2012 - %3, November

2 Swing States That Swing on Felon Disenfranchisement

| Fri Nov. 2, 2012 3:08 AM PDT

A new infographic from the Prison Policy Initiative (cropped version below) does a nice job of illustrating the massive vote-suppression tactic we wrote about previously—one that could hand two crucial states to Mitt Romney. While most states forbid people to vote while in prison, and many extend that ban to people on parole, only a handful make it next to impossible to regain your right to vote if you've ever been convicted of a felony. Do the crime, and you'll never vote again.

Among that handful of states are two where Obama and Romney have been running neck and neck—Florida and Virginia. (Nate Silver's model shows Romney leading in Florida and Obama ahead in Virginia.) According to PPI's data, a full 9 percent of Florida's voting-age population is disenfranchised because they have at one time been incarcerated. In Virginia, the figure is 6 percent.

Given that a disproportionate number of disenfranchised ex-felons are people of color, and that Obama polls far ahead of Mitt Romney in the black and Latino communities, the assumption is that a majority of the missing votes would favor Obama—possibly enough to win him these states even if only a fraction of ex-felons voted. The results of this election may therefore hinge on the denial of a basic right to men and women who have long since paid their debt to society, but remain permanently excluded from the democratic process.

Click on image to see the full poster. Prison Policy InitiativeClick on image to see the full poster. Prison Policy Initiative

 

 

 

 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Something to Look at While You Wait for the BLS Jobs Report

| Thu Nov. 1, 2012 11:10 PM PDT

Here's something to ponder over while you wait for the BLS to release its final jobs report before the election. Gallup released its monthly unemployment survey on Thursday, and it showed a seasonally adjusted drop from 8.1 percent in September to 7.4 percent in October. The Gallup numbers are quite a bit more volatile than the official BLS numbers, as you can see in the chart below, but in general the two surveys move in similar directions. If that happens again on Friday, the BLS numbers will show a drop from 7.8 percent to.....I dunno....maybe 7.6 percent or so: a smaller decline than Gallup, but moving in the same direction.

Or maybe not. We'll know Friday morning.

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Nope. Unemployment ticked up to 7.9% according to the BLS report.

Election Forecasting Update - 1 November 2012

| Thu Nov. 1, 2012 10:23 PM PDT

Here's another update on the status of the most popular presidential forecasting models. I've mixed it up a bit since the previous one. On the top are Nate Silver and Andrew Tanenbaum; on the bottom are Sam Wang and Josh Putnam. Obama continues to widen his lead, and the average of the models now gives Obama 312 electoral votes.

Corn on MSNBC: Bloomberg's Obama Endorsement

Thu Nov. 1, 2012 7:17 PM PDT | Scheduled to publish Thu Nov. 1, 2012 7:17 PM PDT

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose city is reeling in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, endorsed President Obama earlier today, citing the president's position on climate change. David Corn joined Martin Bashir and The Grio's Joy Reid on MSNBC today to discuss what kind of impact Bloomberg's remarks will have on the race.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.

Drudge: "Obama Left Them Behind"

| Thu Nov. 1, 2012 4:51 PM PDT

On Monday a friend emailed me about the likelihood of conservatives going all out to make Sandy look like Obama's Katrina. "I'd watch Drudge for the cues," he said. "He should have a picture of a stranded black person up at some point tomorrow." Today he emails to claim victory:

He was a couple of days off, and the picture also includes some white people, but not bad! Here's another of his predictions: "If Obama wins, you'll soon start hearing the impeachment drumbeat building from Fox News types over Benghazi. They'll go through the usual period of finger-pointing and disappointment, but it will quickly shift to a full-throated movement to re-focus their rage on Obama, and Benghazi will be the rallying cry. Trust me. I know these people. It's not going to take that long."

Hmmm. I hope he doesn't know them quite as well as he thinks. We'll see.

UPDATE: Bloomberg Bows to Pressure, Cancels Marathon

| Thu Nov. 1, 2012 2:59 PM PDT

UPDATE: Mayor Michael Bloomberg changed course Friday evening, canceling the marathon."While holding the race would not require diverting resources from the recovery effort, it is clear that it has become the source of controversy and division," he said in a statement.

The New York City Marathon, slated for this Sunday, is the biggest running event in the US. Each year, more than 100,000 people apply for one of the 47,000 spots, and then train for months to complete the grueling 26.2-mile course through the city's five boroughs. But given the destruction wrought by Hurricane Sandy, many people are surprised and, quite frankly, pissed off that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided not to cancel the race.

