Take me to your leader...

These are your leaders?
Rest assured that if Martians landed and had seen the events of the past several days they would not to be meeting the leadership of either the House or the Senate. With the economy reeling and a big chunk of the MFG sector on the line these grate leaders of ours (no spelling error there...) sent the auto guys back home because they did not say 'mother may I' before they asked for $25bln. You'd think the House and Senate had never given money away before- ya know?

After this sorry display you know why Will Rogers used to say, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

Let's make a deal..oh, never mind
There had been a deal struck earlier in the day-a bi partisan deal - to rework the previous $25bln retooling monies for the auto companies and as those Senators planned to meet to announced they had reached a compromise their LEADERS headed them off at the pass announced an earlier prcess conference and promptly declared that there was n deal that could pass both houses. Why? BECAUSE I'M THE MOMMY- THAT'S WHY.

Yes welcome to the power-hungry world of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. We are the leaders. You are the peons. The peons do not cut deals without the leaders say-so.

But in their magnanimous leader-fashion they decided they would reconvene in December and the auto guys could try again to beg for big bucks. Oh OH this time they had better be properly subservient. They had better not fly there in corporate jets. maybe a commercial flight and not first classs or... maybe by bus a Greyhound perhaps? Or should they drive one their own cars- something geared for the proletariat not the upper crust. Wagoner could drive a Neon from Detroit. Mullaly could drive a pick-up. Nardelli could drive anything since he is the lone guy who said he would work for - and is working for - a buck a year. He gets it. While I think for the most part these auto execs did not take and pass the course 'begging for $25billion bucks 101,' they nonetheless need the money: that much is clear. And if they need more they'll come back for that too. Until they know how weak the economy is going to be and for how long how COULD THEY know how much they will need?

Gosh this leadership is STUPID. Well they are only politicians you know.

It makes you wonder what will happen when Barack steps in. He 's got four years and maybe eight. But the House and Senate leaders have their own power and the potential for limitless consecutive terms. Hey Barack: You're not the boss of MEeeee! said Pelosi...and Reid.

Just wait.

This leadership did not mind passing the $700bln package after a two week stall and hanging all sorts of pork on it like barnacles on the hull of a ship. Now they send the auto guys back when they are on the brink of running out of money. Ooooo I guess they showed THEM who's boss.

Well I'm not made to feel better. This is another example of politicians getting their egos out in front of their brains and mucking up the country just to flex their own muscle. I am having a bad feeling about this.

Save first. Blame later.

For those of you that are happy that we got rid of Bush just remember the old curse, "be careful what you wish for." I do not have a good feeling about the way this playing out. Not only is the Democratic leadership squashing what looked like a perfectly good deal, it is endangering the work force in a bluer than blue state. Michigan was so blue McCain did not even try to compete there. What a way to say THANK YOU!

Well they did say "You" but the first word wasn't "Thank.'

Dang a lang a ding dong. That is real leadership.

Good luck trying keep control of these 'guys' Barack. I think a Congress full of Republicans might have been easier. If they keep this up, you may find out if that is true or not in your second term.

You see it does not matter if the president is black. Underneath the skin they are all Democrats now. But inside of that they are all power-hungry. And that's exactly the trait did in the Republicans. Now you know why I say, they are all the same to me. In the end all of them are in it for themselves.

Capitalism or Socialsim? Other Isms

ISMs for the year 2008

Paulsonism: You have two cows. They get sick. You diagnose them and apply medicine for a different malady. They get worse. You declare yourself committed to your cows and tend your chickens. The cows get worse. You freeze to efforts on behalf of the cows since a new owner will buy your farm in two months.

TARPism- You have two cows. You say they are fine. Then you say they are endangered. You say you need special expensive and experimental feed to save them from certain death. You get money from the government to buy that feed. Then you decide there is a better way, but you keep the money and spend half of it on new barn, and sell the farm to get the monkey off your back.

Bernankeism: Your neighbor has two cows. They get sick. You apply everything in your medicine cabinet to help them. They stabilize. You invent new uses for medicine but the cows still waver in their health. You help other peoples’ sick cows that come into contact with your neighbor’s cows. You empty your resources and leave the job up to your neighbor who then sells his farm, sick cows and all. You still live next to him an are blamed for being a poor vet..

