Summary: Just more than one third of Americans believe climate change is caused by humans these days, but what - or who - is to blame?
According to a Pew Center report released last week, only 57% of Americans believe that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming - down a staggering 14% since April 2008 - and just 36% believe global warming is both real and caused by humans.
Every demographic and ideological group has become more skeptical about climate change, and - with the exception of Americans under 30 and self-described “liberal” Democrats - every one of these groups has become more likely to say it is not a serious problem.
Pollster Jon Krosnick of Stanford University - who has been studying public opinion on global warming since 1993 - told the AP that these recent trends are simply “implausible” because he can’t think of anything that could have caused them.
So we decided to explore why Americans are becoming less likely to believe in global warming.
As the Pew Center authors wrote in the overview of their study - which also examined public opinion on possible cap-and-trade legislation - “As the health care debate has dominated the public’s attention, awareness about cap and trade legislation is quite low.”
That brings us to the first reason why belief in climate change is declining: Americans have less faith that it’s real because they’ve been hearing about it less.
In 2006 - the year Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” and global warming awareness was at an all time high - belief in climate change was 20% higher than it is today.
However, that theory doesn’t seem too likely, as “going green” is something we’re still reminded about on a near daily basis. It’s been impossible to escape all the Prius ads, BP spots, and all the other commercials having to do with eco-friendly consumer choices in the past few years.
In fact, much of the eco-advertising started around 2006 - the same time as “An Inconvenient Truth” - even though it’s strange to see big companies touting green products.
For many of the climate change deniers, one of the reasons they believe global warming is a hoax is because of the “special interests” behind it (i.e. the companies that can profit from it). So are such ads doing more harm than good - are they actually creating a doubt as to global warming’s legitimacy?
While it’s possible, it’s not exactly likely.
That being said, the special interest groups that lobby against legislation such as cap-and-trade may bear a lot of responsibility.
From the AP:
Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.
"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.
And there is some evidence behind this theory.
About a year or two ago, my mother actually forwarded this video attacking “An Inconvenient Truth” in a chain email.
According to a Wall Street Journalarticle in 2006, the video was covertly created and virally spread by DCI Group, a Republican lobbying firm working for ExxonMobile. DCI Group also helped create video news releases - some of which ended up being used in news reports - and paying the few skeptical scientists out there to appear on talk-radio and write editorials.
The point is this: anyone who believes lobbyists only influence Washington politicians is being naïve.
The truth is that lobbyists communicate with regular Americans on a regular basis - through news, media, and even the more viral - and untraceable - New Media operations such as chain emails and YouTube clips that distort truth and confuse Americans (don’t forget, 12% of Americans still believe President Obama practices Islam).
PRWatch.org made a good point when they brought up an infamous tobacco lobbying memo which said “doubt is our product” - lobbyists for the oil industry and other special interests threatened by global warming legislation need to sell that same product to the American people. It’s the best way to thwart public opinion against such legislation.
And so far their marketing strategy appears to be working.
Summary: Today we look at Democratic backlash and Deeds' uphill battle against McDonnell going into next week's election.
On Tuesday, Virginians will head to the polls to decide their next governor between Democratic State Senator Creigh Deeds and former GOP State Attorney General Bob McDonnell. Earlier this morning, Nate Silver predicted that Deeds was a “60-1 underdog at this stage.”
From his post:
If you had a 2008-type electorate turning out, this race would be reasonably competitive; McDonnell might be leading by a point or three, but it would be worth watching. With this type of electorate, the Democrat is pretty much helpless against a reasoanbly well-organized Republican opponent.
Of course, the composition of the electorate isn't a completely exogenous factor; the quality of the candidates and their campaigns can have some effect. Democrats seemed quite pleased when Deeds became their nominee in June, figuring he'd do well with working-class and rural voters. But the working-class, rural vote isn't where the swing vote is in Virginia, one of the wealthiest states in the country. Instead, it's the more well-off folks in the suburbs. And it tends to be those well-off folks, by the way, who are most likely to have changed their opinion on Barack Obama, as the perception has set in (to an extent) that he's a tax-and-spend liberal.
Meanwhile, Deeds hasn't done much to motivate African-American turnout, which projects to make up only about 15 percent of the electorate as compared with 20 percent in 2008 -- although the number is not so atypical for a non-Presidential contest in the state…
… Deeds can probably be blamed for his failure to find a good affirmative message, as voters perceive him 2:1 as having run a negative campaign. And -- let's face it -- he's not the most commanding presence on the stump.
This analysis - and conclusion - are all pretty believable. Deeds has been lagging in the polls for the past few months (recent polls show he’s down 15%-17%) and the Democratic Party in Virginia hasn’t exactly been helping.
Back in March, we noted how the Virginia GOP appeared to be in particularly bad shape internally - the State Chair was facing a coup, Republican delegates were retiring, and Democrats seemed poised to continue their Blue Sweep in the Commonwealth.
Just one month later we saw the signs of something entirely different - a disorganized network of groups and leaders that was poorly executing the priorities of the Democratic Party there.
From that post:
"…it seems that Virginia Democrats are either lacking the organizational skills or resources to mount an effective campaign against Bob McDonnell. Luckily there is a good five-month period between the Primary and General Elections for the nominee to do the grunt work. And McDonnell has planted the seeds of his defeat himself by opposing the stimulus package.
But if the current lackluster campaigning continues, Virginia’s Blue Sweep cannot continue in Virginia. GOP backlash to Democratic priorities has already been seen this week in Tea Party protests across the country. The Republican base is mobile and active, even in less exciting times on the political calendar."
Unfortunately for the Democrats, that lackluster campaigning most certainly continued.
And it’s not just Deeds who is in trouble. From an article in Politico:
Virginia Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is launching a new ad Monday for his reelection campaign that ties his Democratic rival, Jody Wagner, to her ticket mate, Creigh Deeds.
By linking Wagner to her party’s gubernatorial nominee, Bolling hopes to tag his opponent with the same perception that is currently hurting Deeds — that she is running a negative campaign and wants to raise taxes. It’s a strategy Republicans across Virginia are gravitating to as poll numbers increasingly point to GOP gains in the Commonwealth next month…
… “Higher taxes, fewer jobs, dishonest attacks — that’s Wagner’s record and that’s their plan,” the narrator intones as a side-by-side image of Deeds and Wagner is flashed on the screen…
… The GOP’s guilt by association strategy is also being used further down the ticket as Republicans, who have suffered a string of statewide losses in Virginia, are increasingly buoyed by poll numbers showing independents swinging their way and all three Republican candidates for statewide office enjoying solid leads.
In a Lynchburg-area House of Delegates race, the Republican candidate is calling his rival, incumbent Democrat Shannon Valentine, a “Creigh Deeds Democrat” in a TV commercial.
