Burnt Orange Report

Republicans to Challenge Black Voters in Kentucky on Tuesday

By Byron LaMasters

@Stake reports:

Jefferson County is home to Louisville, the state's largest city with a significant African American population. Jefferson County Republicans plan to place Election Day challengers at 59 voting precincts in predominantly black neighborhoods. Challengers can require voters to show identification if the challenger does not believe the voter lives in the district.

And why would the GOP want to suppress the Black vote? Heh.. I won't answer that one, but they try it, and do it all the time.

YCT Publishes Blacklist

By Byron LaMasters

It's here:

Bob Jensen, associate journalism professor David Edwards, government professor Clement Henry, government professor Jennifer Suchland, assistant government instructor Thomas Garza, associate professor of Slavic languages and literature Stephen Bronars, economics professor Harry Cleaver, associate economics professor Edmund Gordon, professor of anthropology and African American studies Penne Restad, senior history lecturer Gretchen Webber, assistant sociology instructor

It's interesting how YCT said that they'd include all professors that promoted an ideology - conservative or liberal. Yet, they seem only interested in attacking liberal professors.

Of the ten on the blacklist, eight are liberals, one is anti-Israel and one is conservative. While the liberals are hashly attacked, the token conservative on the list is only given a light slap on the wrist:

Instructor: Steve Bronars Department: Economics Course Evaluated: Introduction to Microeconomics Spring 2004 courses: Dr. Bronars acknowledges that one of the reasons he teaches economics is to get more people to agree with his opinions on it. He champions the free market system and believes in minimal government intervention. Although he may try to offer a liberal perspective on economics early on, he will admit that his class focuses instead on efficiency. He is very good at teaching economics, but sometimes his opinions are the main things that shine through in his lectures. You probably wouldn't take a free market economics class if you didn't already believe in capitalism, but Dr. Bronars may try to do the thinking for his students without challenging them to question why they feel the way they do.

None of the liberals on the list receive that sort of treatment. Here's a sampling:

[...]

Jensen introduces the unsuspecting student to a crash course in socialism, white
privilege, the "truth"; about the Persian Gulf War and the role of America as the world's prominent sponsor of terrorism. Jensen half-heartedly attempts to tie his rants to "critical issues" in journalism, insisting his lessons are valid under the guise of teaching potential journalists to "think" about the world around them.

[...]

Dr. Edwards allows his hatred of conservatism and capitalism to permeate his entire curriculum.

[...]

Gordon implied that if you're black and conservative, you're not black enough, and you're not doing what's in the best interest of the black community. He's called himself a radical and displayed a political agenda of changing students' minds toward a far left ideology. Most of what's taught consists of how blacks were and are oppressed, which would seem to deprive students of other important elements of black culture.

[...]

Although during class discussions Suchland allows dissenting ideas, all of the course readings greatly accentuate oppression and exploitation in the U.S. along race, class, and gender lines. If you believe in the American Dream and that the U.S. is a land of great opportunity, nothing in the readings from this
class will confirm that belief.

[...]

Dr. Restad's goal is not to encourage objective inquiry into the history of this nation, but rather to indoctrinate students with highly subjective, emotional reactions to historical events.

While, some of these are probably fair attacks, a lot of them are pretty cheap. It makes sense that a course on African-American history would focus on oppression of African-Americans, because, well from the time African Americans were brought to America in the 17th century until the Civil Rights Act - they were, by law, (constitutionally 3/5ths) second class citizens. Naturally, the majority of an African-American history class would emphasize the reality and effects of Black oppression. The next professor is critisized for "accentuat[ing] oppression and exploitation in the U.S. along race, class, and gender lines" and that "if you believe in the American Dream and that the U.S. is a land of great opportunity, nothing in the readings from this
class will confirm that belief." Is it not possible to believe both? I think that it's important to understand the exploitation and oppression of underprivledged races, classes and women in America in the context of believing in American opportunity. They aren't mutrally exclusive. And to suggest that recognizing inequalities in America is contradictory to believing in the American dream is quite biased. It's YCT. What do you expect?

LULAC Sues

By Byron LaMasters

Over Redistricting. Duh:

The League of United Latin American Citizens today sued the state over redistricting, claiming that the newly adopted congressional districts violate voting rights of the state's Latino population.

According to the lawsuit filed in Tyler, the plan approved by the Legislature in October weakens the Dallas Hispanic community by splitting the population into five congressional districts. Similar splits divide Hispanic communities in Travis, Bexar and Webb counties, according to LULAC.

Pile it on. The map is illegal.

Bill White, Annise Parker and Rail for Houston

By Byron LaMasters

Both Charles Kuffner and Greg Wythe have good endorsements for any Democrats in Houston. I haven't followed the any of the races in depth, but check out their endorsements for the best progressive / moderate / Democratic candidates for each race. As an outsider, I care most about White, Parker and rail. My short, simplified take on the races are as follows: As for White, he's a moderate consensus builder and good Democrat. I'd never vote for Orlando Sanchez - he's a conservative Republican pushed by the right-wing wanting a Hispanic poster child. As for Sylvester Turner, he's a decent legislator, but he sold out to the Craddick leadership team during session and refused to go to Ardmore, OK. Unacceptable. I'd support him in a run-off against Sanchez, but White is a far better choice. As for Parker, she's extremely well qualified, a good Democrat and openly lesbian. I won't vote for gay candidates because they're gay, but when they're also the best qualified candidate and a good Democrat, then it's an easy choice. As for rail, it's worked for Dallas, and unless Houston wants to remain inferior to Dallas forever (sorry, I'm from Dallas - I can't resist), then they ought to get started on rail of their own (yeah, I know Owen will give me shit for it - remember, I said simplified).

Update from Byron

By Byron LaMasters

Blogging is funny. I got a call from a friend this morning worried if I was ok, because I hadn't blogged in a few days. I'm fine. Actually, great now. I just had a busy week - with work throughout the week, and tests yesterday and today. I made it. I'm going to Dallas for some meetings for the weekend after some Halloween parties in Austin tonight, so I'll be busy, but fortunately Jim's been on the job posting this week, and I've been happy to see Karl and Andrew chip in when they have the chance. Thanks guys... next week should see more regular posting from myself.

Dan Morales Sentenced to 4 Years

By Byron LaMasters

The Austin American Statesman / AP reports:

Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales was led away to federal prison in handcuffs this afternoon after receiving a four-year sentence for mail fraud and filing false tax returns.

Morales also was ordered to pay more than $330,000 in restitution and fines.

Morales pleaded guilty to the charges in July, admitting that he had cheated the Internal Revenue Service and shipped phony documents during an attempt to funnel money to a friend.

Morales, who had been free on bail while awaiting his sentencing, requested permission to report to prison under his own power. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks refused the request.

The mail fraud charge stems from Morales' lawsuit against U.S. tobacco companies, claiming they owed Texas reimbursement for smoking-related health care. The lawsuit ended with the companies agreeing to pay $17.3 billion to the state.

When it came time to pay the lawyers their fees, which reached $3.3 billion, Morales added his friend Marc Murr to the attorney list and tried to get him 3 percent of the settlement. The other lawyers protested that Murr, a Houston lawyer, did little to nothing on the case.

Morales later admitted to back-dating a contract to make it look as if Murr had done more work than he had. It was a federal crime because he shipped the contract across state lines to the California arbitrators appointed to decide how to divide the legal fees.

