Election media blackout

As I drove my recently delivered Obama 2012 yard sign into the ground with all of my media fueled political rage, I realized I can't keep it up. This election isn't about America's future, its about how the media compares two guys in suits on TV.

If it was about America's future, why didn't the candidates talk about the steady erosion of our civil liberties, climate change or the structural problems our country is experiencing as we transition to a nearly all service global economy?

The answer is because they think they can't. After the first debate and media commentariat reaction, I am more convinced than ever that the candidates can't tell us the truth partly because their financial backers don't want them to, and partly because they are afraid that we won't like what they say and will vote for the guy who tells us the nicer story.

They are probably right. So what is a politician to do? If you are Mitt Romney, you lie because no one will call you on it.

The conventional wisdom now says that Mitt Romney is tied, if not in the lead. A Pew research poll came out showing that Mitt Romney gained 12 points on the President after the debate. 12 points. This is unprecedented.

But what is even more unprecedented is how completely negligent, or I would assert, downright complicit the media has been in perpetuating the lies told during this debate that were apparently compelling enough to earned Romney a win. Facts have clearly become entirely irrelevant. If the media doesn't choose to point out that Romney's claim that President Obama increased the debt by more than all previous presidents combined is demonstrably false, it doesn't really matter what the candidates say. The only thing that matters is how they say it.

Yes, Obama didn't do a good job of pushing back against Romney, but debating someone who will not defend his stated positions is not easy. (BTW did anyone else notice that Romney conceded that Romney-care was a good thing?) But just imagine what the media would have said if Obama had called Romney out: "The President seemed defensive and it looked like Mitt Romney got under his skin. And what was with all those numbers? What is this guy, like a professor or something?"

The reason Mitt Romney is now suddenly winning is because he came across as more trustworthy and likeable. But don't you think that perception might be different if the media was actually pointing out that Romney repeatedly lied?

But we have to think about this from the media's profit driven perspective. If this race was perceived as a run-a-way for the President (as was starting to happen in the wake of the 47% video) everyone would stop watching the news, and they wouldn't be able to sell as many political ads. It makes perfect sense that they need to keep this race "close." The media used to earn its place as the only constitutionally protected occupation because they actually held politicians accountable. Now, their checks are signed by one of the 5 transnational corporations that own our media.

Needless to say, in terms of national politics, I have reached the point of pessimistic hedonistic nihilism.

But my rage at the seemingly goldfish-like attention span of the wider American electorate is tempered by what is happening in The People's Republic of Cascadia, I mean, Washington State. We are on the verge of becoming the first state in the nation to enact marriage equality by public vote, legalize marijuana and we are about to elect the "greenest governor" in the country.

So I think the best way to maintain my sanity is to follow the Larry David plan for a self enforced media blackout. Yesterday was the first day in a long time that I came home and didn't turn on the news.

I will let you know how it goes.

But I do reserve the right to tune back in when the October surprise happens. I think the smart money is on a war with Syria or maybe the release of the photos of Osama's corpse.

Obama's grand strategy

According to conventional political logic the President should be worried about his chances of re-election, very worried.

With an official unemployment rate of 9%, a massive deficit and a campaign finance system that is now officially completely broken, Axelrod and the president's other strategists must be nervous.

But there might might yet be a path to victory for the President. Besides having very good grassroots fundraising totals (I shelled out for my apron and beer koozie) and the promise to raise more than $1 billion for his campaign, there might be a few other reasons to be optimistic about the President's chances of securing a second term in the White House.

The path to victory I see relies on one fundamental assumption: voters are sick of the status quo and will vote for whichever candidate will bring change. In short, as with many elections in the past, whoever can run as an "outsider" and can credibly promise to "clean up Washington" and get things done will win.

Factor 1: The Super Committee

The Super Committee that was formed from the ashes of the debt ceiling debacle last summer is finally supposed to be releasing its budget balancing plan. Since the Republicans on this committee have sworn a blood oath to never raise taxes, this committee really doesn't have the capacity to balance the budget. The Republicans know that if they even allow old tax cuts to expire they will be crucified by a base who has been thoroughly convinced that raising taxes for any reason is treasonous.