“What could Creigh Deeds and Shannon Valentine be thinking?” the ad produced for Republican Scott Garrett begins. “Deeds and Valentine want $1 billion in new taxes."
The State Legislature, however, does appear to be somewhat safe for both parties to maintain control at current levels.
According to the Swing State Project, the House of Delegates looks particularly unlikely to see a significant net gain or loss of seats one way or another.
But most of the statewide offices are about to go Republican, and the growing influence of Democrats in the Commonwealth over the past several years is about to face a major hiccup.
Summary: Will history repeat itself? With the GOP drafting the Ten for '10, we look to 2006 and 1994 for signs of what the midterm 2010 elections will bring.
In an ideas piece today, former Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX) took issue with the growing intrigue over whether the midterm elections in 2010 will resemble the Republican Revolution of 1994.
From the piece:
On the surface, a comparison might seem to make sense. After all, in 1994, newly elected Democratic President Bill Clinton was serving his first two years, and there were Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. And we all know what happened: Republicans won control of both chambers in a historic rout.
However, that is all that these two very different political years have in common.
First and foremost among the differences was that House Democrats in 1994 were a tired, old majority that had run out of steam after being in control for 40 years. The most recent Republican majority in the House had occurred during the opening two years, 1953 and 1954, of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first term. Democrats in 1994 were complacent, assuming they were a permanent House majority. Also, they were short on new ideas and did not have strong leadership. Democrats today have policy ideas and clearly have energetic leadership.
Also, there were a number of factors at play in 1994 that are not present in 2010. Leading the list was the fact that Democrats had to defend a large number of open seats because of retirements and members running for other offices. A total of 18 such open seats were lost by the Democrats. So far, Democratic retirements have been held to a minimum…
…Some other seats were lost in the South as a delayed result of the 1991 redistricting, in which Republicans made gains but vulnerable incumbents were able to hold on for one more term in 1992. Redistricting also may have played a role in the decision by some of the 18 Democrats mentioned above who retired.
Also, because the Republican tide broke late in the 1994 election cycle, some Democrats never saw it coming. Classic examples were Reps. Dan Glickman in Kansas and David Price in North Carolina. Price won his seat back after a two-year absence, but Glickman never returned to Congress. And some Democrats were swept from power because of a specific scandal (Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois) and the gun control issue (biggest example being Rep. Jack Brooks of Texas)…
…Also, Democrats fell victim to an easily understood scandal: the continuing controversy over bounced checks at the House bank. The current flap over New York Rep. Charles Rangel’s alleged ethical issues has nowhere near the impact of the House bank scandal.
So why do the media continue to make comparisons between 1994 and 2010? The main reason is that the party of the president almost always loses some congressional seats in the first election following a presidential victory, and the problems that Congress faces right now are monumental in scope. The only recent exceptions to this were 1934 (President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term) and 2002 (President George W. Bush’s first term).
None of this adds up to a landslide for Republicans. The only thing that could result in a major realignment would be high unemployment in fall 2010. Democrats know that and will do everything in their power to stabilize the economic situation.
There was, however, one paragraph where he might have been wrong:
Another difference between the two election years is that Republicans in 1994 actually stood for something. They weren’t just the “party of no.” Then-Minority Whip Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Texas Rep. Dick Armey put together their Contract With America, which gave Republican House candidates across the country a unified platform.
But the GOP knows they have a “party of no” image, and they are trying to shed it from their candidates.
Before the Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006, they carried their own “party of no” image (although those weren’t exactly the words used). Conservatives often pointed towards the minority leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid along with their party as the “whiney liberals” in Congress.
In 2006, of course, Pelosi, Reid, and other Democratic leaders put together the “Six for ‘06” plan - not too unlike the Contract with America - and came back to power.
Among the platform proposals of that plan: implementing all recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, raising the minimum wage and negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare recipients.
Now, according to CQ Politics, Republicans are putting together another such platform which is informally being called “Ten for ‘10”
From the article:
[Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)], chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, said members of the conference are coming up with recommended policy planks that would provide voters “a commitment to accomplish certain ends.”
Among proposals floated so far by members: a ban on spending unused funds from this year’s economic stimulus law (PL 111-5), tougher earmark disclosure requirements and an “all of the above” climate change plan that would expand offshore oil drilling.
Whether proposals like these resonate with Americans on a values level - like many of the “Six for ‘06” ones did - is a little difficult to imagine. It’s hard to boast a plan for earmark disclosure when Americans are worried about losing their jobs.
As we said in a post after the general election last year:
On the issues, the Republican Party is having difficulty framing winning arguments on trickle-down economics, climate change, and health care reform. The key issues that Lee Atwater used to bolt the Republicans for over twenty years were welfare and crime, but today they have little resonance.
Being the “party of no” is not all the GOP has to worry about - Republican leaders must not let it become the “party of ‘who cares’” too.
Summary: Local politicians and the dangers of incumbency - close proximity to voters can lead to victories for challengers.
Typically incumbents are the politicians with the least to worry about. The incumbency effect can often keep you in office for as long as you want because you have the name recognition, resources, and record to make you more credible than a challenger.
However, Politico reports in a new article that the current landscape - troubled by the impacts of the national recession - may simply be unfavorable for incumbents at the moment. Rather than starting in Virginia and New Jersey - which pundits are watching closely for their 2010 implications - the article points to the races that are not getting the same national attention: mayoral elections.
From the article:
Some incumbent mayors have already lost their races. Others have held on to win—or are likely to win next week—with greatly diminished margins from their previous re-election bids. Either way, local incumbents are bleeding badly after being buffeted by the pressures of high unemployment, low tax revenues and a volatile, impatient electorate…
…"People are lashing out, have less patience with the elected officials closest to them," said Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson, the longest-serving mayor in city history and a former president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "That kind of angst materializes either in walking away from the system or in deciding that whoever is up for election must have played some role, somehow, in some way, in the international financial crisis."…
…Tom Cochran, the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, recently attended a mayors' conference in Seattle where he met with an alarmed group of city leaders.
"Many mayors have talked to me about—those that are not running and those that are running—sometimes how difficult it is to deal with people in ordinary places like coffee places, bars, churches," Cochran said. "They had great hopes for the stimulus, providing jobs, that's been late coming."
It's not just mayors who should be spooked, Cochran warned: "If I were a congressman I'd be looking at this baby right now, because they are going to hit reality when they go back home for Christmas."
Where are these anti-incumbent tendencies coming from?
The article continues:
[Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’] defeat had little to do with partisan politics—both his rivals were Democrats. Seattle consultant Randy Bannecker suggested it emerged from the city's restive mood.
