At the moment, the Port of Houston Authority ( a single purpose governing entity that controls the Port of Houston) is headed by a seven person board appointed by different governing entities in Harris County:
The City of Houston and the Harris County Commissioners Court each appoint two commissioners. These two governmental entities jointly appoint the chairman of the Port Commission. The Harris County Mayors & Councils Association and the city of Pasadena each appoint one commissioner.
But the port has undergone the Sunset review process and the Sunset Commission recommends that the governor appoint the commissioners, in addition to a variety of other changes. This is part of a general effort to coordinate the activities of all ports in the state, as well as the belief that the port is poorly managed and that management is not transparent. It is difficult for the general population to know what the port is up to.
Click here for links to the report from the Sunset Commission's site as well as the Port of Houston's.
Both the City of Houston and the Harris County Commissioners' Court are opposed to the proposal that the governor appoint board members. Both argue that it compromises local control.
- Story from KUHF. Is this another power grab by the governor?
- The Chronicle reports that the Commisioners' Court would like to appoint all board members on the grounds that the county holds the port's debt.
- Houston Business Journal points out that the port is reorganizing as a response to the Sunset Review report.
- KUHF reports that State Senator John Whitmire of Houston recommended the change, and that County Judge Ed Emmett agrees that a statewide port authority would be a good idea in order to coordinate port activity across the state.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Consensual police encounters
Slate writes up a story involving a search that began when a policeman approached a man on a bicycle to initiate a conversation. After noticing the man fidget, he was searched and a small amount of crack cocaine was found, which then led to a five year prison sentence.
The search was judged legal because it was consensual. Either party could have walked away from it - but is this in fact true? Would you feel comfortable walking away from a police officer who wanted to have a casual conversation with you? Might doing so give the officer the impression that you have something to hide? Is this a lose / lose situation?
. . . what interests me about this case is the way the appeals court characterized the initial contact between June and Young as a “consensual encounter.” The Florida Supreme Court classifies police encounters into three distinct levels: consensual, investigatory, and arrest. A consensual encounter is one into which each party enters willingly—a beat cop and a storekeeper exchanging greetings, for instance. It can be terminated by either party at any time with no consequences. You can’t initiate a search during a consensual encounter, and you can’t initiate an investigatory encounter without “a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”
The idea of a consensual encounter is a nice one, conjuring an image of lovers sneaking away for some mutually fulfilling afternoon delight. But, in reality, a police officer who pursues a “consensual” conversation is often just looking to screw you. As Janice Nadler and J.D. Trout note in their fascinating paper “The Language of Consent in Police Encounters,” many consensual engagements are pretexts for less-consensual behavior. “The police officer’s main purpose is to get information about what the person is doing, and get permission to do something else, like search their person, house, car, bags, etc.,” they write.
Police officers don’t just initiate conversations because they’re bored and want to talk sports with a stranger. (That’s what call-in shows are for.) They stop you because they can generally tell if you’re suspicious or “up to something,” and because they know the average person doesn’t feel they’re in a position to decline a conversation with a cop. Although courts tend to interpret consensuality based on surface-level cues—whether the police officer was polite, for instance—there’s always more going on. The unspoken power dynamics in a police/civilian encounter will generally favor the police, unless the civilian is a local sports hero, the mayor, or a giant who is impervious to bullets.
The search was judged legal because it was consensual. Either party could have walked away from it - but is this in fact true? Would you feel comfortable walking away from a police officer who wanted to have a casual conversation with you? Might doing so give the officer the impression that you have something to hide? Is this a lose / lose situation?
. . . what interests me about this case is the way the appeals court characterized the initial contact between June and Young as a “consensual encounter.” The Florida Supreme Court classifies police encounters into three distinct levels: consensual, investigatory, and arrest. A consensual encounter is one into which each party enters willingly—a beat cop and a storekeeper exchanging greetings, for instance. It can be terminated by either party at any time with no consequences. You can’t initiate a search during a consensual encounter, and you can’t initiate an investigatory encounter without “a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”
The idea of a consensual encounter is a nice one, conjuring an image of lovers sneaking away for some mutually fulfilling afternoon delight. But, in reality, a police officer who pursues a “consensual” conversation is often just looking to screw you. As Janice Nadler and J.D. Trout note in their fascinating paper “The Language of Consent in Police Encounters,” many consensual engagements are pretexts for less-consensual behavior. “The police officer’s main purpose is to get information about what the person is doing, and get permission to do something else, like search their person, house, car, bags, etc.,” they write.
Police officers don’t just initiate conversations because they’re bored and want to talk sports with a stranger. (That’s what call-in shows are for.) They stop you because they can generally tell if you’re suspicious or “up to something,” and because they know the average person doesn’t feel they’re in a position to decline a conversation with a cop. Although courts tend to interpret consensuality based on surface-level cues—whether the police officer was polite, for instance—there’s always more going on. The unspoken power dynamics in a police/civilian encounter will generally favor the police, unless the civilian is a local sports hero, the mayor, or a giant who is impervious to bullets.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Governor Perry apoints his Chief of Staff to the Texas Supreme Court
The Texas Tribune provides details:
Jeff Boyd, chief of staff to Gov. Rick Perry, is the governor’s choice for an open spot on the Texas Supreme Court.
He’ll replace Dale Wainwright, who resigned from the state's highest civil court earlier this year. The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
“Jeff is a highly-respected attorney who has consistently excelled throughout his years of private practice, his terms of public service, and his leadership of important charitable organizations. His addition to the court will continue to protect the rule of law and further the tradition of defending the freedoms that Texans so vigorously uphold,” Perry said in a news release.
The Tribune provides additional context here, including the observation that Perry has now appointed seven of the nine members of the court.
Does this mean that Perry has been able to control the court through his appointment powers? Here's a story that builds on a point we make when we cover the Texas Judiciary. While they are elected to office, it is customary for judges and justices to step down early so that the governor can fill vacancies with people of their choosing, and since judicial races are generally non-competitive and people know little about the candidates, those appointees tend to be easily elected to full terms.
This raises a provocative question: Does the Texas governor fully control the judicial branch? Do we have a functioning system of separated powers in the state?
Jeff Boyd, chief of staff to Gov. Rick Perry, is the governor’s choice for an open spot on the Texas Supreme Court.
He’ll replace Dale Wainwright, who resigned from the state's highest civil court earlier this year. The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
“Jeff is a highly-respected attorney who has consistently excelled throughout his years of private practice, his terms of public service, and his leadership of important charitable organizations. His addition to the court will continue to protect the rule of law and further the tradition of defending the freedoms that Texans so vigorously uphold,” Perry said in a news release.
The Tribune provides additional context here, including the observation that Perry has now appointed seven of the nine members of the court.
Does this mean that Perry has been able to control the court through his appointment powers? Here's a story that builds on a point we make when we cover the Texas Judiciary. While they are elected to office, it is customary for judges and justices to step down early so that the governor can fill vacancies with people of their choosing, and since judicial races are generally non-competitive and people know little about the candidates, those appointees tend to be easily elected to full terms.
This raises a provocative question: Does the Texas governor fully control the judicial branch? Do we have a functioning system of separated powers in the state?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Houston is the fifth most productive city in the United States
This is based on the Metro Productivity Index, which "compares the level of economic output per person for metros to the gross domestic product (GDP) per person for the nation as a whole."
The author claims that cities create the environments that fuel productivity, but not all cities do an adequate job. Those that do will fuel future economic growth.