Murr, who later declined payment, pleaded guilty earlier this month to mail fraud. Prosecutors recommended six months imprisonment, five years on probation and a fine of up to $250,000. His sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 19.

Morales' tax evasion charge comes from $420,000 he took from his campaign account for "personal use" — money that he didn't report to the IRS.

It's a shame, but I don't really have any sympathy for him. He's getting what he deserves. Hopefully, he'll come out of prison in four years a better man. Regardless, it goes without saying that his political career is over. Remember, he endorsed both Rick Perry and David Dewhurst last year. It's really a shame. He had so much promise, but he threw it all away.

Bless This Blog (mostly)

By Jim Dallas

While we're not usually into numerology and other cultish nonsense, it is worth noting that the Gematriculator (which previously determined that TBOGG's blog is 66% good), has determined that:

Mark Harden's InSane Antonio blog also scored 67% Good/33% Evil. Although let it be noted that this site is only suppoed to provide an aggregate index of evil, not of its composition.

Thus I take the equivalent rankings as further evidence of Ambrose Bierce's claim that "[a conservative is a ] statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."

This isn't quite as impressive as Charles Kuffner's most-saintly blog, which was certified as 69% good.

(Kuff be Praised!)

GDP Up, Employment Down, Confusion Reigns Supreme

By Jim Dallas

DailyKOS is on this one, but I think misses part of the story.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday.

U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the July-September period, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) said. It was the steepest climb since the first quarter of 1984 and more than double the second quarter's 3.3 percent rate.

That's all fine and good, but is it sustainable? Looking at the details, one needn't be an economist (and I am not) to worry.

First, consumption of durable goods has been high for the last two quarters, and it stands to reason that this is in large part a function of tax-cutting (purchases of durable goods also bounced up in Q4 of 2001 and Q3 of last year). Obviously, people don't go out and buy durable goods (cars, refrigerators, TV sets) just everyday. And personally I'd suspect that consumers may be blowing their wad all at one time, making future growth in this area unlikely.

Similarly, residential investment went up 20 percent last quarter. That's pretty aberrant. People and businesses don't go out and fix their homes/offices/etc. up everyday, either.

And it's clear where the money for all these improvements is coming from; scroll down to "disposable income." Real disposable income was also up 7.2% last quarter. However, the decrease in tax collections (largely from advance payments on child tax credits - another one hit wonder) outpaced increases in income. In short, the federal budget deficit has been this quarter's sugar-daddy (and we know how that's going to end up).

On the other hand, Brad DeLong, who is an economist, sees a silver lining: a big boost in equipment investment.

That coupled with some signs (noted in Reuters) that the labor market is starting to turn around suggest that we've finally hit rock-bottom in the quest to clear out inventories, and that demand is (finally) catching up with supply. Of course, as KOS and Brad DeLong both note, unemployment isn't going anywhere fast. Which is a crying shame, because it clearly indicates a gap between potential growth and actual growth.

If I had to make a completely amateur guess as to what is going on, it is this -- that low interest rates and tax cuts are fueling a short-term boost in consumption of goods that people wouldn't otherwise buy. This is not bad, but it probably isn't the foundation for job growth and economic expansion that the country really needs right now.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman's NYT column this morning mostly agrees with my hypothesis, arguing that:

First, while there was a significant pickup in business investment, the bulk of last quarter's growth came from a huge surge in consumer spending, with a further boost from housing. These components of spending stayed strong even when the economy was weak, so there shouldn't have been any pent-up demand. Yet housing grew at a 20 percent rate, while spending on consumer durables (that's stuff like cars and TV sets) — which last year grew three times as fast as the economy — rose at an incredible 27 percent rate last quarter.

This can't go on — in the long run, consumer spending can't outpace the growth in consumer income. Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley has suggested, plausibly, that much of last quarter's consumer splurge was "borrowed" from the future: consumers took advantage of low-interest financing, cash from home refinancing and tax rebate checks to accelerate purchases they would otherwise have made later. If he's right, we'll see below-normal purchases and slower growth in the months ahead.

Speaking of all-things Krugman, we should find out in the next 72 hours whether Krugman stalker (and we mean that in the opinionated, figurative sense) Donald Luskin will follow through with his threat to subpoena blogspot in order to obtain Atrios's secret superhero identity.

Last Man Standing

By Jim Dallas

Sometimes a little cold shower is in order. For me, it involved looking up the estimated allocation of delegates to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

To put it mildly, it's going to be a long, hard slog for any candidate to reach 2170-ish votes on the convention floor for a majority, if more than a handful of candidates remain in the race past February 3.

Perhaps it's just that it's been since, oh, 1992 when we've had a competitive cycle. Or maybe it's just me.

But as I continue to see a string of national and state polls that put 3 or 4 or 5 candidates all in striking distance of each other, the more I tend to think that we're gonna have an old fashioned, rip-roaring, knock-down-drag out convention in Boston next year...

But that isn't to say that this is a bad thing.

Zell sells out (again)

By Jim Dallas

Not at all shocking, but Instapundit and the Weekly Standard report that Sen. Zell Miller ("D?"- Georgia) will endorse President Bush.

I wish Senator Miller didn't have a driving need to make himself the bête noire of Democrats generally and Southern Democrats specifically (despite Zell's insistence that the DNC has told "a third of the country to go to hell", upwards of 80 percent of the Democrats in the South have been moderate-to-liberal for years) before riding off into the sunset.

Two shameless plugs

By Jim Dallas

First, I encourage the entire Burnt Orange Report readership to watch CBS's miniseries The Reagans, which will air next month.

The first reason why this is mission critical is because it will piss off Mark Harden (which is practically an end-in-itself).

The second reason is because, despite reactionary whinings about "distortions" and "bias", it may very well present an engaging portrait of what Washington was really like in the go-go 80s (much the same way that Billy Lee Brammer's The Gay Place was said to capture a better caricature of Lyndon Johnson that any of his official biographers ever did; and much the same way that Joe Klein's Primary Colors captures Clinton). Sometimes a little interpolation and "creative writing" is necessary to express what's in somebody's soul, and as Ronald Reagan has been one of the most bedeviling great men of our era to pigeon-hole, perhaps a little "distortion" is necessary.

In any case, a miniseries ought to be judged as art (containing the truth in broad strokes) and not as history, accurate down to the last detail.

(And for pete's sake, the claim that Reagan is being played by "Barbara Streisand's husband" is just stupid. How many actors can pass as Ronald Reagan these days, besides James Brolin?)

The second shameless plug of the evening is a quickie. It's roll call time again in the National Government Simulation (Sign In | Home Page | Sim Democratic Party HQ). It's sort of like an Internet version of a model Congress/model UN -- or would be if we had enough people to make it function properly. Until then, we'll probably sit around in our virtual Tavern and talk about how hopelessly emo we all are. Woe is us.

Everyone who wants to participate is welcome, especially if you can help me pass my national healthcare reform package, my gay-rights bill, and education funding bill. Every vote on the "floor" and in committee helps. Not to mention the fact I'm gonna need to register some new "voters" to get re-elected as the Senior Senator from Texas in December (ha! how's that for subverting the dominant paradigm!)

Strayhorn Strikes Again

By Andrew Dobbs

Charles has this post about Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn's latest attack on Rick Perry. From the Houston Chronicle:

For the second time in two weeks, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn ripped into Gov. Rick Perry on Monday, blaming her fellow Republican for cuts in community college funding.