"It is sort of this combination of an interest in progressiveness, in progressive issues, coupled with a yearn for an anti-government or an outsider figure," Bannecker said. "You’d talk to people in various parts of the city, various constituencies; they couldn’t really articulate why they opposed [Nickels]."…
…Some veterans of mayoral politics caution against reading too much into the outcomes of local races. Instead of reflecting national trends, they argue, mayoral elections often have more to do with the mechanics of local government and the delivery of city services.
"There's a little bit of variety in these local races that makes generalization a bit problematic," said former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith.
But while the national mood isn’t the sole factor driving mayor's races, Goldsmith acknowledged that those forces can help set the terms of the local debate.
Indeed, the city Goldsmith once governed was home to the most surprising mayoral upset of 2007, when Democratic Mayor Bart Peterson lost to an unknown and underfinanced Republican after a debate over property taxes spun out of control.
So will anger towards local incumbents mean a bad political landscape for Congressional or even state incumbents? We’ll have to wait until next November to really know for sure.
Summary: Pondering the implications for campaigns if social networking replaces email.
Vertical Response, a blast-email company used by many political campaigns, sent an email to clients recently about a new debate in the communications world: will social networking replace email altogether?
It all started when Jessica Vascellaro wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal about why email will soon be a less significant form of communication than Facebook, Twitter, and upcoming Google products.
The argument was simple: social networking services are faster, constantly streaming, and more fun than email.
From the article:
Little wonder that while email continues to grow, other types of communication services are growing far faster. In August 2009, 276.9 million people used email across the U.S., several European countries, Australia and Brazil, according to Nielsen Co., up 21% from 229.2 million in August 2008. But the number of users on social-networking and other community sites jumped 31% to 301.5 million people.
"The whole idea of this email service isn't really quite as significant anymore when you can have many, many different types of messages and files and when you have this all on the same type of networks," says Alex Bochannek, curator at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif.
Nielsen Co., however, took issue with this argument, and put it to the test.
We decided to churn some quick data to test our hypothesis that “Consumption of social media decreases email use.” First, we broke the online population into four groups. The first three are terciles of social media consumption in minutes. The fourth is a group that doesn’t use social media at all. We then looked at each segment’s time of web based email consumption over the course of a year. Finally, we subtracted the email consumption of those that do not use social media from those that do, basically to show a lift over possible external forces. Clearly, there are more robust approaches that could be taken (controlling for factors other than consumption for example) but for the sake of this simple experiment, we tried to keep it straightforward.
Then they graphed the results:
So if social media is supposed to be replacing email as the dominant form of communication, then why are the individuals who use social networking services the most also increasing their email consumption at a faster rate than non-social networkers?
2. Nearly all sites on the web that require registration require an email address.
9. More social media use means more email use.
13. You can't easily segment your friends and followers to do targeted marketing in Twitter & Facebook for the optimal response.
19. You are limited to 140 characters in Twitter leaving it impossible to put multiple messages in one Tweet.
20. You almost have to have separate social media accounts for your business and your personal life. Some customers might not care about that vacation you took where you...let's just say what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
One problem with several of Popick’s ten reasons was that she was focusing on the company that is trying to send emails to clients or potential clients - not the clients themselves. For example, she notes that with social media the sender cannot track the message as easily, seeing who all clicked on what, etc.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that people actually will gradually move from email to Facebook or Twitter. Will they have second thoughts about doing it because then they won’t be able to help companies sending emails to them as easily anymore? Will they take into account the implications of tracking and response optimization on the part of those sending messages to them?
Of course not, those companies would have to adapt.
The same is true in politics. If social networking does end up replacing email as the primary form of communication, campaigns will simply have to start using these tools more aggressively and innovatively.
For example, let’s say your campaign has added a cool new page to its website and you want to let your supporters know. Additionally, you want to know just how many of them actually go to that page. Traditionally you would send out an email hyping it and including a link. With services from firms like Vertical Response, you can see how many supporters open the email and how many click the link.
You can still see how many hits that page is getting from your message on a social networking site so long as you use bit.ly.
But Popnick’s point about how much you can say when using social media is true - you cannot build the same message. This is troubling for prospects of campaign fundraising: currently Facebook and Twitter are not good tools for fundraising because you cannot explain to supporters just how critical it is that they make a contribution.
Luckily everyone recognizes the relevance of emails to this effect - no matter who you are you will keep an email account because occasionally you have a lot to tell someone.
It seems that - to this extent - social networking is not threatening to email. In fact, the Nielsen Co. study suggests that they are actually complimentary.
Sure, some campaigning and business will start being done more with social networking. At HSG, we typically become Facebook friends and Twitter followers with our clients and business associates. It’s quite possible that in the future we’ll be communicating with them about their races more and more using these services.
Some politicians are already beginning to communicate messages to supporters that would traditionally be done with email via social networking. For example, status updates are a great way to let constituents know what recent action just took place on Capitol Hill. But for more in-depth messages, emails will likely always be king.
It is critical that campaigns, politicians, and businesses utilize all forms of New Media appropriately.
Summary: Twitter on the trail again - how to best use Tweets while campaigning.
Lately we’ve been receiving quite a few emails about the growing relevance of New Media in politics - specifically social networking. Some of these ideas, and the debates they create, are quite interesting.
First there is the ever-continuing discussion on the use of Twitter, which we have been covering rigorously over the past several months. In a recent Winning Campaignsarticle , Christopher Massicotte of NGP Software (an online political finance tool) analyzes the increasing importance of a Twitter presence.
For the most part, Massicotte’s analysis falls along the lines of what we’ve been saying for a while (see our post “How is New Media Changing Politics?” from the 21st Century Campaigning series).
These were his “Do’s and Don’ts” of political Tweeting:
Do’s:
1) Follow as many people as you can on Twitter that are relevant to your campaign and use Twitter Search often;
2) Be interesting and original in what you are tweeting;
3) Talk to people about THEIR interests – by doing that, you are showing that you are human;
4) Make sure that it is the candidate who is tweeting. The campaign can have a Twitter account as well – but people are turned off when they realize that the tweeting has been “staffed out;”
5) Put a link to your Twitter site on your campaign website as you would with all of the other social networking tools that you are using.
Don’ts:
1) Don’t Tweet about anything that you wouldn’t want published on the front page of the New York Times. There are a number of news reports of “Tweets gone bad,” please don’t let this happen to you;
2) Don’t lock your tweets. Twitter allows you to lock your tweets so that people have to request to follow you and no one outside your group of followers can see what you are saying. You are not going to bring in new people this way;
3) Don’t tweet just for the sake of tweeting – I stop following people who fill up my Twitter feed with irrelevant and uninteresting things that have no appeal to me;
4) Don’t follow too many people – your feed will get too congested and you might miss something important – you don’t have to read every tweet. Most politicians do not follow anybody, but read their @replies;
5) Don’t fool yourself into thinking Twitter is the next greatest way to raise money. Twitter is a great tool for attracting new supporters and gets your message out virally, but putting links to your contribution page right in a tweet is the fastest way for people to stop following you.
