madison 128 217 59.0% 1820 Monroe 231 235 98.3% 1832 Jackson 219 286 76.6% 1864 Lincoln 212 233 91.0% 1872 Grant 286 352 81.3% 1900 McKinley 292 447 65.3% 1904 Roosevelt 336 476 70.6% 1916 Wilson 277 531 52.2% 1924 Coolidge 382 531 71.9% 1936 Roosevelt 523 531 98.5% 1948 Truman 303 531 57.1% 1956 Eisenhower 457 531 86.1% 1964 Johnson 486 538 90.3% 1972 Nixon 520 538 96.7% 1984 Reagan 525 538 97.6% 1996 Clinton 379 538 70.4% 2004 Bush 286 538 53.2%

Please note that when a president died in his first term and his vice-president was elected in the following election, that is considered a re-election because, at the time of the election, that vice-president was the president. For this reason, Johnson, Coolidge, and Teddy Roosevelt's sole election victories are counted as re-elections. Further, to keep everyone on an equal footing, I have only considered FDR's first re-election.

Interestingly, only Woodrow Wilson claimed a smaller percentage of the electoral vote when re-elected than Bush in this election. Of the nineteen presidents listed, fifteen were re-elected with at least 65% of the popular vote. Seven of the ten from 1916 (when the total electoral vote became comparable to today's 538) through the present received at least 70% of the electoral vote.

So, from an historical point of view, Bush's re-election is decidedly unspectacular. I don't really know what this means, if anything. But it is interesting.

NFL Week 9 Predictions

All I can say about last week is ....

Onto this week.

Jets @ Bills
Both teams feature stellar running games. The underappreciated Curtis Martin is having a career season so far, and Willis McGahee is quickly making a name for himself. The difference will be the quarterbacks. Pennington is living up to the hype surrounding him since his breakout year in 2002, whereas Bledsoe appears in the death throws of a once promising career. Prediction: Jets.

Raiders @ Panthers
The losers of the last two Super Bowls face off in Carolina. Both teams have struggled this year. Both have been hit hard by injuries. But you start to get the feeling that the Raider team that gave up last year is giving up again this year. Prediction: Panthers.

Cowboys @ Bengals
The Bengal offense looks like it's coming alive again, putting up 43 points in the last two games, after averaging under 15 points in the previous four. On the other hand, the Cowboys have a decent offense going up against a lousy Bengal defense. This is hard to pick, because both teams are pretty bad, but I have a feeling Palmer might be starting to hit a groove. Plus the Bengals are at home. Prediction: Bengals.

Redskins @ Lions
The Lions are at home, so they should not play well. But they face the Redskins, who don't play well anywhere. I really don't understand their struggles, but they have them. One of their biggest problems is turnovers, and the Lions are among the best in the league at forcing turnovers. Another big problem for Washington is penalties, which should be an even bigger problem on the road. Prediction: Lions.

Cardinals @ Dolphins
I'm going to go with the upset here. I really like what Dennis Green is getting out of the Cardinals. They have been competitive in every game this year, and they have had a tough schedule. Miami just plain stinks. Prediction: Cardinals.

Eagles @ Steelers
This game is between the top team in the NFC and the top team in the AFC. Both are well balanced teams with strong defense and passing games. The Eagles are the only undefeated team in the league, now that Pittsburgh took down New England. But, they have had problems dealing with better defenses. They haven't faced too many good defensive teams, but their scoring juggernaut has been slowed by Chicago and Baltimore. Despite his relative inexperience, Big Ben has proven himself among the better quarterbacks in the league. So the passing games are about equal between them. The one difference should be the running game, with Pittsburgh having the advantage with former Eagle Duce Staley. Prediction: Steelers.

Chiefs @ Bucs
The Chief offense has come back with a vengeance. Their defense has not improved, but they have the look of last year's 13-3 team. The Bucs have found some offense with Brian Griese, but no where near enough to keep up with the Chiefs. Prediction: Chiefs.

Bears @ Giants
The Bears are contending for the title of worst team in the league. The Giants are contending for a playoff spot. Prediction: Giants.