Strayhorn also criticized Perry for the "lost civility, the lost dignity, the lost honor, the lost effectiveness and the lost spirit of bipartisanship championed by then-governor and now President George W. Bush."

So it looks like the GOP will have a whole mess of primary battles on their hands in 2006. If Kay Bailey Hutchison stays in DC Perry v. Strayhorn will dominate the Governor's office, somebody will be fighting for the comptroller's office and at least a few prominent Republicans- Todd Staples, Susan Combs, Greg Abbott- have got to be thinking about moving up in the rankings. If Hutchison decides to run for Governor shift the fights around to her Senate seat and add Dewhurst, who really wanted to run for Senate in 2002 but settled for Lt. Gov. to enter the mix as well. They will spend a lot of time, money and effort fighting each other in a primary assuming that the general is locked up.

This is why we need very good candidates, very little contention in the primary and a solid fundraising effort between now and then so that the day after the GOP decides its candidates after a bloody primary season the Dems can start attacking them and building up their own profiles while the GOP struggles to tie up loose ends with the different factions. A good, moderate to conservative Dem like Jim Turner or John Sharp or John Montford could get support from GOPers who lost in the primary and can't stand their party's candidate. I think that 2006 has an opening for us and we need to start working now.

The Funny Man Gets Angry

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I spoke too soon last week when I mentioned some positive comments about Al Sharpton being a uniter of the Democrats.

From the Washington Post

Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton launched a blistering attack on Howard Dean yesterday, accusing his rival of promoting an "anti-black agenda."

"Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's [National Rifle Association's] agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country," Sharpton said in a statement.

This seems odd of him, but is explained in the next line.

He said his comments were in response to a news report yesterday that Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) plans to endorse Dean, the former Vermont governor and presumed front-runner for the 2004 Democratic nomination. Sharpton has had a long-standing rivalry with the congressman's father, Jesse L. Jackson, who twice ran for president.

"Any so-called African American leader that would endorse Dean despite his anti-black record is mortgaging the future of our struggle for civil rights and social justice," Sharpton said.

This is more about Sharpton fearing the loss of support from the only quarters where he had it, the black community via the black community's leaders. Of course, the fact that it was Rep. Jackson probably only made him more angry.

He was a real firebrand in the last debate. He sounded like a southern community preacher calling for the condemnation of the white house and proposing a reclamation of the nation.

These comments just reaffirm the thoughts of those people who think he is a rabble-rouser and a race baiter. I now realize this (being that I wasn't aware of his past actions, being the young'n that I am).

SIDENOTE: So Kuchinch did carry through with his big threat to take Dean to task about his new ads in the Sunday debate. Yeah. Did everyone see those big headlines screaming KUCINICH DEFLATES DEAN: POINTED QUESTIONS SLOW FRONTRUNNER'S BIG "MO"

Umm-hmm.

More shockers from the Bush press conference

By Jim Dallas

Financial Times: Bush seeks re-election on 'world peace' ticket

US President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he will campaign for re-election next year by arguing that "the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership".

But, even as he did so, he conceded that "Iraq's a dangerous place" and shuffled back from his triumphant declaration on board the USS Abraham Lincoln seven months ago that America had achieved its mission in the Gulf.

Would it be trite or cliched to quote Orwell ("War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength") right about now?

Gay Fatigue

By Byron LaMasters

This was from a couple of weeks ago, but I recently read of Dallas Morning News columnist Steve Blow's column on his "gay fatigue". Now, I'll start off by saying that I've always liked Steve Blow. In fact, he's one of my favorite Morning News columnists. I've tended to find his columns interesting and insightful. I've emailed him twice, once complimenting him for a well-written column on underage drinking, and once criticizing him for his characterization of anti-war protesters. Both times I received a thoughtful response.

Anyway, Steve Blow wrote that he has gay fatigue:

I think I have "gay fatigue."

Don't worry, it's not catching. But I suspect that many of you have contracted it, too.

Let's talk.

Remember a few years ago when there was lots of talk about "compassion fatigue"? The news confronted us with so many problems, so the theory went, that our ability to feel compassion simply wore out.

If nothing else, it made a nice excuse for indifference.

But to some degree, it also made sense. And that's why I think I'm now suffering from gay fatigue. I'm just feeling kind of overwhelmed.

My moment of self-diagnosis came recently when I was looking through a list of upcoming movies on the Sundance Channel. That's a cable TV channel that shows independent films.

The movie descriptions read something like this:

"... the story of a brooding young lesbian coming to terms with her sexuality in the 1950s."

"... the story of a misunderstood gay teen confronting homosexuality, gangs and poor decorating in Brooklyn."

"... the story of a transgendered Jewish poet's struggle to reconcile love, faith and verse."

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. But I sure didn't want to watch.

I know I have a fairly acute case of gay fatigue because I have lost the will to watch Will & Grace.

Jack, who once seemed so funny, now just seems annoying. One less penis joke per episode would probably help.

And this is one straight guy who wouldn't let those Queer Eye guys anywhere near him. I could use their help. I just couldn't stand all their yapping.

Well, Steve, I really have three words for you. Deal with it. I don't mean that in a vindictive way at all, but rather as a reality of life. The fact of the matter is that the gay community (and our allies) are winning the culture war. We've seen media and culture undergo a massive transformation in the past 10-20 years from basically ignoring homosexuality at best and demeaning homosexuals as predators (or characterizing all homosexuals in mostly negative stereotypes) at worst.

Now conservatives out there will say that Steve's right, here - that the media and Hollywood are obsessed with gay themes. Maybe so, but I have another suggestion. Perhaps the media has realized something else. Gay themes sell. People are interested. Why else has Will & Grace become so popular? Or Queer Eye?

Well a couple reasons. One, gay themes are new. A lot of people find them entertaining, and probably most importantly, they sell. As for being new, until the mid-90s gay subjects were largely taboo in television and movies. It wasn't until movies like "Philadelphia" (1993), "The Birdcage" (1996) and "In & Out" (1997) and Ellen DeGeneres' 1997 coming out that gay themes really emerged as "acceptable" and "normal" for television and movies. That reality in the late 1990's of the acceptability to middle America of gay themed movies and television in mainstream media has probably done more for the gay rights movement than anything else in my lifetime. Heck, I remember being in 8th grade when Ellen came out. It was shocking. Her show may have been cancelled, but she led the way for Will & Grace (1998) to Queer as Folk (2001) and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (2003). Sure, shows like Queer as Folk that show rather explicit gay sex scenes will generate a backlash, but does it really say anything more about gay people than Sex and the City says about straight people? Hardly. Queer Eye is probably one of the best gay themed television shows because (despite perpetuation of some gay stereotypes, although not in a negative way as it shows the gay men as happy, successful and confident) it shows gay men helping straight men improve themselves so that they can become a better father / husband / boyfriend, etc. It really reflects the reality of the 21st century where gays and lesbians have become integrated into mainstream, heterosexual society (a trend that I and most gay people see as a good thing).

Movies have undergone a similar transition in the past decade as well. Philadelphia didn't ruin Tom Hanks' career. Instead, it got him an Oscar. Just as television has been willing to go more daring, so have movies, now willing to tackle transgenered themes "Boys Don't Cry" (1999) and other complex themes, "The Hours" (2003).