For those of you have been following our input about Twitter, we agree with all but one of those ten points: the Fourth “Do”: “Make sure that it is the candidate who is tweeting.”
As many campaign workers will readily agree, many politicians have some trouble staying on message - especially new politicians. If a campaign follows the Fourth “Do” then there seems to be an increasing chance that the campaign won’t follow the First “Don’t”.
That being said, he has a point. Followers don’t like it when they can tell a Twitter account has been “staffed out.” But there may be a compromise position on this issue: if a campaign manager, consultant, etc. decides the candidate is responsible enough with message to use Twitter themselves (or not responsible enough, for that matter) they can make an individual decision for that specific campaign accordingly. After all, every campaign is unique.
Tomorrow we will analyze another interesting idea that has come up lately: will social networking kill email? And if so, what will be the implications for political campaigns? Come back to find out!
Summary: Afghanistan returns to the polls - how will the second round of voting be different?
This morning it was announced that Afghanistan will have a run-off election, following yesterday’s news that a UN-backed election monitor threw out nearly a third of the ballots for President Hamid Karzai.
It is likely to be a fierce battle between Karzai and his run-off opponent, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, over the next two and a half weeks. Here are the top three things to watch for going into Election Day:
1) More Corruption
The fact that Karzai’s overwhelming win - initially - turned out to be fraudulent was no surprise to those of us who watched reports coming out of Afghanistan leading up to the first vote in August. The opium lords of Karzai’s inner-circle - including both his Vice President and his brother - were accused of buying votes prior to the election.
Following the election, several videos (including the one below) of poll workers illegally marking ballots for Karzai surfaced on YouTube.
Luckily, Democracy International - the UN-backed election monitor - was able to thoroughly route out many fraudulent votes from the election. The results of the run-off may very well depend on how involved they are this time around and how much access they will have to the polling stations.
2) An Anti-Karzai Vote?
When we previewed the election back in August, we found that Karzai would probably win regardless of a run-off in part because most non-Karzai voters were unlikely to support a different candidate than their own in a hypothetical run-off. In other words, if you supported one of the dozens of candidates who did not qualify for a run-off, you were not necessarily going to support Dr. Abdullah for the second round of voting.
According to a poll taken in July, over 20% of voters supporting a candidate other than Karzai and Abdullah said they would simply not vote in a run-off election. In order for Abdullah to win - however - he needs to get their support.
After two months of controversy surrounding the August election - and the reports of widespread fraud on behalf of Karzai - perhaps Abdullah is in better position than ever for solidifying a strong anti-Karzai vote from Afghans who were originally non-Karzai/Abdullah supporters. If he can pull off the right campaign strategy to do so in the next two weeks it would go a long way towards winning him the presidency.
3) A Winter Election
The first round of votes happened in August for a reason. During the winter in Afghanistan, movement around the country becomes extremely limited. For the tribal peoples outside of the big cities - namely Kabul - the rapidly approaching winter is more than likely to keep them from going to the polls.
At this point it is unclear exactly who that will help. The amount of fraud by province is not yet accessible and so it is not certain exactly how much Abdullah can depend on Kabul.
According to preliminary results (prior to the fraud reports) Karzai beat Abdullah in Kabul by a 55% - 24.6% margin. Not only does that compare to the preliminary results nationally (about 55% - 28%) but it is far more balanced than results in the northern and southern provinces.
In some of the northern provinces, Abdullah won with as much as 55% of the vote while in some of the southern provinces, Karzai won with as much as 91% of the vote. Many of those provinces are expected to see a sharp decline in turnout for the November 7th run-off.
The results of this run-off election will largely depend on what kind of turnout there is in Kabul compared to turnout in the rural provinces, how much anti-Karzai support Abdullah can drum up, and the extent to how fraud will play a part yet again. We’ll have to wait and see how these things affect the outcome in just a few weeks.
Last week, I wrote the following op-ed piece for my newspaper:
In one of last year's presidential debates, then-Senator Barack Obama was asked if health care was a privilege, a right, or a responsibility. He promptly answered "a right." As a liberal, I was glad to see him take that position. My conservative father sitting next to me was disgusted.
One year later, the nation is in the midst of a contentious health-care debate. It hasn't just been an intellectual discussion on how to manage the country's health-care resources, but rather the typical back-and-forth of political rhetoric. I should know, I frequently work on the sort of message development that we've seen in the current health-care debate. Yet, once we scratch the surface of this debate, it appears that both liberals and conservatives have flip-flopped in their principles.
There's no better place to start than with the classic Republican message: "A Washington bureaucrat should not get between you and your doctor." That message implies two things.
First, it suggests that patients would not have a choice of their doctors if a public option were introduced. That's nonsense. I have never heard of a health-care system in which public bureaucrats decide which doctors you can see - including the single-payer system in Canada and the National Health Service - true socialized medicine - in the United Kingdom.
The other implication of the message - which I intend to focus on - is that a bureaucrat can deny a certain health-care procedure or medicine that you and your doctor have decided is right for you. This is especially important because "deny" and "denial" are huge buzzwords in the GOP's rhetoric. The reason is simple enough: Those words scare people.
The idea that you can be denied certain procedures now has the right screaming "rationing!" The left has quickly argued back, saying, "health insurance companies already ration care" so why would a public option be any different?
In fact, rationing only makes economic sense. All resources are limited - including those in health care - and whether you have private or public insurance, it simply cannot cover everything. This may be a hyperbolic example, but even if you're terminally ill, you cannot expect America to spend its entire GDP in order to save your life.
But wait - then aren't we liberals justifying the actions of the dreaded health insurance industry? Are we actually saying we will model a public option the same way? Aren't we putting a price on human life? The answer appears to be "yes." Meanwhile, conservatives - who evidently oppose rationing in general - appear to be arguing that, regardless of costs, health care is a right! Both sides have swapped principles.
All this being said, I believe it is possible for progressive principles to be reconciled with pragmatism. Principles are impossible to implement without pragmatism, but they are still critical when it comes to improving public policy.
In order to achieve health-care reform, we Democrats need to get our principles back on track by reaffirming our basic beliefs and then by adding conditional reasoning.
The principle can be, "You have a right to coverage for basic health services" including doctor visits, pharmaceuticals and certain procedures. The cost-benefit analysis used in all economic decision-making will still be done by patients, doctors and bureaucrats - now both private and public.
How can Republicans reconcile with pragmatism and get their principles back on track? That I don't know - you'll have to ask my father.
Summary: As the gay rights movement builds momentum, we ask "how are LGBT activists using New Media to advance their cause?"
