Eric The Blue

"Don't have any kids yourself"

My wife gave birth on Sunday morning to a baby girl, Lydia Mae.

If Lydia ever reads this poem, I hope she admires it, if she admires it, in a detached and impersonal sort of way.

About the title:  Am I wrong to think I detect a resigned contempt for the taste of the poetry reading public?  "Out of all the poems I've written, this slight one with the f-bombs is the one that'll be remembered. . . ." 

It turns out that it is the one that I know.  And I do admire it--mainly, the way it "deepens" in the concluding stanza.  But I have not followed the advice.

Of George Will & electoral votes

In my last post, I linked to this column, in which conservative pundit George Will enumerates the signs of doom for the Republican nominee in this fall's presidential election.  One of his bullets is "the fact that Democrats hold a majority of congressional seats in states with 303 electoral votes."  For reasons that I'll soon explain, this struck me as an exceedingly poor tea leaf to be reading.  I decided to test how well the same standard would have predicted the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, which Bush won by receiving 286 electoral votes, 16 more than the minimum needed to win.  But while conducting my researches I discovered I could not verify Will's claim that Democrats hold a majority of congressional seats in states with 303 electoral votes.  Possibly the flow of oxygen was restricted by his bow tie.  It would explain more, perhaps, than just his counting difficulties.

Congressional seats are in either the House (435) or Senate (100).  Since a presidential election is essentially 50 different statewide elections, the composition of the Senate, whose members must win statewide elections in the state they represent, might be expected to model more accurately than the House the outcome of the next presidential contest.  But Senate terms are six years, while all 435 House members are elected every even-numbered year. The partisan alignment of the Senate on the eve of a presidential election therefore reflects voter preferences that are, on average, four years old--as dated, in other words, as the last election for president.

The composition of the House of Representatives is the result of comparatively recent elections that are not, however, contested across an entire  state.  In bigger states, especially, the Democratic vote is concentrated in compact, densely populated urban districts.  Michigan is a typical case.  Nine of its fifteen congressional districts are currently represented by a Republican, but its senators are both Democrats, and it has voted for the Democratic candidate for president in the last four elections.  Its congressional delegation tilts 9-8 in favor of the Republicans, but the overwhelmingly Democratic vote in and around Detroit, in Wayne and Washtenaw Counties, has made the state blue in presidential elections.  The House districts that are Democratic tend to be more Democratic than the Republican districts are Republican.

It follows that, for purposes of predicting the outcome of a presidential election, placing a state in either the red or blue column, depending upon whether its congressional delegation has a majority of Republicans or Democrats, will underestimate the actual electoral vote tally of the Democratic candidate.  (It follows, also, that the country as a whole is less Republican than the Congress.)  In 2004, for instance, sixteen states possessing 176 electoral votes had congressional delegations in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans.  On election day, however, Kerry carried nineteen states and won 251 electoral votes.  It would be very bad news indeed for Republicans if it were really true that Democrats hold a majority of congressional seats in states with 303 electoral votes.  The correct figure, however, is not 303 but 271--still one more than the minimum needed to win and, given the tendency of the method to underestimate the Democrat's electoral vote total, a reason for us Democrats to be hopeful.

For the record, the states (electoral votes included) that have right now more Democrats than Republicans among their congressional representatives, including senators, are:  Arkansas (6), California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Indiana (11), Iowa (7), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Minnesota (10), Montana (3), New Jersey (15), New York (31), North Dakota (3), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Rhode Island (4), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Washington (11), West Virginia (5), and Wisconsin (10).  The states in this list that the Democrat is most likely to lose are Indiana, Montana, and North and South Dakota.  They have between them 20 electoral votes, which could be replaced by Michigan and the District of Columbia.  Still, to win, the Democrat probably has to prevail somewhere else, and the most likely candidates are, in alphabetical order: Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.

Horse race

In his blog at newyorker.com Hendrik Hertzberg keeps up the campaign for the National Popular Vote (N.P.V.) bill.  I wrote about this wonderful reform last November 18 and repeat now my claim that it "deserves your support."  If you are unfamiliar with the proposal, follow the above link, read and learn, then write your state legislator and demand that she (or he) support this needed change.