Productivity at the national level has stalled since the Great Recession and even before. Productivity growth was 1.9 percent in the third quarter and just 1.5 percent for the past year. A number of leading economists, led by George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, argue that the United States has in fact entered into a period of prolonged stagnation, having exhausted its capacity for innovation and productivity improvement.
A very different picture emerges when we consider the United States not just as a single national economy but as a collection of city and metro economies. Some have dramatic productivity growth, while others are stagnating.
The author claims that cities create the environments that fuel productivity, but not all cities do an adequate job. Those that do will fuel future economic growth.
Productivity at the national level has stalled since the Great Recession and even before. Productivity growth was 1.9 percent in the third quarter and just 1.5 percent for the past year. A number of leading economists, led by George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, argue that the United States has in fact entered into a period of prolonged stagnation, having exhausted its capacity for innovation and productivity improvement.
A very different picture emerges when we consider the United States not just as a single national economy but as a collection of city and metro economies. Some have dramatic productivity growth, while others are stagnating.
From the Atlantic: The U.S. Recovery Has Been Spectacular*
This builds on the point made in a post below. The caveat here is that the US recovery only looks good compared to the recovery of other nations.
American policymakers have simply done less harm than their counterparts abroad. Not that our policy has been perfect. Austerity at the state and local level and not aggressive enough monetary policy have put too low a speed limit on our recovery. But at least we've avoided British-style austerity and Japanese-style tight money -- or both, like Europe.
If you want to feel even better about our subpar recovery, just look at how it compares to other recoveries from financial recoveries. As Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have famously demonstrated with eight centuries of data, these recoveries are almost always frustratingly slow. The chart below, from my colleague Derek Thompson, shows just how much better we're doing this time around compared to the other big crises of the past century.
American policymakers have simply done less harm than their counterparts abroad. Not that our policy has been perfect. Austerity at the state and local level and not aggressive enough monetary policy have put too low a speed limit on our recovery. But at least we've avoided British-style austerity and Japanese-style tight money -- or both, like Europe.
If you want to feel even better about our subpar recovery, just look at how it compares to other recoveries from financial recoveries. As Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have famously demonstrated with eight centuries of data, these recoveries are almost always frustratingly slow. The chart below, from my colleague Derek Thompson, shows just how much better we're doing this time around compared to the other big crises of the past century.
From FT: The dollar’s days as reserve currency are numbered
One of the factors helping the US economy is its position as the reserve currency for much of the world - it has been the de-facto global currency, but this may not last:
The Recovery in the US beats that in Europe.
The Dish and Paul Krugman point out that the economy in the US has outpaced Europe's since the recession. They use this to argue against austerity. They offer some graphs to back up their points. Unemployment and GDP are better in the US than elsewhere:
Regarding Wealth Inequality
This fits out subject matter in 2305 today.
An NYT Op-Ed argues that disparities in wealth creates a variety of problems in society and that wealth - not income - ought to be taxed:
When economists try to measure inequality, they typically focus on income, because the data are most readily accessible. But income is not always a good gauge of economic power. Consider a group of people who all have high incomes but differ widely in their wealth. Who’s going to get into the country club? Who’s going to have the money to finance a new venture? Moreover, income data may not reveal the true economic power of people who are retired, or who receive their pay in securities like stocks and options or use complex strategies to avoid taxes.
An NYT Op-Ed argues that disparities in wealth creates a variety of problems in society and that wealth - not income - ought to be taxed:
When economists try to measure inequality, they typically focus on income, because the data are most readily accessible. But income is not always a good gauge of economic power. Consider a group of people who all have high incomes but differ widely in their wealth. Who’s going to get into the country club? Who’s going to have the money to finance a new venture? Moreover, income data may not reveal the true economic power of people who are retired, or who receive their pay in securities like stocks and options or use complex strategies to avoid taxes.
Trends in the distribution of wealth can look very different from trends
in incomes, because wealth is a measure of accumulated assets, not a
flow over time. High earners add much more to their wealth every year
than low earners. Over time, wealth inequality rises even as income
inequality stays the same, and wealth inequality eventually becomes much
more severe.
This is exactly what happened in the United States. Paul Krugman looks at the increased acceptance of economic inequality.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
The Supreme Being Clause
Something to consider as we begin looking at the Texas Bill of Rights. Within the 4 sections regarding religious freedom is the Supreme Being Clause:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Despite not being enforced, it is still on the books and is potentially enforceable.
The Texas Tribune reports on a group that wants to change that arguing that interferes with the right of atheists to run for public office in the state:
There are different opinions about how much the clause affects candidates’ applications for state office. Mattox agreed on behalf of the state not to enforce it, but it has never been removed from the Texas Constitution.
Forms filed by candidates seeking election do not require them to confirm a belief in a higher power, nor does the Texas Election Code, said Republican Party of Texas spokesman Christopher Elam. Some party officials have never even encountered it before. “This is the first time I’ve heard of it,” said Rebecca Acuña, a spokeswoman for the Texas Democratic Party.
Randall “Buck” Wood, an Austin elections attorney, insists that such a law could never be enforced. “If it were, it would be declared unconstitutional. We’ve had so many statutes in the Texas Constitution declared unconstitutional, but they’re still there. As long as nobody’s being injured by these, nobody brings a lawsuit, and they just sit there.”
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Despite not being enforced, it is still on the books and is potentially enforceable.
The Texas Tribune reports on a group that wants to change that arguing that interferes with the right of atheists to run for public office in the state:
There are different opinions about how much the clause affects candidates’ applications for state office. Mattox agreed on behalf of the state not to enforce it, but it has never been removed from the Texas Constitution.
Forms filed by candidates seeking election do not require them to confirm a belief in a higher power, nor does the Texas Election Code, said Republican Party of Texas spokesman Christopher Elam. Some party officials have never even encountered it before. “This is the first time I’ve heard of it,” said Rebecca Acuña, a spokeswoman for the Texas Democratic Party.
Randall “Buck” Wood, an Austin elections attorney, insists that such a law could never be enforced. “If it were, it would be declared unconstitutional. We’ve had so many statutes in the Texas Constitution declared unconstitutional, but they’re still there. As long as nobody’s being injured by these, nobody brings a lawsuit, and they just sit there.”
Saturday, November 17, 2012
From the Texas Tribune: State College Funding Turns on Definition of "Provide"
Here's a story that combines our look (in GOVT 2306) at both the Texas Constitution and the education in the state.
The Texas Constitution says the state will “provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class.”
In 1984, that meant about half of every dollar in higher education came out of the state budget. Today, it’s closer to 13 percent at the University of Texas at Austin and 22 percent at Texas A&M University in College Station.
So, at that level, is the state really providing for the sort of education championed in its founding document?
The relevant part of the Constitution is Section 10 in Article 7.
Here's the text:
The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, . . .
The question seems to be: Does "provide" mean state funding? Despite all the clarifying language elsewhere in the Texas Constitution, this part is up for debate.
The Texas Constitution says the state will “provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class.”
In 1984, that meant about half of every dollar in higher education came out of the state budget. Today, it’s closer to 13 percent at the University of Texas at Austin and 22 percent at Texas A&M University in College Station.
So, at that level, is the state really providing for the sort of education championed in its founding document?
The relevant part of the Constitution is Section 10 in Article 7.
Here's the text:
The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, . . .
The question seems to be: Does "provide" mean state funding? Despite all the clarifying language elsewhere in the Texas Constitution, this part is up for debate.