So what is the likely outcome of the Super Committee's non-attempt to balance the budget? Huge cuts to both entitlements and defense. So who comes out on top when we cut both the military and social programs, the Republicans or the President? Well, since the Republicans have basically already come out in-favor of eliminating the programs that many of our seniors rely on with the Paul Ryan plan, I think President Obama will win this one. What about the defense cuts you ask? I think the liberal base would be excited about the prospect of cutting another $1 trillion over 10 years from the already bloated miliatry budget. And it is going to be hard to call the guy who killed Bin Laden "soft on defense."

So no matter what happens (unless there actually is some sort of compromise) the President will win this round and be able to promise to restore the entitlement program cuts while effectively endorsing the Pentagon cuts by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Factor 2: The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has immense power. From its ability to decide who the winner of elections will be (Bush vs. Gore) to shaping the history of the 20th century's greatest President (when FDR tried to pack the court and then ram through all of his new deal plans) the final fate of any President can be decided by the high court.

This year is no different. By agreeing to hear the challenges to the President's healthcare law, the 5-4 conservative majority has basically signaled their intention to invalidate at least some of the law, likely the insurance mandate.

At first glance this eventuality may seem like a serious set back for the President. But remember my assumption, whoever is the "outsider" will likely win this election. Paradoxically, if the Supreme Court strikes down the healthcare law the President might actually be in a better position. If Obama can convince the American people that he is the man of action and Congress and the Supreme Court are standing in his way, he could even return to the same campaign slogan for 2012 with a slight variation. "We tried, but in the second term, YES WE CAN!" And in the most optimistic scenario, repeal of the Affordable Care Act might actually energize the liberal base and lay the foundation for health CARE reform, instead of the health INSURANCE reform we got in 2009.

Winner? Despite the mainstream media who will undoubtedly spin the decision of an unaccountable and appointed group of wealthy elderly lawyers as a damaging blow to the President, I think giving Obama another enemy of progress for him to campaign against will help him more than it will hurt him.

Factor 3: The crazy Republican field and the potential for a third party candidate

By now we have experienced the Donald Trump fad, the Michelle Bachman fad, the Rick Perry fad, and the Herman Cain fad without the Republican primary voters being able to make up their minds. They just really don't like Mitt Romney even though they grudgingly know he is the best general election candidate, mainly because he doesn't openly advocate ending Social Security.

But as I have pointed out before, Romney is a Mormon and there is a large segment of the American public, in particular the Evangelical Christian right who will not vote for him because of his faith. This primary fight will likely last into the late spring forcing the candidates and their Super PACs to waste their valuable resources battling each other for the nomination. For the first time in living memory this nomination may come down to a convention floor fight which would obviously be the best possible scenario for the President.

There have also been rumblings that Ron Paul, the only real conservative libertarian in the race, might run as a third party candidate if he doesn't win the Republican nomination. Much like Ross Perot gave the 1992 election to Bill Clinton by splitting the conservative vote, a Ron Paul 3rd party bid would almost certainly guarantee a second term for the President.  

Romney will likely be the nominee. If he isn't, I think the Republicans will be in for a "Goldwatering" and President Obama will cruise to victory as the only remotely qualified candidate.

Factor 4: Foreign Policy (the total wild card)

Unbeknownst to most Americans, much of the world is pretty much falling apart. The European debt crisis is spiraling out of control and an Israeli attack on Iran seems increasingly likely. The geopolitical implications of a new war in the Middle East could change the race for President in ways I can't really predict.

Conventional wisdom would dictate that a sitting commander-in-chief would likely benefit from a war that doesn't see a large number of American causalities before election day. However, a wider war in the Middle East that might include both Turkey and Syria, not to mention the fact that the Iranians would likely move to close the straights of Hormuz would send world energy prices through the roof. Again, it is unclear but voters would almost certainly blame President Obama if gas prices doubled or tripled unless he somehow opened the eyes of Americans to our dependence on foreign oil and convinced us of the need to embark on a huge domestic clean energy infrastructure building project in the wake of a military disaster in the middle east.

In summary, the next year will provide the President with a slew of opportunities to position himself as the outsider and run against the dysfunction that is Washington D.C. and hopefully avoid a full scale war in the Middle East.

Social Media on Election Day

Washington is an all mail-in ballot state. This means that voters have a couple of weeks to sit around their kitchen tables and ponder their ballots. Now on the whole I favor this system because it pretty clearly drives up voter turnout by making the process so much easier.

However as a political news junkie, I am against it because it makes election night so much less fun. Instead of anxiously watching television news as they report precinct by precinct as the results come pouring in after the polls close we get to huddle around our laptops feverishly clicking refresh to see if the Secretary of State released the results.