As many of you are probably well aware, a swarm of LGBT rights advocates marched through Washington DC on Sunday in protest of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and in support of gay marriage.
When asked about the White House’s views towards the demonstrations, NBC Washington correspondent John Harwood said they view it as “the internet left fringe…[and that] those bloggers need to take off the pajamas and realize governing a closely divided country is complicated.”
Watch it here:
In fact, the blogosphere has been a widely used tool by the LGBT-supportive community - and they appear to be using that tool effectively. So we thought we would point out what we believe are the “Top 3 Blogs for Gay Rights Advocacy” - which we chose based on three determinants: 1) Building Sympathy for the Cause, 2) Supplying Ample Information on the Progress of Gay Rights, and 3) Organizing Support for LGBT Advocacy.
Asterisk
Written by a self-described gay Christian, he explains his blog as such:
"All my life, I’d placed an Asterisk next to my name. Nobody else saw my Asterisk, but I did. It was a constant reminder that both of the most important parts of me were mutually exclusive. That my difference made me a bad person…
…Nowadays, I don’t worry about my Asterisk. As far as I’m concerned it’s gone…
…And that’s what this blog is about; exposing the Asterisk, and with that exposure, removing it."
We chose this blog because of how it effectively and appropriately builds sympathy for the LGBT community - the blog is filled with heart-wrenching stories about discrimination against LGBT individuals. For example, his most popular post at the moment is about a lesbian who was denied her right to see her partner as she was dying in a southern hospital.
From the post:
We arrived shortly after 3:30 in the afternoon, around 4pm, a social worker came out and introduced himself as Garnett Frederick and said, “you are in an anti-gay city and state. And without a health care proxy you will not see Lisa nor know of her condition”. He then turned to leave; I stopped him and asked for his fax number because I said “we had legal Durable Powers of Attorney” and would get him the documents. Within a short time of meeting this social worker, I contacted friends in Lacey, WA, our hometown, who went to our house and faxed the legal documents required for me to make medical decisions for Lisa…
…A Hospital Chaplain appeared and asked if I wanted to pray and I looked at her dumbfounded as if I hadn’t already been doing that for over four hours. I immediately asked for a Catholic Priest to perform Lisa’s Last rites. A short time later, a Catholic priest escorted me back to recite the Last Rites and it was my first time in nearly 5hrs of seeing Lisa. After seeing her I knew the children needed to see her immediately and be able to say their goodbyes and begin the grieving process. Yet the priest escorted me back out to the waiting room. Where I was faced with the young faces of our beautiful children to explain “other mommy” was going to heaven.
You can consider this the Huffington Post of the gay rights movement. It is complete with opinions, news, commentary, and even the more light-hearted issues of LGBT advocacy. Based out of Portland, it is one of the most well-maintained blogs we’ve seen in a while
From the “About Us” page:
"Since March 2005 we’ve been bringing news regarding the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. At times we’ve been known as being a bit controversial and sometimes it even gets us in hot water namely with anti-gay lobbyists and legislators, but mainly we’re known as a great source of news for the GLBT community."
We chose this website because of the massive extent of information it provides on the progress of gay rights.
To try to give you a taste would be futile, you’ll just have to check it out for yourself.
Like Gay Rights Watch, The Bilerico Project provides well-rounded news, analysis, and light-hearted coverage of the gay rights movement. The only difference is that this website is more politically active.
From the “About Us” page:
"The Bilerico Project is the web's largest LGBTQ group blog with over 75 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer contributors. The Project features LGBTQ activists, politicos, journalists, novelists, advice columnists, and video bloggers who are high-energy, inquisitive, eloquent experts in their professions.
Some are among the top LGBTQ pundits and leaders in the country; others have made their mark in their state or local communities. Each brings a unique perspective and background to their work, offering analysis and opinion on almost every aspect of LGBTQ politics and culture. They spark creative and productive conversations among our growing readership. Our goal is to foster those conversations in order to strengthen us as individuals and as a community.
At Bilerico Project, we don't break the news. We shape the news."
We chose this blog because it does a great job at advancing the gay rights movement via organizing support for LGBT advocacy. For example, they have an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Targeted Legislator of the Day, who they put pressure on to support the yet-to-be-passed bill.
And one recent post looked like a fundraising email:
Once again, a generous donor and Bilerico reader has offered to match donations to our ActBlue Maine Page up to $1000 to help protect marriage equality for all families! The deadline is in six hours!
We need your help, though! Our donor will only match if at least 12 people contribute. After all the excitement of the National Equality March, let's come out in strong support of Maine and help us meet our goal!
Donate to No On 1/Maine marriage equality via Bilerico's ActBlue page and your donation will be doubled! You have to act fast though - state law cuts off contributions for this reporting period at 11:59pm tonight! Donate now to get twice the benefit!!
If 1/4 of our RSS subscribers alone gave $5, we'd be able to give Maine an extra $6000 at the last moment when they need it most. If you can't do much, can you give $5?
To try to undermine the impact these blogs have on public opinion - and even the future of public policy - would be unwise. Just as the online network of Tea Party activists and other conservatives seems to have shifted public opinion on economic concerns lately, the online network of gay or pro-gay bloggers appears to be affecting the social debate.
Support for gay rights - including gay marriage - is at an all time high. If these bloggers can upkeep its relevancy and continue building sympathy for the cause, providing extensive coverage of gay rights progress, and organize activism, the goals of the gay rights movement are sure to be met in time.
Summary: The progressive Millennial generation appears to be less engaged since 2008 - is there any way for the Democrats to turn that around?
Politico today has a potentially troubling article for Democrats looking forward to next year’s midterm elections.
From the article:
In New Jersey, about 377,000 of the 560,000 young voters who showed up at the polls supported Obama. In Virginia, about 373,000 out of 621,000 young voters backed Obama.
But some young Democrats say that energy surge has begun to dissipate and student political involvement for the 2009 races has returned to normal — before the Obama phenomenon seemed to transfix young voters.
At the University of Virginia last October, political signs plastered dorm room walls, and campaign volunteers saturated the campus.
Now, volunteers canvassing first-year dorms report that many students have no idea who [Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh] Deeds is.
The article points out, however, that this is not exactly a phenomenon.
Historically, gubernatorial races suffer from low voter turnout across all age groups. Experts already expect less than half of last year’s electorate will cast a vote in either state. And young voters are often one of the first age groups politicians lose in an off-year election, making it vital for Democrats to round up a solid showing, according to Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement…
…New voters haven’t entirely dropped from the political process. A number of college Democrats say their membership numbers are steadily climbing and that more students are likely to become interested in the races during the final weeks. Those who are tuned in to the campaigns say they’ve been impressed by the extensive outreach both campaigns are making on social media forums including Facebook and Twitter, and by the campaigns’ grass-roots efforts on campuses…
…The [Deeds] campaign is also relying for additional outreach on a television ad aimed at college students.