From OUPblog: The two-term era
When I began teaching in 1994, the standard question we asked when we covered the presidency was why presidents were unlikely to be reelected, and why Republican presidents were more likely to be reelected than Democrats.
At that time, only Eisenhower, Nixon (who was unable to finish his term) and Reagan were elected to two full terms of office. Many other had been defeated. Now with Obama's reelection, we've had three president in a row who've won second terms.
Here's a look at why that might be the case.
I find this part most compelling:
Several factors may be at work, but one stands out. Most recent incumbent presidents have enjoyed the advantage of early, unified support from their own party.
Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama faced no challenge when they decided to seek renomination. Certainly they had their critics within their own party, especially the Democratic incumbents. Both Clinton and Obama faced murmurings of liberal discontent. But it did not suffice to propel a challenger to enter the fray.
On the other side, George H.W. Bush encountered sharp conservative opposition from Pat Buchanan. Although Buchanan never represented a serious threat for the nomination, he did pressure Bush 41 from the right. Bush’s situation paralleled that of Johnson, Ford, and Carter, each of whom did battle with a popular rival in his own party (Eugene McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, and Ted Kennedy).
With no competition for the nomination, a sitting president does not have to engage in one of the familiar exercises of American electoral politics in the modern era — repositioning himself between the primary season and the general election campaign. Mitt Romney’s attempt to redefine himself in the final months of the campaign, to shake the “etch-a-sketch” once he sewed up the nomination, is a necessary move given the sharp difference between the primary and general electorates.
We touched on similar thoughts in class, but note that this supports the idea that political parties have transformed the constitutional system.
At that time, only Eisenhower, Nixon (who was unable to finish his term) and Reagan were elected to two full terms of office. Many other had been defeated. Now with Obama's reelection, we've had three president in a row who've won second terms.
Here's a look at why that might be the case.
I find this part most compelling:
Several factors may be at work, but one stands out. Most recent incumbent presidents have enjoyed the advantage of early, unified support from their own party.
Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama faced no challenge when they decided to seek renomination. Certainly they had their critics within their own party, especially the Democratic incumbents. Both Clinton and Obama faced murmurings of liberal discontent. But it did not suffice to propel a challenger to enter the fray.
On the other side, George H.W. Bush encountered sharp conservative opposition from Pat Buchanan. Although Buchanan never represented a serious threat for the nomination, he did pressure Bush 41 from the right. Bush’s situation paralleled that of Johnson, Ford, and Carter, each of whom did battle with a popular rival in his own party (Eugene McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, and Ted Kennedy).
With no competition for the nomination, a sitting president does not have to engage in one of the familiar exercises of American electoral politics in the modern era — repositioning himself between the primary season and the general election campaign. Mitt Romney’s attempt to redefine himself in the final months of the campaign, to shake the “etch-a-sketch” once he sewed up the nomination, is a necessary move given the sharp difference between the primary and general electorates.
We touched on similar thoughts in class, but note that this supports the idea that political parties have transformed the constitutional system.
From the National Journal: Blue Dogs Are Dwindling
Here's more evidence that we should expect continued gridlock in the 113th Congress. The progressive (liberal) wing of the Democratic Party has grown in strength and pushed out the more moderate and conservative members of the party who once held seats in Congress.
Here's a link to the story.
Two years ago there were 54 Blue Dog Democrats, now there are 14.
Thus far, researchers have argued that polarization in Congress has been driven primarily by conservative activists in the Republican Party who have driven out the moderate and liberal Republicans from office. That no longer appears to be the sole driver of polarization - so we can safely expect greater conflict in the next two years.
The big winner in the Congressional election appears to be the Progressive Change Campaign Committee which has pushed for the election of ideologically committed progressives.
Here's a link to the story.
Two years ago there were 54 Blue Dog Democrats, now there are 14.
Thus far, researchers have argued that polarization in Congress has been driven primarily by conservative activists in the Republican Party who have driven out the moderate and liberal Republicans from office. That no longer appears to be the sole driver of polarization - so we can safely expect greater conflict in the next two years.
The big winner in the Congressional election appears to be the Progressive Change Campaign Committee which has pushed for the election of ideologically committed progressives.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Who leads the Republican Party?
This is a question we asked of both parties when we covered the subject, but when your party looses an election - especially the second in a row - the question is especially important.
Here's one man's attempt to answer the question.
Here's one man's attempt to answer the question.
Gerrymandering Mattered
Total votes for US House races show that Democrats got more votes than Republicans, but Republicans hold more seats than Democrats. This suggests that gerrymandering following the 2010 election (the Tea Party wave where Republicans won a majority in the majority of state legislatures) worked, and may continue to work for the rest of the decade.
But there's an argument that Republicans have an advantage over Democrats regardless because Democrats are packed into fewer districts than Republicans. Democrats would have to win the House by over 52% of the total vote in order to break even with Republicans.
See How Significant was the Gerrymandering?
Here's an argument that the number of gerrymandered seats - those that lead to safe Republican and Democratic seats - will continue to make governing difficult. Only 89 out of 435 seats are competitive, defined as being where the candidates receive between 46% and 54% of the total vote.
Here's a map of the House districts with the gray districts being the competitive ones.
But there's an argument that Republicans have an advantage over Democrats regardless because Democrats are packed into fewer districts than Republicans. Democrats would have to win the House by over 52% of the total vote in order to break even with Republicans.
See How Significant was the Gerrymandering?
Here's an argument that the number of gerrymandered seats - those that lead to safe Republican and Democratic seats - will continue to make governing difficult. Only 89 out of 435 seats are competitive, defined as being where the candidates receive between 46% and 54% of the total vote.
Here's a map of the House districts with the gray districts being the competitive ones.
The Obama and Romney Vote in a Graph
From The Dish:
Unless the Republican Party begins to gain the support of non-whites, they are projected to become an increasingly minor party.
Unless the Republican Party begins to gain the support of non-whites, they are projected to become an increasingly minor party.
Texas will not set up an insurance exchange
No surprise here. Story in the Houston Chronicle:
A day before a Friday deadline, Gov. Rick Perry announced Texas would not set up a key component of the Affordable Care Act, a health-insurance exchange that would allow individuals and small businesses to find coverage online at the most favorable price.
The governor reiterated his opposition in a letter released Thursday to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
"As long as the federal government has the ability to force unknown mandates and costs upon our citizens, while retaining the sole power in approving what an exchange looks like, the notion of a state exchange is merely an illusion," Perry said in the letter. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written."
The health insurance exchanges are the primary means for individuals to purchase health insurance under the ACA (Obamacare). each state is allowed to establish its own exchange if it chooses, but has to have this done soon - the deadline has been adjusted recently. These have to operational by January 1, 2014. If a states chooses not to do so, the federal government can step in to set it up.
A day before a Friday deadline, Gov. Rick Perry announced Texas would not set up a key component of the Affordable Care Act, a health-insurance exchange that would allow individuals and small businesses to find coverage online at the most favorable price.
The governor reiterated his opposition in a letter released Thursday to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
"As long as the federal government has the ability to force unknown mandates and costs upon our citizens, while retaining the sole power in approving what an exchange looks like, the notion of a state exchange is merely an illusion," Perry said in the letter. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written."
The health insurance exchanges are the primary means for individuals to purchase health insurance under the ACA (Obamacare). each state is allowed to establish its own exchange if it chooses, but has to have this done soon - the deadline has been adjusted recently. These have to operational by January 1, 2014. If a states chooses not to do so, the federal government can step in to set it up.