For the first three decades of the modern-day gay rights movement (late 60s through late 90s) the average American had little exposure to gays and lesbians. Many Americans saw all gays and lesbians as represented by the most flamboyant and radical elements of gay pride parades on the news. While the gay community scored many political victories, it was only until the late 1990s when the gay community scored a critical cultural / social victory: the normalization of gays and lesbians into popular culture and mass media.

Susan Wloszczyna of USA Today examined the phenomenon this summer:

If you recently caught a movie at the multiplex, clicked on the TV remote or saw a Broadway show, you might have noticed the world looks a lot more gay lately.

And we aren't just talking about happy and carefree.

Suddenly, with little fanfare or fuss, mainstream entertainment has fallen head over heels for gays and lesbians, and the occasional transgender or bisexual counterpart, with an embrace that goes beyond the passing flirtations of the past.

A subject long explored and exploited by niche venues such as independent films, pay cable and off-Broadway, the gay infatuation started to grow more serious about a decade ago. Before the box-office novelty wore off, major Hollywood studios milked homosexuality for obvious laughs and mawkish tears in "The Birdcage," "Philadelphia" and "In & Out." The AIDS-themed stage drama "Angels in America" won a Pulitzer and Ellen DeGeneres came out of her sitcom closet.

That was then.

This, however, is now: Barbara Walters experimentally locks lips with Julianne Moore, emulating her Oscar-nominated role as a sexually confused '50s homemaker in "The Hours." "American Idol" host Ryan Seacrest and judge Simon Cowell josh each other with blatant gay banter. Willow the witch (Alyson Hannigan) and her female companion didn't settle for the usual peck on the lips on the third-to-last episode of UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

That's just prime-time TV in the past couple of months.

[...]

Gay entertainment is no longer a ponderous check-off list of historical landmarks that elicit protests and piety. It also can be pure, simple fun - like Bravo's new dating show, "Boy Meets Boy," starting in July. The trick: Some of the contestants are straight ringers.

"There's been an enormous change if you compare what's out there with what was out there 15 years ago," observes gay playwright and screenwriter Paul Rudnick ("In & Out," "Jeffrey"). "Back then, we had no visible gay characters or the ones we did have were used only in angsty docudrama situations to illustrate their sad, lonely lives. Now we are in the era of 'Will & Grace,' and that's been a great leap. To be successful, a movie or show has to appeal to general consumers and everyone wants to watch 'Will & Grace.' I mean, Madonna didn't turn up on 'Everybody Loves Raymond.' "

The attitude shift is a natural progression, says Scott Seomin, entertainment watchdog and spokesman for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

"As more and more people come out in this country, the more straight people know a co-worker, a friend or a family member who is gay," Seomin says. "They are going to learn that the gay community is just as human as the straight world. They want to learn more about their lives."

Plus, today's youth - a prime target for advertisers, who also are catering more to well-off and well-educated gay consumers - tend to be more open-minded if not blase about such matters.

" 'X-Men' is based on the exploration of the differences between people," says Lisa Dombrowski, assistant professor of film studies at Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. "Do we celebrate those who are different or fear and attack them? It resonates with any teen since they all feel different."

She adds, "This is a generation that has grown up with more images of gays, lesbians, transgender and bisexuals. The issue isn't one of shock. It's one of why aren't we seeing the entire truth."

[...]

- On TV. The popularity of "Will & Grace," about a straight woman and a gay man who are best friends, is long established. Next season, though, ABC goes a step beyond with its new culture-clash sitcom, tentatively titled "It's All Relative." The setup: A woman raised by two liberal gay men is engaged to the son of Irish Catholic conservatives who run a bar.

Executive producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan say it was network executives who felt the time was right for a sitcom with gay parents.

"This is the first time we've seen gay parenting on network TV with a committed couple," says Zadan of the series written by two "Frasier" alums. "If you look at other shows, the men are barely dating. These two guys have spent a long time raising a child." The final shot in the pilot says it all: A split screen with both sets of parents snuggling in their shared beds.

[...]

There are still milestones to be met, but they're noted with toned-down hoopla. A possibility for midseason on ABC is "Mr. and Mr. Nash," about gay interior decorators who solve murders. Think "Hart to Hart" with a killer design sense. Says Cumming, who is one Mr. Nash, "It would be the first time on TV where gay people would be in a show and it wouldn't be about them being gay."

After the success of its male-oriented "Queer as Folk," Showtime will unveil the first lesbian-focused series, "The L-Word," next year.

So there's your answer, Steve. Gay themes sell because more and more people know gay people and are intrigued by them (even if "Boy Meets Boy" (2003) was a flop - anyone else have Reality TV fatigue?). Gay themes play well with younger audiences because, well, younger audiences are much more liberal on gay issues and younger people tend to go to the movies a lot. Finally, gay money has a lot to do with it. Gays and lesbians have been targetted by advertizers in recent years. And campaigns like the Stop Dr. Laura campaign and the campaign to get Michael Savage off of TV prove the seriousness in which advertizers and networks take the buying power of the gay community.

That normalization of gay themes in the media in the past decade has had many effects, and inevitably will lead to something of a backlash even by some people that consider themselves "supporters" of the gay and lesbian community. But the positive effects greatly outweigh the negative effects. Polls show that the majority of people 18-25 support gay marriage by a small majority and almost every other gay rights issue overwhelmingly. Why? Because today young people are growing up in a country with Gay Straight Alliances, with Will & Grace, with gay themed movies, with openly gay and lesbian neighbors and friends and most importantly with an open debate in America about homosexuality. It may make some older folks a little nervous, but so did every other battle for equality before us. The Civil Rights movement, the Women's Equality movement and about every other one made a lot of people nervous. But people got over it. If Steve Blow or anyone else doesn't want to watch Queer Eye, or it makes you nervous.... change the channel. It's not rocket science.

To be fair to Steve, he does support gay rights politically. He's wrote: "So thank goodness for all the progress that has been made in righting wrongs." He followed up several days later writing "Boy am I dumb" as his headline. No shit. By writing that he was tired of all the "gay stuff", he opened himself up to attacks from both the left and the right, perpetuating discussion of an issue that he's tired of. From the gay community, opinion has ranged from agreement to calling Blow a bigot. I'd say that I'm in the middle there. Steve Blow is not a bigot. He's generally pro-gay, but expressed some of his concerns about homosexuality in a somewhat insensitive manner. I'll still read him and respect him, but I'd caution him to think twice before he suggests that there be a "National Please Shut Up Day" again.

Alternate Reality 2004 (Back to the Future!)

By Jim Dallas

After reading about President Bush's frayed press conference today, and now that it seems patently obvious that the media are going to crucify Bush over Iraq, it seemed reasonable to construct a more optimistic prediction than the one I offered last week, which was based on a Sept. 2004 job approval rating in the low-to-mid 50s.

Assuming a presidential approval of 40 percent on Labor Day 2004 (which would put Dubya down in the range of his father in 1992, Carter in 1980, and Johnson in early 1968), the previously discussed model would suggest a comfortable Democratic win of about 374 Electoral Votes to 161 EVs for the President. With 331 solid/lean Democratic EVs, 118 solid/lean Republican EVs, and 86 tossups.

All the qualifications, cautions, warnings, and dissuasions from the last post notwithstanding, of course.