In the ad Priority, Deeds tries to relate to the financial struggles of college students. “Growing up, we didn’t have much. But education was always a priority,” Deeds says in the ad. “My mom sent me off to college with just four twenty-dollar bills, so I know good schools are the best investment we can make in our children’s future.”
In New Jersey, Corzine recently tailgated with hundreds of Rutgers University alumni and students before the school’s homecoming game. Despite last-minute advertising, only 30 of the campus Democrats’ nearly 300 members showed up, according to Rutgers University Democrats President Alex Holodak.
“To be honest, it’s been a rough year. Even though the race is getting more interesting minute by minute, it’s more difficult to get people engaged this year,” said Holodak. “I feel like the overall morale of people is like, ‘We already elected the president,’ and that’s it.”
We’ve mentioned before how young voters are dramatically shifting overall public opinion, but without a strong effort to turnout the youth vote, they probably won’t help shift public policy.
One reason that young voters are less likely to be engaged during midterm elections - which the article only briefly mentions - is that college students often do not attend a school in their home state. As a result, they feel less invested in the outcome of a statewide election than they do in a national one.
In a presidential race, most everyone on campus knows the outcome of the election could likely affect them personally. Even foreign exchange students understand it is important who the president of the United State is. That cannot really be said of a gubernatorial race.
The Deeds and Corzine campaigns are right to invest in targeting young voters through new media and grassroots outreach. As Lauren Gilbert - President of the James Madison University Young Democrats - said, “there’s still a lot of potential here.”
Depending on the outcomes of those efforts, they could serve as an important lesson for Democrats in 2010.
Summary: Has the GOP revised history on their new website for their own political gain with minorities and women? Did they go too far or are we going to see a new GOP?
The Republican National Committee launched their new website last night - www.GOP.com. Politico today reports that the launching was riddled with problems, in part due to unexpected traffic.
But beyond the flashy new tools available to Republican activists - including a variety of New-Media devices - there was one curious page on the new website titled “Republican Accomplishments.”
The page lists 37 accomplishments by the GOP since 1860. Of these, an incredible 23 have to due with the rights and acceptance of women and minorities in the political realm.
Among their claims to fame:
• The first Hispanic Governor was a Republican • Republicans Freed the Slaves • The First African-American Senator was a Republican • Republicans Outlawed the Ku Klux Klan • A Republican Wrote the 19th Amendment • First Women Mayors in the United States • A Republican President Appointed the First Jewish Cabinet Secretary • Republicans Passed the Indian Citizenship Act • The First Asian-American Senator was a Republican • A Republican Wrote the Brown v. Board of Education Decision
In fact, following the Brown decision, President Eisenhower (a Republican) was to have said that his nomination of Chief Justice Earl Warren was the greatest mistake of his presidency. That fact - for obvious reasons - was ignored.
And the “accomplishments” in the Civil Rights Era seem to get even more convoluted. Okay, it might not be outright Revisionism (a term often used to explain Holocaust denial) but the claims are certainly misleading.
For example, they brag about Republican involvement in the 1957 Civil Rights Act as such:
“During the five terms of the FDR and Truman presidencies, the Democrats did not propose any civil rights legislation. President Eisenhower, in contrast, asked his Attorney General to write the first federal civil rights legislation since the Republican Party’s 1875 Civil Rights Act.
Many Democrats in the Senate filibustered the bill, but strong Republican support ensured passage. The new law established a Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department and authorized the Attorney General to request injunctions against any attempt to deny someone’s right to vote. The GOP improved upon this landmark legislation with the 1960 Civil Rights Act.”
Of course, many of the Democrats who opposed the legislation were southerners (or “Dixiecrats”) who were often at odds with their fellow party members in the north and would later leave the Democratic Party for the GOP. The most notable example is Sen. Strom Thurmond, who spoke an astounding 24 hours alone in an effort to filibuster the 1957 bill and became a Republican in 1964.
This picking-and-choosing of facts is not exactly atypical of politics, but the extent to which it is used here seems almost unprecedented.
But the way the GOP is trying to focus on their accomplishments of integration and acceptance of women and minorities is not without reason. This is part of the vision of RNC Chairman Michael Steele (a minority himself) for a “new GOP.”
Ultimately, however, the Republican Party cannot hope for more women and minority support by touting their historical achievements, they must make some today. After all, parties do not get elected, individual candidates do. And can Chris Christie or Bob McDonnell really take credit for freeing the slaves?
Meanwhile, the Republican caucuses in Congress opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - which would help limit gender discrimination in pay - and almost opposed the extension of the Voting Rights Act just a few years ago.
Despite what they think a new website will do to bring in support from the demographics they are not strong with, actions still speak louder than words.
Summary: Tensions are high in the New Jersey gubernatorial race as Corzine hints that Christie is too fat!
The gubernatorial race in New Jersey has been about as dirty as we expected it to be, but it appears to be hitting a new low.
Governor Jon Corzine (D-NJ) recently released this seemingly harmless attack ad (as far as attack ads go) about his Republican opponent, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie:
But then a post on RealClearPolitics.com reviewed the ad and said that by using the line “threw his weight around” Corzine was pulling the “weight card” on Christie, who is notably overweight.
Even if it was intentional, meant to invoke a subconscious response from the voters, it would be impossible to prove. But then Corzine was asked about the ad.
From an interview with the Press of Atlantic City:
"People who flash their credentials or use their offices to accomplish something, people say 'people threw their weight around,'" Corzine said.
Asked directly if he thought Christie was fat, Corzine touched his bare head, smiled and said, "Am I bald?"
There is a lot to say about this new development - particularly what it says about our culture and (more importantly for this blog) America’s voting habits. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com - however - stole our thunder.
This, insofar is it goes, is true: Chris Christie is a large man. And one thing that's certainly true of Americans is that they don't elect very many fat governors. Running through pictures of the 50 sitting governors, I come up with only about 10 (20%) who are distinctly overweight, and only 3 (6%) -- Haley Barbour, Bill Richardson, and Sonny Perdue -- who are clearly obese. This compares with percentages on the order of 65 percent and 30 percent for the U.S. adult population. The skinny on the numbers after the jump.
At this point, Silver lists each governor in the country and humorously comments on their physical stature.
He continues…
Now, some of the cases are debatable -- my classifications are probably a bit conservative given that overweight is the new normal in America. Perhaps someone like Brad Henry or Oklahoma or Tim Kaine of Virgina would meet the clinical definition of overweight, along with a few others. Still, it's clear that overweight governors are considerably underrepresented as a percentage of the U.S. population. As an electoral handicap, it probably doesn't rival being atheist or (avowedly!) gay, but I'd probably bet on the skinny woman before the fat man, all else being equal.