The Legislative Budget Board sets spending limit for Texas' 2014-1015 budget
From the Houston Chronicle:
The Texas Legislative Budget Board set a $77.9 billion cap on state spending Thursday for the 2014-15 budget year, a 10 percent increase above the current discretionary spending limit.
But Republican leaders said the actual state budget likely will be less. Gov. Rick Perry and his allies have said they want to limit spending increases to population growth plus inflation. Ursula Parks, the budget board's director, told lawmakers that experts estimate that rate will be 9.85 percent in 2014-15.
The spending cap is based on the economic forecasts of state revenues over the next two years. The final cap, though, will be set by State Comptroller Susan Combs in January when she issues an official revenue estimate for 2014-15.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, said his chamber will produce an appropriations bill where spending increases are limited to that rate, and bragged that Texas ranks 49th in the nation in terms of per capita state spending.
Democratic state Rep. Sylvester Turner, vice chairman of the House finance committee, objected to making commitments before the 2013 legislative session even begins.
From Quorum Report:
The Legislative Budget Board adopted a constitutional spending limit of $77.9 billion for the coming two-year budget period, anticipating a growth in state personal income of 10.7 percent.
That’s up from the $70.4 billion in spending for the current biennium from tax revenue not constitutionally dedicated.
The LBB adopts a constitutional spending limit based on a forecast of the rate of growth in personal income in Texas over the coming fiscal biennium (FY 2014-15). It relies on five different estimates of what that rate of growth will be – some of them by private sector analysts and some in the public sector.
Those forecasts range from a low of 8.7 percent from the University of North Texas Center for Economic Development & Research to a high of 12.2 percent from Moody’s Analytics. This relatively robust growth in personal income reflects an economy in recovery helped along by high energy prices.
In the end, though, the LBB, comprised of the chambers’ leaders, budget writers and other senior leaders, sided with the estimate of 10.7 percent growth calculated by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
The Texas Legislative Budget Board set a $77.9 billion cap on state spending Thursday for the 2014-15 budget year, a 10 percent increase above the current discretionary spending limit.
But Republican leaders said the actual state budget likely will be less. Gov. Rick Perry and his allies have said they want to limit spending increases to population growth plus inflation. Ursula Parks, the budget board's director, told lawmakers that experts estimate that rate will be 9.85 percent in 2014-15.
The spending cap is based on the economic forecasts of state revenues over the next two years. The final cap, though, will be set by State Comptroller Susan Combs in January when she issues an official revenue estimate for 2014-15.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, said his chamber will produce an appropriations bill where spending increases are limited to that rate, and bragged that Texas ranks 49th in the nation in terms of per capita state spending.
Democratic state Rep. Sylvester Turner, vice chairman of the House finance committee, objected to making commitments before the 2013 legislative session even begins.
From Quorum Report:
The Legislative Budget Board adopted a constitutional spending limit of $77.9 billion for the coming two-year budget period, anticipating a growth in state personal income of 10.7 percent.
That’s up from the $70.4 billion in spending for the current biennium from tax revenue not constitutionally dedicated.
The LBB adopts a constitutional spending limit based on a forecast of the rate of growth in personal income in Texas over the coming fiscal biennium (FY 2014-15). It relies on five different estimates of what that rate of growth will be – some of them by private sector analysts and some in the public sector.
Those forecasts range from a low of 8.7 percent from the University of North Texas Center for Economic Development & Research to a high of 12.2 percent from Moody’s Analytics. This relatively robust growth in personal income reflects an economy in recovery helped along by high energy prices.
In the end, though, the LBB, comprised of the chambers’ leaders, budget writers and other senior leaders, sided with the estimate of 10.7 percent growth calculated by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Bill filing begins for the 83rd session of the Texas Legislature
As per Texas law, yesterday marked the first day of bill filing for the Texas Legislature's session starting in January.
The Fort Worth Star Telegram comments on what's been introduced so far.
If the Texas Legislature doesn't pass a bill next year to outlaw texting while driving, it won't be for lack of trying.
At least six bills calling for a statewide ban on driver texting were introduced Monday on the first day lawmakers could propose legislation for the regular session that begins Jan. 8.
The first day of "pre-filing" bills traditionally is one when legislators seek to draw attention to pet projects, many of which have been tried unsuccessfully in previous sessions. It's also a day when Texans get a look at some of the major issues of the coming session.
There's much more, we'll start compiling a list of what to except soon.
The Fort Worth Star Telegram comments on what's been introduced so far.
If the Texas Legislature doesn't pass a bill next year to outlaw texting while driving, it won't be for lack of trying.
At least six bills calling for a statewide ban on driver texting were introduced Monday on the first day lawmakers could propose legislation for the regular session that begins Jan. 8.
The first day of "pre-filing" bills traditionally is one when legislators seek to draw attention to pet projects, many of which have been tried unsuccessfully in previous sessions. It's also a day when Texans get a look at some of the major issues of the coming session.
There's much more, we'll start compiling a list of what to except soon.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Week Twelve Writing Assignment
For my 16 week students, this will be your last written assignment. Give me a first draft of your 1000 word report. I'll give you two weeks to do it.
Turn it in by Monday November 26.
Turn it in by Monday November 26.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Could pre-clearance be on the chopping block?
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the Voting Rights Act.
From the NYT:
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would take a fresh look at the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the signature legacies of the civil rights movement.
Three years ago, the court signaled that part of the law may no longer be needed, and the law’s challengers said the re-election of the nation’s first black president is proof that the nation has moved beyond the racial divisions that gave rise to efforts to protect the integrity of elections in the South.
The law “is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp,” said Edward P. Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, a small legal foundation that helped organize the suit.
Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, pointed to the role the law played in the recent election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
“In the midst of the recent assault on voter access, the Voting Rights Act is playing a pivotal role beating back discriminatory voting measures,” said Debo P. Adegbile, the acting president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the law, expected by June, could reshape how elections are conducted.
From the NYT:
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would take a fresh look at the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the signature legacies of the civil rights movement.
Three years ago, the court signaled that part of the law may no longer be needed, and the law’s challengers said the re-election of the nation’s first black president is proof that the nation has moved beyond the racial divisions that gave rise to efforts to protect the integrity of elections in the South.
The law “is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp,” said Edward P. Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, a small legal foundation that helped organize the suit.
Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, pointed to the role the law played in the recent election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.
“In the midst of the recent assault on voter access, the Voting Rights Act is playing a pivotal role beating back discriminatory voting measures,” said Debo P. Adegbile, the acting president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the law, expected by June, could reshape how elections are conducted.
Is the power of the Christian Right fading?
From the NYT:
Christian conservatives, for more than two decades a pivotal force in American politics, are grappling with Election Day results that repudiated their influence and suggested that the cultural tide — especially on gay issues — has shifted against them.
They are reeling not only from the loss of the presidency, but from what many of them see as a rejection of their agenda. They lost fights against same-sex marriage in all four states where it was on the ballot, and saw anti-abortion-rights Senate candidates defeated and two states vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
It is not as though they did not put up a fight; they went all out as never before: The Rev. Billy Graham dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship and all but endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Roman Catholic bishops denounced President Obama’s policies as a threat to life, religious liberty and the traditional nuclear family. Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition distributed more voter guides in churches and contacted more homes by mail and phone than ever before.
“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.