The big question mark about next year is how the president's job approval tracks. Despite the likelihood of slightly better economic conditions (albeit still a jobless recovery -- the economic consensus still pegs unemployment at or around 6 percent on Election Day), it seems that President Bush is simply losing the trust of the American people over Iraq (with Bush's situation being compared more and more to the "credibility gap" politics of Lyndon Johnson every day).

If it weren't for Bush's stratospheric approval among self-declared Republicans, his approval rating would be in negative territory (and its already darn close, with the latest polls this week showing a drop back down to about 50).

(The latest CNN/USA-Today/Gallup Poll)

Ironically, it may make more sense for Democrats to run a Dubya-style "honor and integrity" campaign instead of a Clintonian "it's the economy stupid" campaign next year.

(Of course, that's been conventional wisdom for sometime, but it's more relevant now than ever).

Washington Post on Re-Redistricting Legality

By Byron LaMasters

Via The Lasso is a good article from the Washington Post on the legal issues and historical precedents raised by the Republican re-redistricting efforts in Colorado and Texas:

By enacting a new congressional redistricting plan this month that replaced a court-ordered plan used in the 2002 elections, the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature did more than demonstrate a willingness to play political hardball against its Democratic opponents. It waded into uncharted legal and constitutional territory, raising a question to which there is no clear answer.

The Texas Republicans redistricted their state even more aggressively than Colorado Republicans did earlier in the year.

According to experts in the field, there is no precedent in modern U.S. politics for what the Texas and Colorado Republicans did: voluntarily redraw congressional district lines a year after lawmakers were elected from districts that had already been redrawn once in this decade.

In both cases, divided state legislatures could not agree on redistricting plans in 2001, after the 2000 Census. Courts stepped in to draw new district lines, the normal procedure in such circumstances. But in 2002, Republicans gained complete control of the legislative process in both states. This year, the GOP has moved aggressively to exploit that advantage, hoping to solidify the party's control of the U.S. House of Representatives through the end of this decade.

[...]

The key constitutional issue raised by the cases is whether a state legislature is free to redraw congressional boundaries a second time in a decade after an election has been held using district lines that were legally implemented, either by the legislature or by a court.

"There are no court cases" dealing with that issue, said Tim Storey, the redistricting specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It's essentially a new question."

There is nothing new about using the redistricting process to hammer political opponents. It has often been an exercise in raw political power by both parties. Some 19th-century instances make today's Texas Republicans look restrained by comparison.

According to a paper by Erik Engstrom, an assistant professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in 1878 House Speaker Samuel Randall (D-Pa.) was so concerned about his party's shaky hold on the House that he implored Ohio Democratic leaders to redraw their state's congressional districts to make it easier to elect Democrats. The Ohio Democrats responded by redistricting seven times between 1878 and 1892, Engstrom reported.

But during much of the 20th century, states often did not redraw congressional boundaries even once a decade. The only times they were compelled to redistrict was when, as a result of the decennial census, they gained or lost seats in the House. Washington state did this in the 1950s, creating an "at large" House seat in 1951 and converting it into a traditional district covering only part of the state in 1957.

The states' casual approach to redistricting ended in 1962 with Baker v. Carr, the landmark Supreme Court decision that laid the foundation for the "one person, one vote" doctrine. From then on, states were to redraw House districts to keep their populations about equal after each once-a-decade census. There have been numerous instances of multiple redistrictings during the same decade, but always under pressure or order from a court to comply with constitutional mandates or laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Except in those cases, states have regularly redrawn congressional districts only once a decade.

Storey said about a dozen states have constitutional provisions prohibiting multiple redistricting in the same decade, but Texas is not one of them. Nor do the U.S. Constitution or federal court precedents prohibit the practice.

"There is nothing that says you can't do this as often as you want," said Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University.

But Texas Democrats say the practice is unconstitutional and contrary to the Founding Fathers' intentions. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Tyler, Tex., they note that the Constitution requires that House seats be reapportioned among the states after each 10-year Census. An "implicit assumption" of that reapportionment mandate, the Democrats argue, is that the redrawing of district lines within states will take place on the same schedule.

They say that changing district lines after an election has been held "cuts the links" between voters and their representative by shifting voters into new territory represented by someone else.

"All we're saying is that implicit in decennial reapportionment is decennial redistricting," said Sam Hirsch, a lawyer for the Texas Democrats. "American constitutional law is full of implicit assumptions. The idea that reapportionment and redistricting are tied together is a small inferential leap. The reason is that reshuffling districts every two years undermines democratic accountability. People should be able to vote for representatives who served them well and against those who have not served them well."

Texas Republicans have not yet replied to the lawsuit, but in an April opinion Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) laid out their likely arguments. He said that when a panel of federal judges imposed the redistricting plan used for the 2002 elections, it did not foreclose the possibility of the legislature enacting its own plan for the rest of the decade.

"No language in the [federal court] plan mandates application of the plan through 2010, and no court order properly could bar a legislature from performing the legislative task of redrawing lines and enacting a constitutionally acceptable plan for future elections," Abbott wrote. "Absent restraints imposed by state law, a state may redraw its congressional districts more often than every 10 years."

Grofman, a widely recognized redistricting expert, said there is no question that the Texas Legislature could have enacted its own redistricting plan in place of the court plan before the 2002 elections. But, he added, "Is it legally relevant that the [court] plan has taken effect for a year and therefore is it going to prohibit the state from further action? The case law just isn't clear."

Whatever the answers, Thomas E. Mann, a senior scholar at the Brookings Institution, said that the Texas and Colorado experiments in multiple redistricting could have profound political consequences.

"If this is sustained, what we will have is a form of arms race where there is no restraint on keeping the game going on throughout a decade," Mann said. "You ask, who wins in this process? This is a process designed not for citizens or voters but for politicians. It will lead politicians to say there are no limits. I think it threatens the legitimacy of democracy."

A Letter to Clear Channel

By Jim Dallas

From Brady, a buddy of mine, over at livingindefinitely.com:

Clear Channel Communications
200 Basse Road
San Antonio, TX 78209

pr@clearchannel.com

21 September 2003

Dear Clear Channel:

I am writing with an important request. As a regular radio listener, I feel that the amount of Toby Keith songs played on Clear Channel stations is way too high and ought to be reduced. To zero.

I don’t ask this because of Toby’s extreme knee-jerk right-wing politics. People of all political stripes should be on the radio. Why, just recently, some broadcast company whose name eludes me at the moment tried to ban Dixie Chicks songs just because they criticized President Bush. How ridiculous is that? No, I’m not asking you to stop playing Toby Keith songs because of his politics. I’m asking you to stop playing his songs because they’re incredibly shitty.

Yup.

Collegiate Class Warfare for Dummies

By Jim Dallas

Barbara Ehrenreich writes in next month's Progressive --

Welcome to higher education, twenty-first-century style, where the most important course offered is not listed in the college catalog. It's called Class Struggle, and it pits the men in suits--administrators and trustees--against the men and women who keep the school running: maintenance workers, groundspeople, clerical and technical workers, housekeepers, food service workers.

Yup.

Soechting Starts with Fire

By Byron LaMasters

Personally, I was surprised and a little dissappointed about Charles Soechting's election as chair of the Texas Democratic Party, however, I'm certainly pleased with his rhetoric in the past day. The Austin American Statesman reports:

Soechting criticized state government's Republican leadership -- Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick -- as "deceitful, deceitful people."