Saints @ Chargers
I'm actually picking the Chargers. Who would have thunk it? San Diego is kicking butt right now, tied for first in their division, with a pretty potent offense and an improving defense. They finally have a passing game that is a worthy counterpart to LaDanian Tomlinson. It's too soon to get really excited about San Diego. They have started fast most seasons since Marty has been there. The problem is in finishing off the season. But for now, you have to go with the surging team. Prediction: Chargers.

Seahawks @ 49ers
Despite their fall from the upper echelons of the league, Seattle is still a potent team that could make a deep run in the playoffs. San Fran is still deep in contention for that top pick in next year's draft. Prediction: Seahawks.

Texans @ Broncos
Houston has been explosive on offense this year, but their defense is not keeping up. (Think of Houston as KC South). The Broncos are not quite as explosive, but they are much more balanced. Of course, their high-rated defense has been scorched by lesser offenses the last two weeks in losses. Look for the Broncos to bounce back with a heavy dose of the running game to control the clock, keeping David Carr and Andre Johnson on the sidelines and keeping Plummer out of situations where he has to force throws. Prediction: Broncos.

Patriots @ Rams
The Pats come into this game beat up, with injuries to Ty Law and some of their top receivers. But, one of the strengths of the Patriots is depth, so the Patriots should still be able to confuse Bulger and slow him down. The Patriots can somewhat neutralize the impact to their receiving corps through Corey Dillon's running game, against a weak Ram defense. The Pats will grind this one out on the ground and do to the Rams what Pittsburgh did to New England last week. Prediction: Patriots.

Browns @ Ravens
Cleveland's offense has really picked up the last couple of games, taking Philly to the wire two weeks ago. But Baltimore will have a well-rested Jamal Lewis back. Prediction: Ravens.

Vikings @ Colts
Two top-notch, explosive offenses against two weak defenses. Will there be any punts? The difference will be the injury list, with Moss and Robinson hurt and the Colt receivers at full strength. Prediction: Colts.

Last Week: 5-9
Season: 63-53

Democratic Soul-Searching

Good quote about the fallout of the election for the Democrats:

"I think this is a realigning election. The Democrats are going to have to get used to permanent minority status for a generation or two," said Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

"The party doesn't know what it stands for any more. The Republicans have built majorities around their ideas, which can be boiled down to a few simple statements. The Democrats fish around for issues where they think there already are majorities," said Schaller, a Democrat.

A Bush Landslide

As might be expected, Bush supporters are already declaring, not only victory, but "landslide" victory. Blogs For Bush says

Bush's Popular Vote Landslide
The President's victory in the Electoral College was close, but he handily beat John Kerry in the popular vote. As predicted, this election had huge turnout, which the Democrats claimed would carry them to the White House. But not only did President Bush win re-election based on that enormous turnout, he did so impressively.

Pulling 51% is hardly a landslide. Jimmy Carter pulled 51% in 1976. Was that a landslide? Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but then governed as if he had won in a landslide. How will he govern the next four years when he actually won the popular vote?

One thing this post does is to put Reagan's 1984 re-election landslide (a real one) in perspective. It has taken 20 years for someone to garner more votes than Ron did in 1984.

1994 Part 2

The 2004 election is now in the bag, and the results are striking. Obviously the most publicized result will be Bush's re-election, becoming the first candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since George H.W. Bush in 1988. But the results in Congress are just as important. The Republicans picked up seats in both houses. They also picked up a governor's mansion. The election is a stinging rejection of the Democratic party, comparable to the 1994 Republican Revolution. It took three election cycles for the Democrats to erase the majority in the Senate the Republicans gained in 1994. With this election, the Republicans have built that majority back to where it was, erasing the gains of those three elections.

It is interesting, regarding the Senate, that no one seemed to comment on the fact that, in choosing John Edwards to run for VP, the Democrats were giving up a Senate seat. Edwards' term ended this year and so was up for re-election, which he presumably would have won. Instead, Republican Richard Burr will replace Edwards.