“It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
Christian conservatives, for more than two decades a pivotal force in American politics, are grappling with Election Day results that repudiated their influence and suggested that the cultural tide — especially on gay issues — has shifted against them.
They are reeling not only from the loss of the presidency, but from what many of them see as a rejection of their agenda. They lost fights against same-sex marriage in all four states where it was on the ballot, and saw anti-abortion-rights Senate candidates defeated and two states vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
It is not as though they did not put up a fight; they went all out as never before: The Rev. Billy Graham dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship and all but endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Roman Catholic bishops denounced President Obama’s policies as a threat to life, religious liberty and the traditional nuclear family. Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition distributed more voter guides in churches and contacted more homes by mail and phone than ever before.
“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.
“It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
Polling aggregators are here to stay
When we cover public opinion, we commonly look at pollsters and polling organizations like the Gallup Poll. Now, based on the attention people like Nate Silver received in this election, we will also be looking at polling aggregators. These are people that take the data received by various polling firms and average them out using algorithms they develop that compensate for anything in the specific polls they find problematic.
Here is C-Net's appraisal of Nate Silver's performance.
One concern expressed by commentators is that all this attention to aggregators may detract from the importance of polling itself. If there are no polls, then there are no aggregators. Might this attention to aggregators minimize that given to polls?
Here is C-Net's appraisal of Nate Silver's performance.
One concern expressed by commentators is that all this attention to aggregators may detract from the importance of polling itself. If there are no polls, then there are no aggregators. Might this attention to aggregators minimize that given to polls?
More gridlock ahead?
Here's a projection - based on past data - that the incoming 113th Congress will be just as gridlocked as its immediate predecessor, the one dubbed by some as the worst Congress ever:
There has been much discussion of “the fundamentals” lately. Armed with knowledge of the economy and presidential approval, political scientists knew a few months ago that Obama had a (slightly) favorable chance of winning the election. Now that the excitement of the election is behind us and politicians face the task of governing, what might the fundamentals tell us about the next two years of lawmaking?
In the realm of congressional politics, the fundamentals I’m referring to are the configurations of legislators’ preferences required to break gridlock, per the theory laid out by Keith Krehbiel in Pivotal Politics and David Brady and Craig Volden in Revolving Gridlock. Breaking gridlock means having supermajorities sufficiently large enough to ignore a veto threat or to invoke cloture in the Senate. These requirements can be summarized graphically in the form of a gridlock interval—any proposal to move policy away from a position that lies within this interval can be expected lack the requisite supermajority coalition.
By looking at how elections affect these intervals, we can understand and form expectations about how productive Congress will be. The key is how the interval shifts and shrinks (or stretches) over time. The more of the previous interval that is “freed up” by the election (i.e., does not overlap the subsequent interval), the more productive we can expect Congress to be.
To see what we might expect over the next two years based on these fundamentals, I computed a projected gridlock interval for the 113th Congress (using Keith Poole’s NOMINATE scores and the technique I used to predict lawmaking following 2008 election) and plotted it along with the gridlock intervals for the 110th through the 112th Congresses (2007-2012) for comparison. The projected interval for the 113th is virtually identical to the interval for the 112th, so we can expect Congress to do…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
There has been much discussion of “the fundamentals” lately. Armed with knowledge of the economy and presidential approval, political scientists knew a few months ago that Obama had a (slightly) favorable chance of winning the election. Now that the excitement of the election is behind us and politicians face the task of governing, what might the fundamentals tell us about the next two years of lawmaking?
In the realm of congressional politics, the fundamentals I’m referring to are the configurations of legislators’ preferences required to break gridlock, per the theory laid out by Keith Krehbiel in Pivotal Politics and David Brady and Craig Volden in Revolving Gridlock. Breaking gridlock means having supermajorities sufficiently large enough to ignore a veto threat or to invoke cloture in the Senate. These requirements can be summarized graphically in the form of a gridlock interval—any proposal to move policy away from a position that lies within this interval can be expected lack the requisite supermajority coalition.
By looking at how elections affect these intervals, we can understand and form expectations about how productive Congress will be. The key is how the interval shifts and shrinks (or stretches) over time. The more of the previous interval that is “freed up” by the election (i.e., does not overlap the subsequent interval), the more productive we can expect Congress to be.
To see what we might expect over the next two years based on these fundamentals, I computed a projected gridlock interval for the 113th Congress (using Keith Poole’s NOMINATE scores and the technique I used to predict lawmaking following 2008 election) and plotted it along with the gridlock intervals for the 110th through the 112th Congresses (2007-2012) for comparison. The projected interval for the 113th is virtually identical to the interval for the 112th, so we can expect Congress to do…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
From Buzzfeed: What The 2012 Election Would Have Looked Like Without Universal Suffrage
This is great info. What would the 2012 election result have been if suffrage had not been expended over American history? What if there has been no 15th mendment for example? These maps show us. Here's what the result would have been like if only white men could vote (nothing on if only white male proerty owners could vote - pity, but we could probably guess).
Cool 2012 Elections Maps
Lots of maps were generated to display the outcome of the 2012 election. Here's one that shows the national map adjusted for county size and in gradations between solid red and solid blue to show the percentage of the vote each party's candidate received. Can you spot Harris County?
Here are links to more.
- Mark Newman.
- The Monkey Cage.
- TPM.
Here are links to more.
- Mark Newman.
- The Monkey Cage.
- TPM.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Texas Tribune: New Legislative Faces — and an Experience Deficit
The Texas Tribune looks ahead to the 83rd Legislature, which contains 43 new members - in addition to 23 who were elected in 2010. This is an unusually inexperienced legislature, so there's no telling what it might do:
The new members aren’t stupid, and some are quite smart. But they are inexperienced, and that will become evident as they run into issues they prepared for during the campaigns — things like voter ID and women’s health and standardized testing in public schools — and issues they have never encountered, like the intricacies of tax exemptions and the state budget.
New members have new ideas, and many of them are elected by people who are tired of what has been happening in government and who want their new representatives to fundamentally change the way things are done.
It takes time. All a new member gets is a parking place, an office and a chair in the House. New members get a vote when things come up. They don’t have much to say about what comes up, when it comes up and what’s in it when it gets to the full Legislature. They don’t have the knowledge yet about which legislators are powerful, which ones are bullies, which ones are smart, which ones are honest and which ones are just decent human beings.
The new members aren’t stupid, and some are quite smart. But they are inexperienced, and that will become evident as they run into issues they prepared for during the campaigns — things like voter ID and women’s health and standardized testing in public schools — and issues they have never encountered, like the intricacies of tax exemptions and the state budget.
New members have new ideas, and many of them are elected by people who are tired of what has been happening in government and who want their new representatives to fundamentally change the way things are done.
It takes time. All a new member gets is a parking place, an office and a chair in the House. New members get a vote when things come up. They don’t have much to say about what comes up, when it comes up and what’s in it when it gets to the full Legislature. They don’t have the knowledge yet about which legislators are powerful, which ones are bullies, which ones are smart, which ones are honest and which ones are just decent human beings.
Texas Senator John Cornyn set to move up to #2 in Senate Republican leadership team
Politico and The Hill report that Texas Senator John Cornyn is set to become the Republican Party Whip in the Senate - which means he is second in command of the party, just behind the party leader - the minority leader - which will continue to be Mitch McConnell.
Without a race for the whip’s job, the Senate Republican leadership hierarchy will stay the same. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will keep his job and Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Senate GOP Conference Vice Chairman Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) are expected to win easy reelection to their posts.