It would take a lot of work to figure this out, but I'd guess that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. We've elected quite a few fat Presidents ... William Howard Taft, Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt -- and Bill Clinton really, though he wore it well. And those men (with the partial exception of Clinton) were elected at a time where being obese was far less typical than it is today.
Certainly, you can see where the Corzine campaign is hoping to go with this one. Let your mind run wild with the not-so-subtle implications: Christie is a fat slob who is underprepared for the pressures of office, a fat cat who will sell out to the special interests, etc. Undoubtedly, their crack research staff uncovered some evidence that Christie's weight is a vulnerability, or at least could be associated with other negatives about him.
But it's one thing for your opponent's weight to be a vulnerability, and another thing to point that out to the voters without looking like an a-hole.
There have been many, many campaigns waged over the years that deftly (or not-so-deftly) implied that the opponent was a closet homosexual, Muslim, communist, or atheist. But being fat isn't like those other things: it's something that everyone can see for themselves. There is no plus-sized closet for fat people, so to speak. And our nation's relationship with obesity and obese people is complicated. Although fat people are perhaps by default objects of disdain, it doesn't take very much to turn them into everyman-ish Bubbas -- objects of sympathy.
Corzine remains in a much better position than he was a month ago. But if this is his campaign's idea of an endgame, he's liable to send Christie's big, fat ass to Trenton.
Well said.
The only thing Silver seemed to miss was along the lines of one point he made: our politicians are mostly skinnier than they used to be.
One likely correlation is this: as food has become easier to produce over the past 100 years, overeating (and eating the wrong things) has become more common for the average American than it has for the rich American. In fact, wealthier Americans are more likely to be thin today because they can afford healthier meals, to get exercise equipment, and go the gym.
Malnutrition is just as serious for working-class Americans as it has ever been - the only difference is that malnutrition is no longer synonymous with hunger for them.
What this suggests is not that it’s necessarily easier for a skinny person to be elected because of their low weight (although it may), it could simply be that the skinny person is more likely to be elected because they can afford to self-fund their campaigns (like Corzine) or at least significantly help their campaign with their own resources.
It would be interesting for political scientists to study exactly what the effect of weight is on a candidate’s chances.
Summary: Obama's Nobel - will it hurt or help Democrats in the long term?
As you all know by now, President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. Since then, there has been a conservative firestorm of criticism for awarding it to the man within the first year of his presidency and with no especially major accomplishments.
On his Sunday talk show, former Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee told his audience “I think we ought to universally celebrate the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize for potential deeds, because this gives me hope. Since I’m a musician, I’d like to go ahead and get my Grammy now.” (See the video in this morning’s top stories).
Meanwhile, Liz Cheney - the former Vice President’s daughter - called the Obama win “a farce” in her Fox News debut yesterday.
Even M.I.A. - the musician who produced the catchy song from the Slum Dog Millionaire trailer - said Obama should have turned down his Nobel, tweeting “Obama winning the nobel peace PRIZE? he should give it back like john Lennon sent back his MBE.”
The Nobel victory seems to have caused the president more embarrassment than praise here at home. But there are several reasons why neither Obama nor the Democrats have any reason to worry about the award.
1) Few will actually blame Obama. Everyone who believes he didn’t deserve it (including the president, himself, according to his speech on Friday) will blame the Nobel committee. Furthermore, it’s difficult to expect him to actually turn down the award, as it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to say you’ve won the world’s most prestigious award.
2) No one will care come election time. In 2012, who is honestly going to criticize the Nobel win let alone remember it? The issues of the day change quickly, and while this is what everyone is talking about right now, it’s not going to be what we’re talking about three years from now. In fact, hardly anyone will be talking about it three weeks from now.
3) It will not disrupt what Obama is trying to accomplish. The legislative priorities the president is taking will not be hindered because no one will associate a Nobel Peace Prize with, say, healthcare reform. Furthermore, no Congressional Democrats will feel at risk because of Obama’s Nobel - voters simply aren’t going to tie them to the president’s victory. The only area in which the Nobel could get in the way - or, conversely, assist the president - is foreign policy, and even that seems a little unlikely in the long run.
So congratulations to President Obama for his surprise victory. Perhaps he didn’t fully deserve it (although progressives like myself have valid reasons to believe he did, to an extent) but at least the criticisms will die down relatively soon and the embarrassment will be minimal.
Again, thank you so much for your continued reading! We hope that you stay tuned with WAYLA as we continue to bring you the best political news and analysis for campaign people by campaign people!
Summary: Will a largely unnoticed vote come back to haunt two vulnerable Senators?
Republicans and Democrats alike are already framing their messages on a recent Senate vote that could hurt a few GOP politicians next year.
From The Scorecard:
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts to companies who prevent victims from filing lawsuits against sexual assault and harassment.
Franken proposed the amendment after hearing the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, who alleges that she was brutally raped while working a contractor for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq.
But Jones was unable to press charges in court because her defense contract stipulated that any such allegations can only be heard in private arbitration.
Franken’s amendment, which passed 68-30, received the support of 10 Republican senators. However, most Republicans opposed the amendment because it went against the wishes of the Defense Department, and argued it gave Congress too much influence in altering defense contracts.
Those concerns, however, are immaterial to Democratic strategists, who believe the vote will be politically costly to the two Republican senators facing competitive races – Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pounced after the vote, putting out a statement attacking Vitter “for choosing special interests over justice and the interests of the American taxpayers.”
And a senior Democratic strategist working on defeating Vitter told POLITICO that the vote will “very likely” come up in a campaign ad next year.
Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.
“This misleading, partisan attack makes clear yet again just how out of touch Democrats in Washington are with the serious issues facing average Americans," said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh.
"Our country is facing rising unemployment, a record federal debt and and more government spending than at any point in history. Yet, the Democrats are talking about Halliburton."
It’s not exactly easy to defend a “no” vote on that amendment. It might not be a nail in the coffin for Vitter and Burr, but it sure won’t help them with the female demographic. Even conservative women will have an adverse response to these Republicans when they see the attack ads that will come from that vote.
Summary: Results that break along partisan lines beg the question: Who's smarter - Democrats or Republicans? You must read to find out!
Okay, that’s a loaded question. Back in March we asked “Who Leads Healthier Lives - Democrats or Republicans?” but with that we could actually back up our claims with statistics.
Ultimately, we said:
“the most realistic conclusion to make is that political ideology has little-to-no bearing on the well-being of an individual. A more obvious trend is healthiness by region - those living in the Western states tend to be particularly healthy while those living in the Rust Belt and Appalachia are among the unhealthiest of Americans.”
When it comes to brain health - however - we see some very obvious partisan lines.
A new study on brain health by state finds that “blue states” were healthier than the “red states.” Although the study did not focus on politics at all, it was not difficult to put two-and-two together.