There's a debate raging on my Facebook feed right now about whether or not that was the right thing to do. I run, and I hang out with a lot of runners, and several of my friends are supposed to compete in New York this weekend. I completely get why runners would be frustrated if the race were canceled. That's a lot of training down the tubes. The city has also offered some good reasons to keep the race going. It brings in an estimated $340 million in revenue for the city, and generates $34 million for charities. Race officials say that they are going to dedicate the race to those who are suffering, and use it to help raise money and awareness to bolster recovery efforts.

That said, it seems difficult to argue that the marathon is the best use of everyone's time and effort this weekend, given that thousands of people are still without shelter, power, food or water. In addition to the runners, there are 700 people staffing the race, 10,000 volunteers, and 2.5 million spectators. Putting on the event also requires the work of hundreds of police, sanitation workers, and transit officials—all of whom could instead be deployed to help restore the city. 

The marathon uses a lot of resources that others in the city probably need more right now—like the 93,600 eight-ounce bottles of water handed out to runners, in addition to the 62,370 gallons of water used along the course. Marathons also distribute many pounds of food, which could go to needier New Yorkers—such as elderly people stranded without electricity in apartment buildings, as this video from the Climate Desk shows:

The race would also tie up traffic and transit, which the city really just doesn't need right now.

I can't put it any better than these New York runners who started an online petition asking the city to postpone the race until next spring: "This event is always a positive event and it should not be turned into a hugely negative drain on city resources."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Bloomberg: It's No Time for a Climate Skeptic in the White House

| Thu Nov. 1, 2012 2:58 PM PDT

Here is our updated aphorism for the day:

Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows a climate skeptic might be elected in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.

This wasn't true last week for New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, but apparently Hurricane Sandy has brought him down from Mount Olympus. Now his mind is concentrated quite wonderfully indeed, and today he endorsed Barack Obama for president:

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be — given this week's devastation — should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

....But we can't do it alone. We need leadership from the White House — and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

....Mitt Romney, too, has a history of tackling climate change. As governor of Massachusetts, he signed on to a regional cap-and-trade plan designed to reduce carbon emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels....But since then, he has reversed course, abandoning the very cap-and-trade program he once supported. This issue is too important. We need determined leadership at the national level to move the nation and the world forward.

While we're on the subject, Scientific American's Mark Fischetti has an interesting post on the subject of scary climate change stories, something that I've been writing about recently. My problem with the scary story genre is that it's woefully insufficient when you're dealing with a problem that's essentially invisible and won't seriously affect most of us for decades. Stories about imperceptible menaces just don't pack enough of an emotional wallop. One solution, of course, is to write scary stories about events that are extremely concrete and very visible indeed. Like, say, Hurricane Sandy. The problem is that scientists tend to be pretty circumspect about blaming any individual hurricane on global warming. But Fischetti says that might be changing:

Hurricane Sandy has emboldened more scientists to directly link climate change and storms, without the hedge. On Monday, as Sandy came ashore in New Jersey, Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, tweeted: “Would this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is [the] storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.”

Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate Systems Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, was quoted in the Vancouver Sun saying: “When storms develop, when they do hit the coast, they are going to be bigger and I think that’s a fair statement that most people could sign onto.”

....Greg Laden, an anthropologist who blogs about culture and science, wrote this week in an online piece: “There is always going to be variation in temperature or some other weather related factor, but global warming raises the baseline. That’s true. But the corollary to that is NOT that you can’t link climate change to a given storm. All storms are weather, all weather is the immediate manifestation of climate, climate change is about climate.”

OK, this isn't quite "climate change caused Hurricane Sandy." But perhaps we're moving in that direction. If we do, it could mark a sea change (if you'll pardon the pun) in how the public views climate change. The more they see scientists linking it to concrete events—droughts in the Midwest, hurricanes in the Atlantic, wildfires in the West, icecaps disappearing in the Arctic—and the more they see scientists willing to make those links without caveating them to death, the more real climate change will become. Who knows? Maybe the scary story genre is in for a revival just at the moment I declared it dead.

VIDEO: NYC Gas Crisis Is "Like Something You See in the Movies"

| Thu Nov. 1, 2012 2:07 PM PDT

"Our gas crisis should end shortly." Those words of reassurance, issued this morning from New York Senator Charles Schumer, might not be enough for swarms of drivers in Brooklyn.

Limited bus and subway service returned to New York City Thursday morning, but cars remained one of the only options for moving between boroughs. As a result, the streets of Brooklyn—which normally depends heavily on public transit—were overwhelmed with drivers, and they were all looking for one thing: gas. But the city's main artery for this staple, the Port of New York, was closed during Hurricane Sandy and only just re-opened, leading to massive shortages, closed stations, and excruciating—and tense—lines for the pump.