Politico points out that Cornyn is up for re-election in 2014, that is certain to affect his behavior during the 113th Congress in order to prevent a primary challenger within his party. Expect him to tilt to the right - but this will be worth monitoring.
The Washington Monthly finds the appointment curious since Cornyn has been in charge of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and was tasked with leading his party's efforts in taking over the Senate from Democrats - but it he was unable to despite having several factors which should have made this easy. They ask if this was social promotion.
Without a race for the whip’s job, the Senate Republican leadership hierarchy will stay the same. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will keep his job and Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Senate GOP Conference Vice Chairman Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) are expected to win easy reelection to their posts.
Politico points out that Cornyn is up for re-election in 2014, that is certain to affect his behavior during the 113th Congress in order to prevent a primary challenger within his party. Expect him to tilt to the right - but this will be worth monitoring.
The Washington Monthly finds the appointment curious since Cornyn has been in charge of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and was tasked with leading his party's efforts in taking over the Senate from Democrats - but it he was unable to despite having several factors which should have made this easy. They ask if this was social promotion.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
From the Hill: 25 problems facing Obama, Congress
Now that the election is over, Congress gets back to work, and the big question is how it will deal with Obama now that he has been re-elected. Is the president now stronger politically?
The Hill argues that these are the 25 biggest problems facing each.
The Hill argues that these are the 25 biggest problems facing each.
Good news, you were just defeated in your bid to be re-elected to Congress
Now the big money can start rolling in.
We've been discussing interest groups and lobbying, as well as the tendency of lobbying groups to hire ex-members of Congress. Here's proof from The Hill:
Several lawmakers who went down in defeat on election night could find a second act in Washington as lobbyists.
Many Blue Dogs, the ever-shrinking centrist Democratic faction in the House, lost their reelection bids, but their brand is strong on K Street. Lobby firms prize the conservative-leaning Democrats for their reputation as dealmakers who can get results.
Ivan Adler, a principal at the McCormick Group, said lawmakers with bipartisan credentials go for top dollar in the influence industry.
As we discussed in class - this helps sub-governments to form and is part of the revolving door in national government.
FYI: "Blue Dogs" refers to members of the Blue Dog Coalition. We mentioned them in 2306. A subspecies of the Yellow Dog Democrat, these were Democrats who would rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican. Blue Dogs are Yellow Dogs who've been strangled by the liberal leadership of the national Democratic Party. Most Blue Dogs Democrats are now Republicans.
We've been discussing interest groups and lobbying, as well as the tendency of lobbying groups to hire ex-members of Congress. Here's proof from The Hill:
Several lawmakers who went down in defeat on election night could find a second act in Washington as lobbyists.
Many Blue Dogs, the ever-shrinking centrist Democratic faction in the House, lost their reelection bids, but their brand is strong on K Street. Lobby firms prize the conservative-leaning Democrats for their reputation as dealmakers who can get results.
Ivan Adler, a principal at the McCormick Group, said lawmakers with bipartisan credentials go for top dollar in the influence industry.
As we discussed in class - this helps sub-governments to form and is part of the revolving door in national government.
FYI: "Blue Dogs" refers to members of the Blue Dog Coalition. We mentioned them in 2306. A subspecies of the Yellow Dog Democrat, these were Democrats who would rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican. Blue Dogs are Yellow Dogs who've been strangled by the liberal leadership of the national Democratic Party. Most Blue Dogs Democrats are now Republicans.
Did campaign contributions matter?
It seems that they didn't.
At least on the national level. There are arguments that money in politics matters more in state elections, so the jury's still out.
At least on the national level. There are arguments that money in politics matters more in state elections, so the jury's still out.
How data crunchers helped Obama win
Here are a couple of inside looks at the Obama Campaign and how the people who look at the numbers made adjustments - sometimes immediately - to their campaign in order to capitalize on incoming information (From Andrew Sullivan).
Michael Scherer:
In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obama’s campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.
So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obama’s top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. “We were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker,” explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parker’s West Village brownstone.
Sasha Issenberg:
In 2004, the incumbent who won that tactical victory was George W. Bush, and as Democrats learned more about his campaign’s successful application of first-generation “microtargeting” procedures, they began to see their opponent’s powers as more mundane than mystical. Five weeks after Bush’s re-election, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne diagnosed the Democrats as suffering from “Rove Envy” and described the longing the party had “for the strategic clarity and organizational acumen” Republicans showed in campaigns. Indeed Bush’s win had ratified what both sides recognized as a long-standing culture gap between the parties. Republicans were the party that was competent about politics, bringing the discipline of the corporate suite to the campaign war room. Democrats, who had resigned themselves to the reality of the Will Rogers quip about not being “an organized political party,” committed themselves to building a new infrastructure for innovation and collaboration among separate interest groups and rival consultants.
Tuesday night’s results testify to many dramatic changes, particularly demographic and ideological ones, that mark life in Obama’s America. But within the practice of politics, no shift seems more dramatic than the role reversal between the two parties on campaigning competence. Today, there is only one direction in which envy can and should be directed: Democrats have proved themselves better—more disciplined, rigorous, serious, and forward-looking—at nearly every aspect of the project of winning elections.
Michael Scherer:
In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obama’s campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.
So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obama’s top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. “We were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker,” explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parker’s West Village brownstone.
Sasha Issenberg:
In 2004, the incumbent who won that tactical victory was George W. Bush, and as Democrats learned more about his campaign’s successful application of first-generation “microtargeting” procedures, they began to see their opponent’s powers as more mundane than mystical. Five weeks after Bush’s re-election, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne diagnosed the Democrats as suffering from “Rove Envy” and described the longing the party had “for the strategic clarity and organizational acumen” Republicans showed in campaigns. Indeed Bush’s win had ratified what both sides recognized as a long-standing culture gap between the parties. Republicans were the party that was competent about politics, bringing the discipline of the corporate suite to the campaign war room. Democrats, who had resigned themselves to the reality of the Will Rogers quip about not being “an organized political party,” committed themselves to building a new infrastructure for innovation and collaboration among separate interest groups and rival consultants.
Tuesday night’s results testify to many dramatic changes, particularly demographic and ideological ones, that mark life in Obama’s America. But within the practice of politics, no shift seems more dramatic than the role reversal between the two parties on campaigning competence. Today, there is only one direction in which envy can and should be directed: Democrats have proved themselves better—more disciplined, rigorous, serious, and forward-looking—at nearly every aspect of the project of winning elections.
Don't blame Sandy, credit the first debate, or argue that Romney was a lousy candidate.
At least according to political scientist Samuel Popkin.
His take about what happened?
To put it bluntly: either the Romney campaign never had a chance, or they blew it through early strategic choices. I believe that, while it is never easy to take on an incumbent, the Romney campaign lost whatever chance they had because of early mistakes.
- read it here.
His take about what happened?
To put it bluntly: either the Romney campaign never had a chance, or they blew it through early strategic choices. I believe that, while it is never easy to take on an incumbent, the Romney campaign lost whatever chance they had because of early mistakes.
- read it here.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Are we witnessing a partisan realignment?
We finished discussing parties in most classes last week, and and concluded with a look at party eras - those periods of time where a specific relationship between political parties - and political forces in general - are somewhat stable. They tend to last 30-40 years, and we haven't seen one in a while, possibly since 1968.