On January 7, in a post entitled "Three out of Eight Ain't Good," Hertzberg writes about election models of the 2008 contest that suggest the "wrong-winner problem," one of many gross deficiencies of the electoral college system, is a more considerable danger than we may imagine.  The 2000 result, in which Al Gore, the canidate receiving the most votes, "lost" the election in the electoral college after the Supreme Court delivered Florida to Bush, was according to these models no fluke.  The research is summarized in the following sentence from a memo by John Koza, originator of N.P.V., quoted in Hertzberg's post:  "In three of Professor Holman's eight compilations, the winner of a majority of the electoral votes based on current state-by-state polling results is not the same presidential candidate as the winner of the national popular vote based on the latest available polls for the same time period."

The details are of particular interest to those of us in the aristocracy of the enlightened who, comprehending the manifest superiority of the Democratic candidates, cannot help but be obsessed with the "horse race."  Candidates from both parties are potential victims of another split decision between the electoral college and voters.  For example, in a McCain-Clinton matchup, which is more likely now than when the mock election was modeled in December, McCain is in danger of losing the electoral college despite being preferred by all voters, 47 to 42 percent.  That is because, compared to the 2004 result, Clinton would trade Wisconsin, Oregon, and New Hampshire for Florida, Missouri, and Arkansas--a net gain of 22 electoral votes that boosts her above the magic number of 270.

For the record, the other split decisions occurred in matchups between Obama and Giuliani (Obama 49 to 40 percent but Giuliani wins 286 electoral votes) and Edwards and Giuliani (Edwards 53 to 44 percent but Giuliani wins 304 electoral votes).  What would be the consequences for our "democracy" if a president were "elected" with nine percent less of the vote than a rival candidate?  As I say, write your state legislator and urge adoption of the N.P.V. bill.  Illinois is poised to join Maryland and New Jersey in the onboard category, which would leave states possessing 224 electoral votes still needed to begin electing presidents the same way we elect everyone else.

Perusing the state-by-state polling, one comes to the conclusion that the electoral college, a system in equilibrium in the last two elections, could look very different in 2008.  Giuliani's electoral college strength, at least as recently as last December, rested on his ability to compete in the northeast (Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania) and upper midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota).  Overall, however, a breakup of the static result of the last two elections would likely favor the Democrats, as it appears now that Florida, Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada--all states carried by Bush in 2004--could fall into the Democratic column in 2008.

These models are of course based on polls that are only snapshots in time of particular races that probably will never occur.  As the race takes shape, there will be fewer outliers in the polls--who really thinks Edwards would defeat Giuliani in Oklahoma?--and the landscape may settle toward the stasis that left, to disastrous effect, GWB on top.  For those inclined to be cheerful, perhaps the most favorable sign is not polls but the actual votes that have so far been cast.  In the last two presidential elections, 47 states went either for Bush or for the Democrat both times.  The three exceptions are New Hampshire, Iowa, and New Mexico, and it happens that two of them are early primary (or caucus) states in which citizens have already made choices.  In New Hampshire, about 284,000 people voted in the Democratic primary, compared to 233,000 on the Republican side.  Obama, who finished second among the Democrats, outpolled McCain, who finished first among the Republicans, by around 16,000 ballots.  Meanwhile, in Iowa, attendance at Democratic caucuses surpassed that at Republican caucuses by a factor of two.  When George Will is glum, those of us on the other side should be of good cheer. 

Blame Americans first

The Republicans, who often accuse the Dems of being unpatriotic and "blaming America first," have themselves a predilection for blaming Americans first.  For example, at the Republican debate I wrote about the other day, John McCain said that "we have to make the recipient of the health care more responsible."  More responsible?  Over at Power Line, John Hinderaker elaborates in his commentary on the topics that came up in the debate:

Health care: Generally, I thought the discussion here was positive.  Again, we are seeing a preview of the general election, and I think the Republican candidate can fare well on the issue if he keeps pounding away at the disaster of socialized medicine and emphasizing positive, market-based solutions.  Romney was the clear winner here, not only because of his command of the issue, but because he was willing to articulate one of the basic problems of our current system: that millions of Americans prefer to be free riders, obtaining free (to them) medical care at hospitals rather than paying for insurance.

The number of Americans without health insurance is at 47 million and rising, and unpaid medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.  Yet in the world according to wingnuts the problem is the "millions" of Americans who "prefer" not to have insurance.  It is undoubtedly true that some Americans decline to buy health insurance.  That is because they can't afford it.  Suppose your employer makes available to you a very basic plan, with a relatively high deductible, at a monthly cost to you of $250.  If the monthly premium is a fifth of your take-home pay, you will quite reasonably decline to participate.  Better to pay the mortgage (or the rent), the utility bills, and the grocer.  If your employer does not offer health insurance, or you are unemployed, forget it.  You will not be able on your own to buy a reasonable policy.