[...]

Soechting's aggressive style, which has helped make him a successful trial lawyer, includes bold predictions and challenging rhetoric.

"The simple fact is, we are going to get after the rats that have run things into the ground in this state and this nation for too long," he told committee members after the vote.

Soechting told reporters that Texas voters would reject President Bush next year and give the state's electoral votes to the Democratic ticket.

"I believe it. I know it, because George Bush keeps helping us so much. The economy, the war, there's a multitude of reasons. The simple fact is we can do it," he said, adding Democrats have a chance at winning statewide races next year.

[...]

The new chairman's blunt style was on display in Austin on Friday and Saturday as he campaigned toward victory.

On Saturday, he blamed Bush for the nation's economic woes.

In a Friday speech to the nominations subcommittee, Soechting was even more aggressive, questioning Bush's National Guard service.

"He is a dodger. You can't call him anything but that," Soechting said, referring to an unresolved controversy concerning whether Bush ever failed to report for duty while in the National Guard.

After the Friday speech, Soechting said the dodger reference had been made in a joking manner.

Amen. That's what we need. More people willing to tell the truth and attack Bush and the Republican Party directly. As for the vote totals, the Statsman has the details:

Soechting (pronounced seck-ting) picked up 34 votes, one more than needed for victory, on the second ballot after state Rep. Garnet Coleman of Houston dropped out after the first ballot. Mauro had 23 second-ballot votes out of a total of 63 votes.

Soechting, who had 28 votes to Mauro's 22 in the first ballot, picked up seven of the eight votes Coleman had received. San Antonio lawyer David Van Os and Bryan accountant Mary Moore also ran.

Mauro, however, plans to run for state chair next year:

Soechting, who will serve as interim chairman, plans to seek a full two-year term during the Democrats' state convention in June. Mauro said he also will run at the convention.

"If he shows some stuff, I'll reconsider," Mauro, the Democrats' unsuccessful 1998 gubernatorial candidate, said of Soechting. "Anybody that can deliver the goods, I'm for."

But Mauro also said, "Talk is cheap."

Hmmm.... I'd like more choices, personally, but I'm willing to give Soechting a chance. I'd disagree with Andrew that Soechting's election was a result of "the forces of cronyism, institutional short-sightedness and a desire to run our party into the ground once and for all". I do think that there was a genuine "anti-Mauro" vote at the SDEC. It's clear to me from the fact that seven of the eight votes for Garnett Coleman on the first ballot went to Soechting on the second ballot (evidence of an anti-Mauro sentiment). I'd like to meet the guy and see what he wants to do. Maybe we'll be able to get him to come to a University Democrats meeting in the next month or so. Hopefully. We'll see. I just wish that someone like Sherry Boyles or Kirk Watson or David Bernsen (who all have the ability to unite the progressive and moterate/conservative/establishment wings of the party) would have run. Oh well.

Excuse Me While I Go Laugh

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I almost put this one under the Burnt Orange Report Humor listing. Read and see.

HEADLINE: Kucinich wants Dean ads pulled from TV in NH

Why do you ask? Oh let me tell you!

Dean began airing two 30-second spots in New Hampshire earlier this week, criticizing his opponents' records on the war in Iraq and prescription drug benefits. The former Vermont governor does not name his rivals, but highlights his opposition to the war and says "the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war."

Kucinich, the Ohio congressman and the only candidate who voted against the resolution authorizing the war, took exception to the spots.

"I am proud of my record of opposition to the war on Iraq and the occupation of Iraq, and I will not stand by while a fellow Democrat distorts my record and his own," Kucinich said Friday. "I'm calling upon Dr. Dean to take these false and misleading ads off the airwaves before they do further damage to his own campaign as well as to the campaigns of other Democrats."

Thanks for being concerned Dennis. It's almost touching.

The Dean campaign responds.

"We're focusing most of our attention on those candidates who are attacking us, and those are candidates at the top of the polls. We're not focusing on Dennis so we're not attacking Dennis."

Some days, I just can't wait to see the latest polls. The anticipation, the suspense one must endure in waiting to find out who is in 8th place this week almost KILLS me!

But the entertainment doesn't stop there!

Kucinich's lawyer, Donald McTigue, sent a letter to New Hampshire television stations earlier in the day, asking them to pull the ad and give Kucinich's campaign free air time to respond.

Puh-lease.

"I think trust may in fact emerge as the major issue in this race," Kucinich said.

Trust will be an issue Dennis. But I'd be more worried about Bush's Iraqi mistruths than NH ads that aren't focused at you. Puh-lease.

The campaign also plans to petition the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communication Commission about the ads.

...

But Kucinich said he would not let the issue drop, and planned to confront Dean about it Saturday when both planned to attend an AFL-CIO convention in Whitefield.

Wow, I can't WAIT for the political fireworks from this one!

I'm sorry, as much as I can somewhat respect Kucinich for bringing some real issues to the table, the guy is giving the Progressive Caucus a bad reputation. I'm unsure if he makes the Democratic Party seem Liberal and out-of-touch or if he just makes the other challengers seem that much more moderate and mainstream...

All the Small Things

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling this summer declaring sodomy laws to be unconstitutional, we realized how little pieces of law, even if rarely enforced, can be a big deal. They can be used as support for continuing discrimination in other legal battles and of course the death of the sodomy laws chapped a few conservative's collective arses...

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday."

Fast forward to a couple days ago and read the following clip from this article about students being denied the ability to start a Gay-Straight Alliance in Lubbock.

"I would have denied other clubs whose basis was sex," Jack Clemmons, who was the school superintendent in Lubbock at the time, said in an affidavit filed in connection with the case. "I would have denied a Bestiality Club. I would have denied a Gigolo Club. I would have denied a Prostitute Club. Likewise, I would deny any club that has as its basis an illegal act, such as the Marijuana Club, Kids for Cocaine, the Drinking Club, etc."

...

"Lawyers for the school district argue that the Equal Access Act permits schools to override students' free speech rights and forbids clubs if they jeopardize students' well-being. In support of that argument, they cite a little-known section of the Texas Penal Code that prohibits gay activity between youths younger than 17. Allowing a Gay-Straight Alliance amounts to giving students license to break the law, said Ann Manning, an attorney for the school district."

Though I can't find the exact penal code that this refers to, I believe it is there in the midst of the age of consent statues. It is once again, one of those small sections of code that is rarely enforced but used to enlist a legal argument in aid of homophobia.

In addition, the basis for denying the club is so far off base. Since when have GSAs become clubs for sex? That charge is used simply to provide an excuse to demonize homosexuals and feed the public the same old lines about "gays only want sex" and are a part of a greater sexual perversion. Gigolos? Bestiality? Prostitutes?

This classifies as Santorumesque in my view. And the sad thing is he probably believes it all.

Soechting New TDP Chair

By Andrew Dobbs

Well, it looks like the forces of cronyism, institutional short-sightedness and a desire to run our party into the ground once and for all prevailed again here in Austin as the State Democratic Executive Committee selected longtime TDP General Counsel and integral part of the 8 year campaign for obscurity Charles Soechting as the new Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.

I said a while back that our party chair ought to be someone who is not a part of the power structure that led to so many defeats and the steep decline of the party. We need someone who will shake things up, rebuild our grassroots, develop a much better GOTV effort, recruit candidates, raise money, hone our message and disseminate it and convince people who have voted for the GOP over the last decade or so that they ought to come back home to the Democratic Party. Perhaps Soechting can do this, but I have my doubts- he has been an insider and is rooted in the sort of fuzzy-headed dwelling in the past that plagues our party leadership.