Bushism: Your neighbors have cows, ducks, pigs and chickens. The cows get ill. You panic. You hire veterinarians to tend to them taxing the pig, duck, and chicken breeders to pay for it. You claim to believe in rugged individualism and say the nation depends on beef and milk.

AynRandism: You have two cows. You botch their care. The government steps in to help them. You complain: ‘What doesn’t kill them makes them stronger’ Capitalism forever!

GMism: You have two cows; you used to have 100. You still employ 50 people. You have 20 people retired who you still support. You pay your workers more than the chicken farmer across the street, whose chickens are healthier than your cows. You are going bankrupt but tell the government you can breed a better chicken than the guy across the street if it lends you money that the private sector won’t. If it won’t lend, you point out that you employ at least 70 people that will become anarchists.

Fordism: You have two cows. You used to have 50. You used to have better ideas. Now you just have a family member whose football team has not won a game all season long and who refused to fire the worst general manger EVER in the history of the NFL until just this year. You put your cows out to graze on the artificial turf of that field. It turns out not to be a better idea. They get sick. You ask for aid.

Chryslerism- You have two cows. They already were sick once but have recovered and have retained no immunity. Once they ate sauerkraut. Now they are eating a private recipe. They are still sick. You want help.

Bankerism- You have two cows. They are special and partly insured by the government. They get sick. One dies. The neighboring banker-breeders panic and stop using the same feed you used. There is no feed, the cows begin to starve. The government steps in and loans you money to give them Feed. The cows improve. The bankers butcher the cows and eat them all themselves in a huge orgy and feast, burp!

Treasury Secretary's NYT Op-Ed annotated

In Case You Missed It:
“Fighting the Financial Crisis, One Challenge at a Time”

Annotations in BOLD added by me

By Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
The New York Times
November 18, 2008

We are going through a financial crisis more severe and unpredictable than any in our lifetimes (assuming you don’t count the fact that it was CAUSED in large part by our own neglect) . We have seen the failures, or the equivalent of failures, of Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the American International Group. Each of these failures would be tremendously consequential in its own right. But we faced them in succession, as our financial system seized up and severely damaged the economy.

By September, the government faced a systemwide crisis. After months of making the most of the authority we already had, we asked Congress for a comprehensive rescue package (with no strings attached no oversight and no review a request so ridiculous it scared the Heck out of financial markets) so we could stabilize our financial system and minimize further damage to our economy.

By the time the legislation had passed on Oct. 3, (and after our request itself scared the beejeebers out of markets…) the global market crisis was so broad and so severe that we needed to move quickly and take powerful steps to stabilize our financial system and to get credit flowing again. Our initial intent was to strengthen the banking system by purchasing illiquid mortgages and mortgage-related securities (...after saying that housing was the real problem). But the severity and magnitude of the situation had worsened to such an extent that an asset purchase program would not be effective enough, quickly enough (…well it was far too slow, it was experimental and the wheels were coming off the wagon so we reacted to the news on the ground we had helped to create) . Therefore, exercising the authority granted by Congress in this legislation, we quickly deployed a $250 billion capital injection program (...that we had never before mentioned or endorsed, but that followed on the heels of a plan the Brits seemed to be using with some success), fully anticipating we would follow that with a program for buying troubled assets ( WINK,WINK).

There is no playbook for responding to turmoil we have never faced (..and when it comes to thinking outside the box hey I’m only from Wall Street. If you can’t solve it with more leverage or de-regulation, count ME OUT!). We adjusted our strategy to reflect the facts of a severe market crisis, always keeping focused on our goal: to stabilize a financial system (.. or housing?) that is integral to the everyday lives of all Americans. By mid-October, our actions, in combination with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's guarantee of certain debt issued by financial institutions, helped us to accomplish the first major priority, which was to immediately stabilize the financial system. (Thats’ why banks are lending again, the housing market is recovering…oh, wait it isn’t? Geeze, rats…)

As we assessed how best to use the remaining money for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, we carefully considered the uncertainties around the deteriorating economic situation in the United States and globally (...and we decided to BAIL. That’s right we FREEZE our actions for now declare victory Iraq> and plan to DUMP the whole schmear in Obama’s lap) . The latest economic reports underscore the challenges we are facing. The gross domestic product for the third quarter (which ended Sept. 30, three days before the bill passed) shrank by 0.3 percent. The unemployment rate rose in October to a level not seen since the mid-1990s. Home prices in 10 major cities have fallen 18 percent over the previous year. Auto sales numbers plummeted in October and were more than a third lower than one year ago. The slowing of European economies has been even more drastic (Huh? The slowing in Europe is weaker than a drop of 33%?) .