Whatever ails us, we have the Republicans to tell us that it is our own damn fault.  Are there fewer people living in poverty in other industrialized countries?  It must be that Americans are comparativly lazy and feckless.  An American health care crisis?  No, our system is the best in the world, but it would be even better if there were fewer freeloaders.  The issue hardly matters.  Their analysis is the same.  Americans are to blame for the problems of America, the greatest country on earth.  They always blame Americans first.  They love America but are disgusted with the people who live here.  They are the blame-Americans-first crowd.

Our Hodge

My mother-in-law is in Mexico.  Before she left, her daughter, my wife, got her permission to take her cat, Harry, 18, to the Humane Society to be euthanized.  Harry was the beloved pet of my wife's youth, so it was a hard decision, and I think my mother-in-law's vacation has been partly spoiled.  But it would be hard to argue that it wasn't time to act.  Harry, who was on phenobarbitol for seizures, was all lumpy, walked with difficulty, and, possibly on account of the phenobarbitol, was surly when not asleep.  When you have a pet you love there can be no happy end to it.

Anyway, because of my reading habits of late I thought, on the last night of Harry's life, of Dr. Johnson's cat, Hodge, and a passage from The Life of Johnson that I have now looked up in order to set it down right.

This reminds me of the ludicrous account he gave Mr. Langton, of the despicable state of a young Gentleman of good family.  "Sir, when I heard of him last, he was running about town shooting cats."  And then in a sort of kindly reverie, he bethought himself of his own favourite cat, and said, "But Hodge shan't be shot; no, no, Hodge shall not be shot."

The Republicans on health care

The tv was playing at our house last night while I was competing against wife and 4-year-old in a game of Candy Land. It happened that we were tuned to ABC, where the Republican presidential candidates were debating, but I was into the game, monitoring the movements of the 4-year-old in order to have a chance of winning myself.  Then the subject of health care came up in the debate, and I heard, through the fog of the Candy Land competition, one candidate after another declare that the American health care system is the best in the world.  My attention turned to the tv, and I began responding robotically to cries of "Your turn!" at fifteen second intervals.  The fog of Candy Land merged with the fog enshrouding the candidates as they declaimed, with delusional urbanity, on the American health care system, "the greatest on earth."

Here is a link to the transcript of the debate.  The health care discussion begins on page 10 of 25.  I have consulted it now, after a night's sleep, just to verify that I heard what I thought I heard.  Yes, it started like this:

Charlie Gibson (the moderator): We're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't insure all of our citizens.  If we can afford a trillion-dollar war in Iraq, why can't we afford medical insurance for everybody?

Giuliani: The reality is that, with all of its infirmities and difficulties, we have the best health care system in the world.  And it may be because we have a system that still is, if not holy, at least in large part still private.  To go in the direction that the Democrats want to go--much more government care, much more government medicine, socialized medicine--is going to mean a deteriorated state of medicine in this country.  I mean, I said jokingly in one debate, if we go in the direction of socialized medicine, where will Canadians come for health care?  [Laughter.}  And the reality--and the reality is--

Gibson: But do you all--do you all agree that we have the best health care system in the world?

[Different candidates say "Sure" and "Yes" simultaneously.]

McCain: Now--tell me, when people get sick where they come to get health care.  I--

Thompson: We certainly have the best health care.

The reality--Giuliani's favorite word during his response--is that "the best health care system in the world" is, compared to those existing in countries with which we have the closest historical and cultural ties, very much more expensive, very much less comprehensive, and achieves inferior outcomes.  Malcolm Gladwell has said it well:

Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and a half times the industrialized worlds's median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year.  What does that extra spending buy us?  Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries.  We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries.  We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries.  We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries.  American life expectancy is lower than the Western average.  Childhood immunization rates in the United States are lower than average.  Infant mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations.  Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries  have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita.  Nor is our system more efficient.  The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year--or close to four hundred billion dollars--on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita.  And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance.

Bush has been president for seven years.  For most of that time, Republicans have held a majority of seats in both the Senate and the House.  We now can understand why nothing has been done in those years about the broken health care system.  It isn't really broken.  It is the greatest system in the world.  Meanwhile, since 2000 the number of Americans without health insurance has increased by around 7 million, to 47 million, or 16% of our population.