According to this “Index of Brain Health” the top ten “brainiest” states in the country (including the District of Columbia) are as follows:
1) Washington, D.C. 2) Maryland 3) Washington state 4) Vermont 5) Connecticut 6) Colorado 7) Massachusetts 8) New Jersey 9) Maine 10) New Hampshire
With the exception of Colorado - a swing state - all of the top ten are solid Democratic-supporting states.
Conversely, these are the bottom ten “brainiest” states:
With the exception of Indiana, all of these states went for Sen. John McCain in last year’s presidential election, and all ten are considered fairly reliable for Republicans.
For those Republicans who are undoubtedly upset with this so far, let me reassure you that this isn’t all about “intelligence.” U.S. News & World Report explains the study:
Diet represented 36 percent of each state's score. Of several factors used to calculate the brain-healthfulness of the foods each state eats, sales of fish and DHA-fortified foods were weighed most heavily; they made up 10 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of the diet score. Measures of the population's physical health accounted for 25 percent of each state's overall score; mental health accounted for 24 percent; and social well-being 15 percent. In all, 21 measures went into calculating each score. The creators of the index examined existing data on these metrics for all the states and the District of Columbia. The data came from agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
You don't have to be a genius to understand why the index, dubbed the "life's DHA Index of Brain Health," was based partly on DHA consumption. Its developer and sponsor, Martek Biosciences Corp., produces dietary supplements and products rich in DHA omega-3 fatty acids, including the life's DHA brand. Studies suggest omega-3s can be important to healthy brain development.
"Our goal was to draw attention to the fact that your brain health isn't solely genetic—that you get to modify it," says Michael Roizen, a doctor of internal medicine and anesthesiology, author and adviser for the index.
The District of Columbia was at the top of the pack, thanks to the high amounts of fish and DHA omega-3-fortified foods and supplements consumed there, the quantity of fruits and vegetables its residents eat and the fact that many of the capital's residents are bookworms. (Interestingly, Alaska tied with D.C. in the rate at which residents read for personal interest.)
Also receiving high marks were Connecticut (ranked fifth brainiest overall), thanks in part to the quality of its education system; Massachusetts (ranked seventh), for its high rates of health insurance coverage; and New Jersey (ranked eighth), for having one of the lowest rates of psychological distress in the nation…
…"The results show that the majority of the top-10-ranked states border or are near the Atlantic or Pacific oceans," says Michael Roizen, author and adviser to the Martek index. "One hypothesis is the accessibility of fish with its healthy fats and protein."
Louisiana, the "least brainy" state, tied with Mississippi and Utah for the highest rate of involvement in religious and spiritual activities—something Martek considers a positive indicator for brain health. That measure determined 5 percent of each state's total brain health score. In addition to its low sales of fish and DHA-fortified foods, and moderately low fruit and vegetable consumption rates, the Bayou State, along with Kentucky, has the lowest breast-feeding rate in the nation. Breast-feeding naturally provides DHA omega-3, which Martek's report on the index cites as "important for brain development of infants."
At the time we simulated a possible correlation between a state’s politics and the health of its residents, we found that it wasn’t too likely that one had much to do with the other. Somehow, I doubt that this study was much more than an outlier to that conclusion. As we said at the time, though, “finding correlations between party-affiliation and things like healthiness are very interesting, and we hope to see more studies and discussions like this in the future.”
Despite the fact that these correlations still seem a bit dubious, it was indeed very interesting and we’re glad we found it.
Summary: Alan Grayson is receiving national attention for a confrontational speech - will it help him or hurt him in the midterm elections?
By now, many Americans have seen this clip of Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) telling the House floor that Republicans want sick individuals to “die quickly.”
He also referred to the healthcare crisis as “a holocaust” which he later apologized for.
Since the “die quickly” speech, he has become something of a thorn in the side of the Democratic leadership. House Republicans last week called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to “rein in” the freshman Democrat from Florida.
Meanwhile, the NRCC - which already considered Grayson’s seat a top-targeted one - have ramped up their efforts to reclaim the moderately conservative district.
Even without the “die quickly” speech, it would be a competitive race. The Cook PVI for Florida’s 8th Congressional District is R+2, and Grayson’s first ever victory last year took place in a cycle that was favorable for Democrats. In fact, Grayson’s 52% win appears to be on the coattails of President Obama’s 52% in that district. Obviously, the President is not up for re-election next year, and midterm elections tend to be dangerous for the party in the White House.
Yet there has been some positive news for Grayson lately. Following that speech, his campaign raised $150,000 online from liberal donors in just 24 hours. While it would not be surprising if his opponent raised more, he currently has no opponent to worry about.
Beyond that, the Democrats are fairly well organized in Florida. In an online poll taken by the Orlando Sentinel, the majority of respondents side with Grayson.
Now, as many campaign workers know, those polls are not only unscientific, but completely distorted by the campaigns and parties. These organizations will get every activist they know to vote as many times as possible. So what a poll like this does demonstrate is how organized one side is over the other - and clearly the Democrats have the edge in this northern Florida district. (In fact, the way I found this poll was through an internet forum for Orlando-area conservatives, telling their fellow activists to vote in the poll and bring Grayson’s numbers down.)
And the lack of an opponent is beginning to trouble the GOP. Local Republican leaders in Florida guaranteed that they would defeat Grayson in 2010 - immediately following his 2008 election - and they say it’s time to get the ball rolling.
So far, one prospective opponent - Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty - has said he will not run. Former State Senator Daniel Webster is “considering” along with State Rep. Steve Precourt and State Senator Andy Gardiner.
The only candidate who has announced is retired pilot Dan Fanelli, a tea party activist. When asked about Fanelli, Orange County GOP Chairman Lew Oliver said “who?” and added that the activist “may be unrealistic about his chances.”
However, Webster has said he will make his decision by the end of the week. When asked about Grayson, Webster told the Orlando Sentinel that when he was in the State Legislature he made sure “not to burn any bridges or make it personal. Congressman Grayson would have done well to heed that advice.”
If he does have an experienced and respected challenger like Webster, Grayson will certainly face a tough re-election. Sure, those speeches might have brought in some money, but money isn’t everything - even in politics. The Democratic Party is probably as organized and popular as they’ve ever been in that district, but they’ll also be focused on other races next year, such as the open Senate seat.
The fact is that he’s created a good deal of embarrassment for himself, to the extent that every news-savvy American has heard about it. Even with over a year before the midterm election, that’s not something they’ll forget easily.
It's still too early to say if he'll win his re-election or not, but I think it's safe to say the "die quickly" speech has done Grayson more harm than good.
According to a Pew Center report released last week, only 57% of Americans believe that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming - down a staggering 14% since April 2008 - and just 36% believe global warming is both real and caused by humans.