Here’s hoping I’m wrong about all of this.

Every Horse Race Needs a Bookie...

By Jim Dallas

One of the most contentious debates in the field of political science today is over the "predictability" of elections. This question necessarily leads to some questions which grate at our moral conscience as Americans. If an election is predictable based upon economic conditions and "political time", then how much impact can one individual truly make? Are we controlled by fate or destiny?

On the other hand, one could argue that, if voters are really rational, then it's pretty simple to figure out what they are going to do given objective preconditions. Rational choice theory then encourages us to see electoral predictability as fairly flattering evidence that Americans really know what's best for them, and what could be more moral than that?

In either case, I'm not a very moral person, but I did think it would be cool to try and take a stab at divining - just about a year ahead of time - who has the inside track in the race for the White House. I

(In part I did this in the hopes that I could create a reasonably realistic computer game, so I'm not without some pragmatic motive).

Read ahead for the gruesome details.

The Burnt Orange Political Weather Forecast

This month's forecast for the 2004 Election -- still 54 weeks away -- suggests a somewhat competitive election in which President Bush has a slight Electoral College advantage.

The overall forecast suggests an election similar to that of 2000, with probably battleground states being:

(Leaning Slightly to the Democrats)

Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania

(Leaning Slightly to the Republicans)

New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, and Florida

In these states, both parties have a better than one-in-three chance of winning.

Other possibly competitive states - where the chance of an upset falls to one-in-ten, are:

(Leaning to the Democrats)

California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Delaware

(Leaning to the Republicans)

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Ohio, and New Hampshire

Should all of these predictions all come to pass, President Bush will be re-elected with 285 electoral votes, with the as-yet unnamed Democrat receiving 250 electoral votes.

Bush has 235 EVs "solid" or "leaning", with the Democrat having 196 EVs "solid" or "leaning". Slight Lean/Tossup states comprise 104 EVs.

This prediction assumes a presidential approval rating of 55 percent in the Gallup Poll on or about Labor Day of next year. It also assumes an approximate 3 percent increase in real disposable income in the third quarter of 2004.

It does not add in the likely impact of the Democratic candidates's home state advantage (since we do not know who the Democratic candidate will be). Expect about a four-point bounce in the state tally for whomever the candidate is.

Here is a table with the projected two-party vote shares and the probabilities of a Democratic win:

State	Share	Prob.	Rank
AL	41.7%	3.0%	38
AK	32.4%	0.0%	48
AZ	44.9%	13.2%	31
AR	47.9%	31.3%	25
CA	55.1%	84.3%	12
CO	45.8%	17.8%	29
CT	59.1%	96.9%	6
DE	53.9%	77.2%	13
DC	82.8%	100.0%	1
FL	48.3%	34.4%	24
GA	43.2%	6.6%	35
HI	60.4%	98.5%	5
ID	30.4%	0.0%	50
IL	55.3%	85.4%	10
IN	41.5%	2.7%	39
IA	48.9%	38.3%	22
KS	38.4%	0.4%	45
KY	41.4%	3.1%	37
LA	44.3%	10.6%	32
ME	54.8%	85.1%	11
MD	58.9%	96.7%	7
MA	64.1%	99.9%	3
MI	52.3%	67.2%	15
MN	52.3%	67.7%	14
MS	38.8%	0.7%	42
MO	48.3%	34.6%	23
MT	38.8%	0.7%	43
NE	34.9%	0.1%	47
NV	47.1%	25.8%	27
NH	45.8%	17.1%	30
NJ	56.9%	91.8%	9
NM	49.4%	42.9%	21
NY	62.6%	99.6%	4
NC	43.9%	8.3%	34
ND	39.2%	0.8%	41
OH	47.7%	29.9%	26
OK	37.3%	0.3%	46
OR	51.1%	57.8%	18
PA	52.1%	65.5%	16
RI	64.7%	99.9%	2
SC	42.2%	3.6%	36
SD	39.8%	1.1%	40
TN	46.2%	19.9%	28
TX	38.4%	0.5%	44
UT	30.4%	0.0%	51
VT	57.3%	94.3%	8
VA	44.1%	9.7%	33
WA	51.9%	63.4%	17
WV	50.3%	52.5%	20
WI	50.8%	55.4%	19
WY	31.0%	0.0%	49

The validity of this forecast

The model is based on data from 1964 through 2000. Although perfect data for 1956 or 1960 was not available (as I shall explain below), the model was able to make reasonably good guesses as to which states the Democrats would carry in those years.

The 1960 Retrocast --

The model achieved roughly 75 percent accuracy for this election. While it predicted a Kennedy victory over Richard Nixon (345 EVs to 186 EVs; 6 EVs from Alaska and Hawaii not counted), it missed several important states; it mistakenly called Washington, Oregon, Montana Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida for Kennedy, while calling Connecticut, New Jersey, and Nevada for Nixon. Nor could the model foresee that Democratic electors in Mississippi and Alabama would vote for conservative Harry Byrd instead of the official Kennedy/Johnson ticket, which won by a total Electoral College vote of 303-219-15.

Kennedy's unforseen success in Nevada, New Mexico, Louisiana, and New Jersey may likely have been caused by Catholic voters (and perhaps the reverse is true in Tennessee and Kentucky).

Alaska and Hawaii were omitted from this retrocast as it was the first election in those new states, and the model is heavily dependent on past performance.

The 1956 Retrocast --

The model successfully predicted an overwhelming landslide by President Dwight Eisenhower over Democratic challenger Adlai Stevenson, missing only Missouri (which it called as a "solid" Eisenhower state), North Carolina, and Louisiana (which had a "slight lean" towards Stevenson/Kefauver). Overall this yielded 45 correct calls and 3 incorrect calls, a 93.7 percent correct-call rate.

Within-sample retrocasts (as opposed to these out-of-sample retrocasts) showed a consistent error rate of between 5 and 10 percent. So it is possible that 5 states (or even more) in the 2004 forecast could "flip." Generally, though, this "objective" forecast is roughly in line with the widely-regarded predictions made by Larry Sabato as well as the more subjective ones at PresidentElect.org. Ron Faucheux at Campaigns & Elections, perhaps the world's foremost political oddsmaker, also gives Bush a slight advantage (54.5%) heading into next year.

Factors weighing into this forecast

This forecast was created using a pool of six models, namely --

• Two linear regression models (one with a constant, the other with an intercept of zero) estimating the Democratic share of the two-party vote;

• Two probability models gauging the probability of a Democratic win (1) or loss (0) -- one model uses LOGIT, the other uses PROBIT (rhymes with "hobbit");

• Two probability models gauging the probability of an individual voter voting Democratic (1) or not (0) -- again, using both LOGIT and PROBIT.
  