I have always said that the decline in the housing market is at the root of the economic downturn and our financial market stress (..and that is why I am bailing out the banks, that are buying other banks, not lending at anything but high rates to the best possible borrowers!). And the economy, as it slows further, threatens to prolong this decline, as well as the stress on our financial institutions and financial markets.

A troubled-asset purchase program, to be effective, would require a huge commitment of money (…you call it a TARP but we realize it’s a TRAP so we are freezing it!). In mid-September, before economic conditions worsened, $700 billion in troubled asset purchases would have had a significant impact. But half of that sum, in a worse economy, simply isn't enough firepower.

If we have learned anything throughout this year (…and that is doubtful…), we have learned that this financial crisis is unpredictable and difficult to counteract (DUH!?). We decided it was prudent to reserve our TARP money, maintaining not only our flexibility, but also that of the next administration (Freezing it and doing nothing makes us VERY flexible since now we can do nothing is so many ways…).

The current $250 billion capital purchase program is strong medicine for our financial institutions. More capital enables banks to take losses as they write down or sell troubled assets. And stronger capitalization is essential to increasing lending, which is vital to economic recovery (…even if they don’t do it).

Recently I've been asked two questions. First, Congress gave you the authority you requested, and the economy has only become worse. What went wrong? Second, if housing and mortgages are at the root of our economic difficulties, why aren't you addressing those problems?

The answer to the first question is that the purpose of the financial rescue legislation was to stabilize our financial system and to strengthen it. It is not a panacea for all our economic difficulties (…we pursued this goal despite our repeated statements that the housing market is the problem so not fixing housing has been a clever plan of ours to stop the contagion fro housing as it gets worse since we are clueless about what to actually do to help housing..) . The crisis in our financial system had already spilled over into the overall economy. But recovery will happen much, much faster than it would have had we not used TARP to stabilize our system. If Congress had not given us the authority for TARP and the capital purchase program and our financial system had continued to shut down, our economic situation would be far worse today.

The answer to the second question is that more access to lower-cost mortgage lending is the No. 1 thing we can do to slow the decline in the housing market and reduce the number of foreclosures (..and our plan is not achieving that goal at all) . Together with our bank capital program, the moves we have made to stabilize and strengthen Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and through them to increase the flow of mortgage credit, will promote mortgage lending ( eventually…). We are also working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the F.D.I.C. and others to reduce preventable foreclosures (at long last).

I am very proud of the decisive actions by the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the F.D.I.C. to stabilize our financial system (..even though they have been see-saw and last minute and have not worked) . We have done what was necessary as facts and conditions in the market and economy have changed (or have been changed by us and our indecision…) , adjusting our strategy to most effectively address the crisis (after we worsened it, for example by letting Lehman go down) . We have preserved the flexibility of President-elect Barack Obama and the new secretary of the Treasury to address the challenges in the economy and capital markets they will face ( by backing out and increasing the probability that things get even worse by the time he gets here…) .

As policymakers face the difficult challenges ahead, they will begin with two considerable advantages: a significantly more stable banking system, one where the failure of a major bank is no longer a pressing concern (probably) ; and the (scratch ’the’ replace with ‘some’…) resources, authority and potential programs available to deal with the future capital and liquidity needs of credit providers (and nearly nothing done for homeowners where prices STILL decline and foreclosures set new records – but don’t worry! The White House is paid for!) .

Deploying these new tools and programs to restore our financial institutions, financial markets and the flow of lending and credit will determine, to a large extent, the speed and trajectory of our economic recovery. I am confident of success, because our economy is flexible and resilient, rooted in the entrepreneurial spirit and productivity of the American people (…so we admit our cluelessness and end the TARP here, taking a risk that nothing will blow up in the next two months and hope that the new administration has a better idea than we did how to fix this thing).

US economic risks and the G-20

The G-20 met but little action came from this group -partly because the attending US president is a lame duck. Europeans are eager to affix blame to the US and use that as leverage to get the sort of regulatory oversight that they would prefer.