Bloomberg Cites Climate Change As He Endorses Obama

| Thu Nov. 1, 2012 12:57 PM PDT

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed Barack Obama for president on Thursday. Bloomberg, whose city is still dealing with the disaster left in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, cited the president's position on climate change in a column posted on Bloomberg View:

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

He continued:

We need leadership from the White House -- and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year.
Mitt Romney, too, has a history of tackling climate change. As governor of Massachusetts, he signed on to a regional cap- and-trade plan designed to reduce carbon emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels. “The benefits (of that plan) will be long- lasting and enormous -- benefits to our health, our economy, our quality of life, our very landscape. These are actions we can and must take now, if we are to have ‘no regrets’ when we transfer our temporary stewardship of this Earth to the next generation,” he wrote at the time.
He couldn’t have been more right. But since then, he has reversed course, abandoning the very cap-and-trade program he once supported. This issue is too important. We need determined leadership at the national level to move the nation and the world forward.

Who knows how much sway Bloomberg, an independent, holds with the general public. But it certainly highlights how ridiculous it is that climate change never came up in any of the presidential or vice-presidential debates.

The Economist's Weird Centrist Lament About President Obama's Economic Policy

| Thu Nov. 1, 2012 12:24 PM PDT

I understand bashing Barack Obama because you don't like his social views. I understand bashing him because you don't like his national security policy. I understand bashing him if you're just flatly opposed to any expansion of government. But I continue to be puzzled by complaints from the center about his economic policy. Here's the Economist:

Previous Democrats, notably Bill Clinton, raised taxes, but still understood capitalism. Bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Mr Obama. If he has appointed some decent people to his cabinet—Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Arne Duncan at education and Tim Geithner at the Treasury—the White House itself has too often seemed insular and left-leaning.

This is crazy. As the Economist points out, Obama appointed Tim Geithner at Treasury. He reappointed Ben Bernanke at the Fed. His top White House advisor was Larry Summers, a protege of Robert Rubin and an alumnus of the Clinton White House. He appointed Peter Orszag as director of OMB. He hired Wall Street financier Steven Rattner to manage the Detroit rescue. He appointed Paul Volcker, the man who saved us from stagflation, as chair of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. And he appointed Christina Romer as chair of the CEA—a lefty, perhaps, but certainly not a business basher. Every progressive pundit I know, from Paul Krugman on down, has mostly complained that Obama's economic team was too centrist, too mainstream, and too Clintonian. The idea that these folks are somehow unenlightened about capitalism is laughable.

The Economist also has a weird complaint that Obama "surrendered too much control to left-wing Democrats" over Obamacare—in reality, he didn't surrender to them, he was forced to deal with them because Republicans refused to offer any of their votes in return for centrist compromises—but I'll let that go. Instead, I'll just turn the floor over to Matt Yglesias, who has the right critique of the Economist's wrongheadedness:

This idea that sound economic policy derives from palling around with job creators is one of the most pernicious myths out there today. And when you think about it, it undermines the whole logic of capitalism. The Soviet Union desperately needed politicians who understood agriculture, industry, and commerce because Soviet politicians were running the whole economy. In America we don't do that. What the president has to do well is the things that he's in charge of—being the single strongest voice in public policy disputes.

I think the best example of this is the first term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Businessmen really didn't like the guy. But the economy grew like crazy during his first four or five years in office. Why was there such strong growth? Primarily because FDR took the United States off the gold standard. That was a great idea, though it was much-criticized by business elites at the time. Tellingly, even when the policies were clearly working and the economy was growing again after years of collapse, businessmen didn't change their mind about FDR. Which doesn't show that they're bad people or bad businessmen, simply that they were really bad at public policy analysis. Which is fine, because just as we wisely don't have politicians running businesses we also wisely don't have businessmen running the government.

The fact that you may have brilliant ideas about running a large retail chain or marketing sneakers or selling medical supplies doesn't mean you know how to make economic policy, and making economic policy doesn't require you to make friends with the guy who runs the large retail chain.

Could Obama have used a few more CEOs in his economic team? Maybe—although I doubt that it would have mollified the business community or changed the political realities of Capitol Hill much. But look. Geithner's job was to support higher capital standards for banks whether banks liked it or not. Summers' role was to help pass new financial regulations whether financiers liked it or not. Obama's role was to pass healthcare reform whether the CEO of Walmart liked it or not. All of these things might have turned out better if Republicans had shown any interest in working together on them, but they didn't. That was the hand Obama was dealt.