Given that Obama not only won reelection last night, but was the first Democratic president since FDR to win consecutive elections with a majority, there's talk that we might be undergoing a long delayed shift in politics.
The Reagan Coalition, which has dominated politics since 1980 might be running out of steam, and could be replaced with a multi racial, coalition that might keep Democrats in power for some time.
Andrew Sullivan has a list of the various takes on this theme from various commentators. These includes advice - mostly unsolicited - about what Republicans need to consider doing in order to stay competitive. A consensus seems to be emerging that the Republican Party is old and white, and that wont help them much as the nation continues on the road to being majority minority.
Given that Obama not only won reelection last night, but was the first Democratic president since FDR to win consecutive elections with a majority, there's talk that we might be undergoing a long delayed shift in politics.
The Reagan Coalition, which has dominated politics since 1980 might be running out of steam, and could be replaced with a multi racial, coalition that might keep Democrats in power for some time.
Andrew Sullivan has a list of the various takes on this theme from various commentators. These includes advice - mostly unsolicited - about what Republicans need to consider doing in order to stay competitive. A consensus seems to be emerging that the Republican Party is old and white, and that wont help them much as the nation continues on the road to being majority minority.
Local Election Results - 2012
For full county results click here:
- Harris County.
- Brazoria County.
FYI:
Brazoria County voted
Romney - 70,684
Obama - 34,327
Harris County voted
Romney - 584,866
Obama - 585,451
The Houston Chronicle offers additional ways to access local election results.
- Harris County.
- Brazoria County.
FYI:
Brazoria County voted
Romney - 70,684
Obama - 34,327
Harris County voted
Romney - 584,866
Obama - 585,451
The Houston Chronicle offers additional ways to access local election results.
3 out of 6 marijuana legalization innitiatives passed arounf the country.
In case you need a reason to visit Colorado, Washington, and Massachusetts.
Have Republicans nominated candidates to Senate races that are too extreme for the general electorate
That seems to be the conclusion of this author. Republicans had unusual opportunities to gain significant seats in the Senate in 2010 and 2012 since Democrats had a larger number of seats to defend than Republicans, but they were unable to capitalize on it. Why?
Looking forward from the tumultuous early days of President Obama’s first term, Republicans found themselves, for different reasons, facing three consecutive Senate elections — 2010, 2012, and 2014 — with fundamentals on their side. The financial crisis had left economic ruin in its wake and, with the recovery halting, Democratic incumbents were cannon fodder for a bellicose, conservative electorate.
But the most energized portion of that electorate — the GOP base — was just as determined to oust Republican candidates and incumbents who failed to meet appropriately conservative standards as it was to unseat Democrats. At the district level, where highly ideological candidates can win gerrymandered seats, this prefigured a historic House Republican wave. At the state level — particularly the swing state level — it created enormous headaches for the national GOP, which co-opted the tea party movement, and attempted to convert its energy into partisan policy and electoral gains, but ultimately found itself powerless to prevent its followers from selecting candidates who could not credibly compete.
In the end, Republicans cut down the Democrats’ 59 vote majority to 53 in 2010, but missed golden opportunities to oust vulnerable Democratic incumbents in Nevada (Harry Reid) and Colorado (Michael Bennet), and to defeat Chris Coons, a first-time Democratic hopeful running for Joe Biden’s open former seat, in Delaware. They also squandered a less straightforward opportunity in Connecticut, where troubled Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal was able to fend off his opponent, professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon.But for the GOP base’s ideological rigidity, those four races would have thrown control of the Senate to the GOP.
We've been discussing parties and elections, and wondering about both the impact of the primary election and the question of who in fact controls each political party. The rise of the Tea Party - a very focused. passionate and effective group - allowed a subsection within the Republican Party to determine who its candidates were going to be by dominating primary elections. Small concentrated, passionate groups can do this, but it does not necessarily translate into success in general elections since it includes moderates that may not necessarily - in fact seldom do - share the view of the passionate minority.
Now we'll watch to see if the party establishment can respond successfully and nominate better candidates in 2014.
Looking forward from the tumultuous early days of President Obama’s first term, Republicans found themselves, for different reasons, facing three consecutive Senate elections — 2010, 2012, and 2014 — with fundamentals on their side. The financial crisis had left economic ruin in its wake and, with the recovery halting, Democratic incumbents were cannon fodder for a bellicose, conservative electorate.
But the most energized portion of that electorate — the GOP base — was just as determined to oust Republican candidates and incumbents who failed to meet appropriately conservative standards as it was to unseat Democrats. At the district level, where highly ideological candidates can win gerrymandered seats, this prefigured a historic House Republican wave. At the state level — particularly the swing state level — it created enormous headaches for the national GOP, which co-opted the tea party movement, and attempted to convert its energy into partisan policy and electoral gains, but ultimately found itself powerless to prevent its followers from selecting candidates who could not credibly compete.
In the end, Republicans cut down the Democrats’ 59 vote majority to 53 in 2010, but missed golden opportunities to oust vulnerable Democratic incumbents in Nevada (Harry Reid) and Colorado (Michael Bennet), and to defeat Chris Coons, a first-time Democratic hopeful running for Joe Biden’s open former seat, in Delaware. They also squandered a less straightforward opportunity in Connecticut, where troubled Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal was able to fend off his opponent, professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon.But for the GOP base’s ideological rigidity, those four races would have thrown control of the Senate to the GOP.
We've been discussing parties and elections, and wondering about both the impact of the primary election and the question of who in fact controls each political party. The rise of the Tea Party - a very focused. passionate and effective group - allowed a subsection within the Republican Party to determine who its candidates were going to be by dominating primary elections. Small concentrated, passionate groups can do this, but it does not necessarily translate into success in general elections since it includes moderates that may not necessarily - in fact seldom do - share the view of the passionate minority.
Now we'll watch to see if the party establishment can respond successfully and nominate better candidates in 2014.
Texas Election Results - 2012
From numbers on the Texas election results click on the following:
- NYT.
- Texas Secretary of State - Election Night Returns.
The Republican Party no longer has a super majority in the House since its total dropped from 101 to 95. A 2/3rds majority the majority to automatically have a quorum and to pass constitutional amendments without the need for any Democrats to come on board.
95 is still well passed what is needed for the simple major necessary to pass legislation however.
- NYT.
- Texas Secretary of State - Election Night Returns.
The Republican Party no longer has a super majority in the House since its total dropped from 101 to 95. A 2/3rds majority the majority to automatically have a quorum and to pass constitutional amendments without the need for any Democrats to come on board.
95 is still well passed what is needed for the simple major necessary to pass legislation however.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
American Nations
Does the layout of the states really help us understand the bature of politics in the United States. There's a string argument to be made that it does not because state border can overlay differences that cut across states.
Take the map below - click here to get access to a larger version and here for the book explaining the map. As other before him he suggests that the United States is better understood as a handful of separate, distinct national identities which transcend and cut across state borders.
While we think of Texas as having a unique identity, it has significant differences within it, that make certain areas more common to other parts of the nation. Note the regions in Texas that are in the Deep South and El Norte. Also note Greater Appalachia.
This happens to be the "reddest" part of the county. The counties with the highest percentage of the vote for McCain and Romney were in these areas.
Take the map below - click here to get access to a larger version and here for the book explaining the map. As other before him he suggests that the United States is better understood as a handful of separate, distinct national identities which transcend and cut across state borders.