The Democratic party needs to wake up. The leadership of the party since Clinton left the White House has been terrible. The party's weakness in not standing up to Bush during his first term is a principal cause of Kerry's defeat. By ceding ground to the Republicans on key issues, by meekly caving in rather than holding ground, the public came to trust them more than the Democrats. The result of such "leadership"? Tom DeLay's threat that, "with a bigger majority, we can do even more exciting things." This election should be a wake-up call to the Democratic party. Get new leadership and a little backbone!

My Prediction

Not to toot my own horn too much, but my prediction for "the electoral vote breaks down 235 for Bush, 251 for Kerry, and 52 undecided (Florida, New Mexico, and Ohio)." As it stands this morning, Kerry has 252 and Bush 254 with Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico not yet called (but all three going Bush). The primary difference between my prediction and the current state of affairs is that Florida is decided for Bush and Iowa is still not decided. This result would tend to validate my assumption that "undecideds, barring exceptional circumstances, will break in favor of the incumbent," whereas conventional wisdom tends to have undecided voters going for the challenger.

It's All Over But the Shouting

Well, the presidential election is finally over. Kerry hasn't conceded and there is talk of court fights in Ohio. But there is little chance Kerry would be able to overcome the president's lead there. The issue is provisional ballots, of which there are 250,000 or less according to Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Bush leads in Ohio by 136,221 votes, so Kerry would have to get at least 193,000 of these provisional votes to overcome such a lead, and that's assuming there really are 250,000 ballots and they all get counted.

The Bush campaign scoffed at the notion that the uncounted ballots could make a difference in Ohio.

"There are 140,000 provisional ballots. Historically, only 7 to 20 percent of those would be counted," said Bush-Cheney communications director Nicolle Devenish. "Even if twice that many end up getting counted, he can't close the gap of his defeat in the state. It's desperate."

This election is not like 2000 where it all came down to 500 votes in Florida. Bush has a small but solid victory. To drag it out this time would be pointless.

At least Daschle is gone. The Democrats in general during the last four years, and in particular in the Senate, have been poorly led. This failure of leadership is one of the major factors in Kerry losing this election. To quote myself,

The Democratic party leadership made the incompetent, irresponsible decision in 2002 to fold to Bush on Iraq, handing him the issue. Two years later, by deciding to fight the campaign on Bush's strength, they have stupidly sentenced this country to another four years of Bush. Thanks. Can the party please get some new leadership?

Tom Daschle was a large part of the decision-making process. With his defeat, the Democrats will, hopefully, get better leadership.

Predicted Final Results

The Current Electoral Vote Predictor has predicted the final electoral college results for the 2004 presidential campaign. The prediction is a solid win for Kerry with 306 electoral votes and 14 undecided electoral votes from states that are exactly tied. (It should be noted the site owner is a Democrat.) A key assumption in this prediction is the expectation that the undecided vote will break 2:1 in favor of Kerry. I have always believed undecideds, barring exceptional circumstances, will break in favor of the incumbent (look at the final polls in 2000, which generally had Bush ahead by a few points, with the final results, where Gore won by a small margin; his final numbers increased relative to the final poll by about the size the undecided vote). I have reanalyzed the November 1 data from the site and applied the assumption that the undecided vote will break 2:1 in favor of Bush. With that assumption, the electoral vote breaks down 235 for Bush, 251 for Kerry, and 52 undecided (Florida, New Mexico, and Ohio).

Conflicted Evangelicals Could Cost Bush Votes

LA Times has an interesting article about evangelical Christians, many of whom are torn and not as committed to Bush as one might expect.

"It's hard for me to say that Christians should be marching against abortion and carrying signs, and then turn around and giving a pep rally for the war in Iraq without even contemplating that hundreds and hundreds of people are being killed on a regular basis over there," Urcavich said.

"I'm very antiabortion, but the reality is the right to life encompasses a much broader field than just abortion," he added. "If I'm a proponent of life, I have to think about the consequences of not providing prescription drugs to seniors or sending young men off to war."

That kind of talk, coming from a conservative Christian who might ordinarily be inclined to vote Republican, could portend trouble for Bush.