LAME.

They don't even update that often, so at 8:15pm last night the fun was pretty much over.

But in the lead up to the release of the first round of ballots that came in, social media does still have a role to play. As you might expect, I follow a lot of organizations and people who posted to Facebook on election day. And as I have posted about before, I was anticipating seeing one giant chunk of truncated and summarized status updates like this:

But instead of seeing everyone who posted about "election day" clumped together, I was pleasantly surprised to see more of this:

The League of Education Voters is doing their homework when it comes to what works and what doesn't when it comes to using social media when you know there will be a lot of other people posting about the same thing. They used a photo and capitalized on Facebook's tendency to display photos very widely and thus expanded the reach of their post and connected with more of their fans, some of whom might have forgot about their ballot.

Posting information about ballot drop box locations can be one of the most helpful things you as a candidate can do, but that doesn't mean Facebook cares. It is still going to lump you in with everyone else who tried to do the voting public a service:

I really disagree with the Washington Policy Center on almost everything, but advertising your suggestions for how to vote on what is normally a bewildering number of initiatives is always a good idea:

King 5 also does a good job with their social media and asking Facebook questions is great way to drive engagement on your page and increase your fan base:

So overall election night is now a lot less fun. But on the bright side, the mail-in balloting system basically drags out election day over three weeks so we political nerds will just have to enjoy the suspense of election season over a few weeks instead of a few hours.

Special Interest vs Special Interest

The campaigns for this year’s election have arrived in force. Starting a few weeks ago, the obligatory barrage of television ads telling me which way to vote on initiative such and such began in earnest. For those of you outside of Washington State, our little corner of the Northwest goes a little crazy with the whole direct democracy thing. We had 11 ballot initiatives to choose from in 2010! This is mainly because we allow paid signature gathering which means any half baked idea with several million dollars to spend can get on the ballot and change Washington law.

Most of the time these initiatives offer a clear choice between the public interest and special interest. For example last year we had the American Beverage Association spending the most money in Washington State History to repeal new taxes on soda and candy passed by our legislature to close our state’s large budget deficit. They narrowly won after spending more than $11 million almost exclusively on Television ads.

This year however the only initiative with any real spending on either side is I-1183, Costco’s rehashed attempt to end Washington State’s state controlled liquor system. After failing to convince us they should get to sell hard alcohol in their stores (along with every other store) they are back with an awesome new provision. Their strategy to defeat the winning message from last year, that increased availability of liquor in gas stations would lead to more drunk driving and underage drinking, is to include a requirement that any store selling liquor would have to be larger than 10,000 square feet.

Pretty clever.

But the special interests on the other side of this debate (mainly the national liquor distributors who have contracts with the state government and the state employee unions who don’t want to lose their government jobs in the liquor stores) are not to be outdone. They learned the lessons from the last election cycle and are focusing their campaign on the scary idea of liquor in gas stations (regardless of how tenuous this contention may be based on a loophole in the law) and wait for it…

The even scarier idea of new taxes!

So rather than have a real debate about public policy and what choice Washington State should make, these two competing special interests are battling back and forth with near saturation levels of television spending.

Now I watch jeopardy, really the only thing on television I bother to watch anymore, so I see the ads targeted to the elderly. Think, lots of Gold Bond medicated powder and Metamucil. But the audience that watches Jeopardy votes and spending your campaign dollars here makes way more sense than cable or god forbid, direct mail!

I mean look at this thing, I kept this out of the recycling bin only because I am a huge political nerd and wanted to see how this campaign was wasting its money.

So what did the political consultants suggest they do? Put a screen capture of the Public Disclosure Commission’s website showing the contributions from the out of state liquor distributors. That could be a compelling message to the .001% of the population that even knows that we have a PDC or what it does, if you couldn’t go to the PDC website for yourself and see the $5 million in contributions from Costco.

But moreover, no one cares! We all seem to have accepted that our politics are dominated by special interests who don’t really give a damn about the American people. So telling us that one side is funded by big liquor distributors immediately makes me ask, “well who is funding your campaign?”

So special interest vs. special interest. What is the informed citizen to do?

Well it seems to me that what I-1183 will actually do is make liquor easier for big stores to sell, lower the price and reduce the amount of revenue the state will receive. Oh yeah and probably be a job killer since it doesn’t take nearly as many people to stock the liquor aisle at Costco as it does to run the state liquor stores around the state.

I am going to vote no on I-1183.