While we think of Texas as having a unique identity, it has significant differences within it, that make certain areas more common to other parts of the nation. Note the regions in Texas that are in the Deep South and El Norte. Also note Greater Appalachia.
This happens to be the "reddest" part of the county. The counties with the highest percentage of the vote for McCain and Romney were in these areas.
 |
| Add caption |
From the Texas Tribune: UT/TT Poll: Texans Are Leery of Government
Not a bit surprising, but its nice to have numbers. Attitudes about the three branches among Texans roughly mirrors those of the US as a whole.
What do we make of the don't knows?
What do we make of the don't knows?
From the HC: Texas' voter purge made repeated errors
Add this to our discussion of managing elections in 2306:
State election officials repeatedly and mistakenly matched active longtime Texas voters to deceased strangers across the country - some of whom perished more than a decade ago - in an error-ridden effort to purge dead voters just weeks before the presidential election, according to a Houston Chronicle review of records.
Voters in legislative districts across Texas with heavy concentrations of Hispanics or African-Americans were more often targeted in that flawed purge effort, according the Chronicle's analysis of more than 68,000 voters identified as possibly dead.
State election officials repeatedly and mistakenly matched active longtime Texas voters to deceased strangers across the country - some of whom perished more than a decade ago - in an error-ridden effort to purge dead voters just weeks before the presidential election, according to a Houston Chronicle review of records.
Voters in legislative districts across Texas with heavy concentrations of Hispanics or African-Americans were more often targeted in that flawed purge effort, according the Chronicle's analysis of more than 68,000 voters identified as possibly dead.
Apparently it used to be much easier to fire generals
It happened a lot in World War 2, but not in Vietnam or Iraq.
And author details the factors driving the change in a new book, and considers the consequences.
Listen to an interview with Thomas Hicks here.
This adds detail to our upcoming look at the federal bureaucracy.
And author details the factors driving the change in a new book, and considers the consequences.
Listen to an interview with Thomas Hicks here.
This adds detail to our upcoming look at the federal bureaucracy.
Something you might find useful
One of your fellow students pointed out this feature in nook study where you can download documents and have them read to you. He found it helpful preparing for assessments.
Beats listening to me probably.
Beats listening to me probably.
From Bloomberg: This Election Is About the Court, Not the Economy
I asked some classes to consider the impact this election is likely to have on the Supreme Court. Here's the same question addressed by a national reporter. He thinks its huge. The next president will shape the court for the next generation.
Somehow the campaigns have failed to remind us that four justices are 74 or older, meaning they will be at least 78 by the end of the term. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is already 79, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy not far behind at 76 and Justice Stephen Breyer at 74. One hopes of course they all live long lives, but the notion that all four will still be willing and able to serve the next four years is preposterous. Several will retire and be replaced -- and even one replacement could fundamentally change the configuration of the court.
If Romney becomes president, Ginsburg will certainly do all she can to remain in the saddle. But if she were to have to retire for health reasons (she has been treated for colon cancer and pancreatic cancer), the court would become ineluctably conservative. The present 4-to-4 split with Kennedy as the swing vote would change into a stable 5-to-3 conservative majority, with Kennedy no longer important.
Under Romney, Scalia might retire to give a Republican president the chance to replace him with someone young and comparably conservative. That would consolidate the conservative majority of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas (now 64) for as long as Thomas stayed healthy.
Or consider the scenario where Obama is re-elected and either Scalia or Kennedy is replaced by a relatively more liberal justice. That would in turn create incentives for Ginsburg and Breyer to retire, which would allow the possibility of a five-justice liberal majority in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now 58, would be the eldest.
Somehow the campaigns have failed to remind us that four justices are 74 or older, meaning they will be at least 78 by the end of the term. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is already 79, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy not far behind at 76 and Justice Stephen Breyer at 74. One hopes of course they all live long lives, but the notion that all four will still be willing and able to serve the next four years is preposterous. Several will retire and be replaced -- and even one replacement could fundamentally change the configuration of the court.
If Romney becomes president, Ginsburg will certainly do all she can to remain in the saddle. But if she were to have to retire for health reasons (she has been treated for colon cancer and pancreatic cancer), the court would become ineluctably conservative. The present 4-to-4 split with Kennedy as the swing vote would change into a stable 5-to-3 conservative majority, with Kennedy no longer important.
Under Romney, Scalia might retire to give a Republican president the chance to replace him with someone young and comparably conservative. That would consolidate the conservative majority of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas (now 64) for as long as Thomas stayed healthy.
Or consider the scenario where Obama is re-elected and either Scalia or Kennedy is replaced by a relatively more liberal justice. That would in turn create incentives for Ginsburg and Breyer to retire, which would allow the possibility of a five-justice liberal majority in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now 58, would be the eldest.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
From TNR: Weather Models Get Sandy Right
We've been discussing mathematical models in class - those used to sift through polling data to try to predict how the vote will turn out next week as well as those that are used to help campaigns target likely supporters. Here's a story about mathematial modelling for weather events. Apparently forecasters got Hurricane Sandy exactly right.
We may not be able to tease weather forecasters for wrong predictions much longer.
The relevant agencies are the National Hurricane Center (Wikipedia) which is a division of the National Weather Service (Wikipedia). We'll look deeper at this federal agency in future classes.
We may not be able to tease weather forecasters for wrong predictions much longer.
The relevant agencies are the National Hurricane Center (Wikipedia) which is a division of the National Weather Service (Wikipedia). We'll look deeper at this federal agency in future classes.
Why are some states red and some states blue?
A psychologist tries to figure it out. Are there certain factors embedded within the culture of some states that make them more likely to vote Republican and other Democratic? In 2306 we look at political culture and how Texas is different from other states and the rest of the country as a whole. This might help us understand why.
Here's part of his analysis:
The historian David Hackett Fischer traces the divide back to the British settlers of colonial America. The North was largely settled by English farmers, the inland South by Scots-Irish herders. Anthropologists have long noted that societies that herd livestock in rugged terrain tend to develop a “culture of honor.” Since their wealth has feet and can be stolen in an eye blink, they are forced to deter rustlers by cultivating a hair-trigger for violent retaliation against any trespass or insult that probes their resolve. Farmers can afford to be less belligerent because it is harder to steal their land out from under them, particularly in territories within the reach of law enforcement. As the settlers moved westward, they took their respective cultures with them. The psychologist Richard Nisbett has shown that Southerners today continue to manifest a culture of honor which legitimizes violent retaliation. It can be seen in their laws (like capital punishment and a stand-your-ground right to self-defense), in their customs (like paddling children in schools and volunteering for military service), even in their physiological reactions to trivial insults.
Here's part of his analysis:
The historian David Hackett Fischer traces the divide back to the British settlers of colonial America. The North was largely settled by English farmers, the inland South by Scots-Irish herders. Anthropologists have long noted that societies that herd livestock in rugged terrain tend to develop a “culture of honor.” Since their wealth has feet and can be stolen in an eye blink, they are forced to deter rustlers by cultivating a hair-trigger for violent retaliation against any trespass or insult that probes their resolve. Farmers can afford to be less belligerent because it is harder to steal their land out from under them, particularly in territories within the reach of law enforcement. As the settlers moved westward, they took their respective cultures with them. The psychologist Richard Nisbett has shown that Southerners today continue to manifest a culture of honor which legitimizes violent retaliation. It can be seen in their laws (like capital punishment and a stand-your-ground right to self-defense), in their customs (like paddling children in schools and volunteering for military service), even in their physiological reactions to trivial insults.