All six models use the following variables:

• Democratic share of the two-party vote in the last election;

• Average Democratic share of the two-party vote in elections t-2 through t-4 (that is, the last three elections prior to the previous election; in 2004 that means 1996,1992, and 1988);

• The ideological position of the median voter in that state, ranked on a scale of -3 (most conservative) to 3 (most liberal). This is based on a moving average of the annual scores derived by Fording, Rinquist, Hanson, Berry (1998), who use congressional voting scorecards from Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO to estimate the ideological leanings of constituents. Since the three-year moving average for 2001-2003 can not yet be calculated (and won't be until early next year), ideology scores for 2000 (the moving average of 1997-1999) are used currently;

• A dummy variable (1 for Democratic presidents, -1 for Republican presidents) denoting whether the Democratic presidential nominee is the incumbent president;

• A dummy variable (1 for Democratic presidents, -1 for Republican presidents) denoting whether the Democratic presidential nominee is the incumbent vice president;

• A dummy variable marking the home state of the incumbent president (1 for Democratic presidents, -1 for Republican presidents);

• A dummy variable marking the home state of the Democratic presidential nominee (which in all cases is zero for this forecast, since we don't know who the candidate is yet);

• The incumbent president's job approval rating, as measured by the Gallup organization on or about Labor Day (via David Burbach at MIT for many of the data points). This is positive if the incumbent is a Democrat and negative if it is a Republican;

• and the natural logarithm of the percent change in per-capita real personal disposable income in the third quarter of the election year (what a mouthful!).
  

Two additional dummy variables were used to account for unusually poor Democratic performance in the Deep South in 1964, as well as unusually good Democratic performance in the South in 1976. Generally, accounting for the whims of the Southern white bloc vote was the hardest part of producing this forecast -- the Southern tide which propelled Kennedy and Carter was not present for Johnson and Clinton. Moreover, accounting for George Wallace's vote in 1968 created headaches; eventually, I decided to count Wallace votes as Republican votes (since, presumably, the same voters who went for Wallace earlier voted for Republican Goldwater in 1964 and later voted for Republican Nixon in 1972).

Overall the models use 503 datapoints (every state and D.C. since 1976; ever state in 1972; and every state except Alaska and Hawaii in 1968 and 1964). The two linear models have R-square statistics of .86 and .84, respectively; and global F statistics of 264 and 241, with 491 and 492 degrees of freedom. Both voter-probability models have maximum ln-likelihoods approaching -336, and both state-probability models have maximum ln-likelihoods of about -103.

In the future I intend to update this prediction using better data, including the "true" ideological scores for 2001-2003 and more accurate estimates of 2004 Q3 RDI growth. I also would like to experiment using congressional support for the president as a variable (the logic behind that being that a state congressional delegation's support of presidential initiatives is driven, in large part, by the president's popularity back home among the contituents).

The entire Excel spreadsheet will be found here. Criticisms of a strictly mathematical sense (as this was the first time I have applied LOGIT/PROBIT analysis) are very welcome. Be warned, the spreadsheet is about 31 megs large. A non-interactive, HTML version will be found here.

Finally, I am deeply indebted to the prior works of Steven Rosenstone, Douglas Hibbs, Ray Fair, John Zaller and Larry Bartels. I am also grateful for Charles Annis's Web tutorial on implementing generalized linear models like LOGIT and PROBIT on his Web site, statisticalengineering.com. Major sources of data are Dave Leip's Election Atlas, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Endorsements of Mauro

By Byron LaMasters

Don't ask my how I got on all of these email lists, but endorsements of Garry Mauro are rolling in... recently by State Reps. Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) - even if Garnett Coleman is his first choice, Aaron Pena (D-Edinburg), and more significantly by former Govs. Ann Richards and Dolph Briscoe (yeah, that's a long way back).

Ann Richards says this about Garry Mauro:

I have known Garry Mauro since before I was elected a Travis County Commissioner and we were both elected statewide in 1982. That election made a significant and positive difference in the way state government worked for the people of Texas.

Garry was a hard working progressive Land Commissioner who expanded that office on a number of policy and environmental fronts. He cleaned up and protected Texas beaches, made Texas air cleaner and our state’s natural resources open to all Texans. In addition, his management of the state’s 22 million acres of public lands resulted in increased funding for the public schools of Texas. He honored veterans with expanded, speedy access to low interest Land Board loans.

This is a crucial time for Texas Democrats. Our future depends on leadership with commitment, experience and a desire to unite the Party in a way it has not been united for years. Garry Mauro is up to that task. I believe he has earned your vote because of decades of dedication to our Party, our values and to the people of Texas.

Republicans See Killer D's as Boy Band

By Byron LaMasters

Well, here's what the Republicans think of our Killer D heroes, here. Sheesh, I'm not sure how to take it, but it's funny in a stupid sort of way.

Students are Confused

By Byron LaMasters

A poll came out yesterday saying that 61% of college students approve of President Bush. What I don't get is that these students approve of Bush, but think that he's hiding things (i.e. lied) about Iraq and the vast majority of students are worried about finding a job after school (it's the Bush economy, stupid). Anyway, here's the story:

President Bush has more support among college students than the general public, according to a new poll that also says students have lost trust in Bush over the last year.

The poll done for the Harvard University Institute of Politics found that 61 percent of college students approve of the job done by Bush — about 10 points higher than the president's approval rating in several recent polls of the general population.

But the students indicated they also have concerns about the president's policies, with 86 percent saying the Bush administration has been hiding something or not telling the truth about Iraq (news - web sites).

Seven in 10 students said they think it will be difficult finding a job when they graduate.

Students are funny, aren't they? I think that a lot of Bush's approval among some students is that they see him as a leader (even if he's a failed one) whereas there's a lack of a coherent message coming from the Democrats. On the Iraq issue for example, our presidential candidates range from Dennis Kucinich on the left wanting a full pullout of Iraq now to Joe Lieberman who pretty much ditto's the administration position on Iraq. I think there will be more clarity once we choose a nominee, but this poll is still troubling. I think that while the left is more active on most campuses, the vast majority of students are apolitical and don't pay much attention to national politics until election time (if at all). So, I'm not too worried now. If at this time next year students say they still like Bush, then I'll probably be more worried.

State Rep. Kino Flores and US Rep. Lloyd Doggett to run in the 25th

By Byron LaMasters

The Quorum Report writes that both Wayne Christian and Kino Flores are planning to run for Congress should the new map be adopted. Christian is running in the new 1st district against Rep. Max Sandlin. Flores would run in the open 25th district stretching from Austin to McAllen. Flores has already lined up impressive support for his bid for Congress:

The "Kino for Congress" bandwagon rolled into Jim Hogg and Duval counties Tuesday, with around 20 political leaders from the Rio Grande Valley traveling in support of their man.

State Rep. Ismael "Kino" Flores (D-Mission) has done everything but announce his candidacy for the new "open" Congressional District 25 seat, embarking on an aggressive campaign to win key endorsements from mayors, county judges and commissioners.

Tuesday's tour came as two other potential South Texas candidates announced they were considering running for a seat that extends 350 miles from the Rio Grande to south and east Travis County.

Now, Flores was a Craddick ally, but he's good on most issues and has a (7% Lifetime rating from the Young Conservatives of Texas). However, being anti-choice will clearly hurt him in Travis County. I don't live in the district, but I'd be inclined to support a candidate that was 1) from Travis County and 2) is pro-choice for such a heavily Democratic district.

Talking about Austin representation in Congress, the Daily Texan profiles our Congressman at UT, Lloyd Doggett, who as a former Student Government President has had ties to the University of Texas for decades. Now, because of the GOP gerrymander, he may no longer represent UT in Congress. It's a good read...

Update: Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) has announced today that he will run in the open 25th Aus