The financial situation continues to be unsettled and banks are pulling back from lending after getting stung so badly on mortgages and in the face of a downturn of increasing severity. Government injections of capital into banks have helped to ease the sense of worry on the part of banks but it has not emboldened them to lend. An unusual joint statement from the Fed, the FDIC, the OTS and the OCC (see below) http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20081112a.htm represents some of the strongest moral suasion the central bank and other regulators can bring to bear to get banks lending again.

That statement warns banks to discharge their responsibility to lend to creditworthy borrowers. It warns them against a payout out of excessive dividends as well as warning on compensation. The statement also urges lenders to work with mortgage borrowers.

The Fed is trying to do all it can. It has even been allowing the funds rate to trade below its 1% target making any call for a further rate cut really a moot point.

Automakers

The BIG NEWS this past week also has featured discussions about the automakers. Detroit’s ‘big three’ are hurting and are running out of cash. An unusual series of events helped to put them in this situation. First of all they have been reeling from problems stemming from a slowing economy and a mix of cars tilted to SUV’s and vehicles that get poor mileage. An ongoing rise in gasoline prices pressured them severely impacting their sales followed by a slowing in overall demand as the economy weakened. Then the financial crisis led banks to clam up on their lending at the same time the commercial paper market shut the door the auto companies’ finance arms. Now a more severe recession threatens. Certainly, the auto companies are not poster boys for US competitiveness. But the unusual set of events reinforced by lending issues for banks and car buyers with low credit scores has exacerbated an already difficult situation, taking a bad situation and making it worse – making it life threatening.

While Congress has been eager to approve money for banks it appears much more reluctant to address the special problems in commerce even for a high-value product like an autos even when banking and financial sector problems seem to be an import reason for the problem in the auto sector. Car and truck sales have been averaging between 16mu to 16.5 mu of sales (saar) until this year when they have suddenly fallen off to 10.5mu. That’s a drop of 36% in the structural pace of sales not in some flakey m/m calculation. Autos need financing the financing arm is broken so why blame the automakers?

This a big issue because one and ten jobs is estimated to be auto-related. These jobs are concentrated in Detroit which will be decimated if the automakers fail. Moreover, with the democrats now taking over, the big problem in Detroit becomes more controversial: that is the relatively rich pay for auto workers. Auto wages are high and the automakers’ promise to retirees to pay benefits for them has been a real drag on GM’s earnings. The unions point out that some sort of public paid health care reform could take that drag off the automakers’ books, but that is not going to happen soon if at all – Obama’s idea is to have health care costs manageable not publicly paid.

The G-20:

The G-20 communiqué is a mixture of objectives. In an attempt to convince us they are on top of things, I get the impression that they are spinning their wheels. The ‘mandates’ at the country level are obvious for the most part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/washington/summit-text.html

There are no ground-breaking statements of intent in this document. There is nothing ambitious. No country by country tasks are assigned or promises are made. We are impressed that the leaders are full of intent to make things right. We are less impressed that there is anything of real structural significance in the works. We are not surprised at the lack of actual achievement since with the office of the US presidency in transition that much seemed obvious from the outset. But there is no sense of vision or purpose in this communiqué; little promise for the future other than to fix the errors of the past. It is chock-a-block with technical details that are, on close inspection, mostly obvious or things that we would take for granted or are already being done. Despite its extensiveness, I consider it a disappointment.

Paulson does a re-think

Paulson: bloodied but still fighting
It is easy to be critical of a plan that weaves back and forth changing focus and emphasis. But these are difficult times and flexibility in and of itself is not a bad thing. Hank Paulson made this point with a reference reminiscent of the great economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes, once was told he was now argung the opposite side of the argument that he previously had taken, he replied, "When the facts change I change my mind, sir. What do you do?"

This response also raises the question of how much HAVE the facts really changed?

Assessment
There has been no pat answer to the ongoing problems. Treasury Secretary Paulson came to us with the best of the best of the best of Wall Street pedigrees: head of Goldman Sachs. But I must conclude that he has not fulfilled his promise. On the positive side I'll say he is still in there making changes and trying. He has tried to be bi-partisan. His efforts are showing some progress... but they may also have caused confusion and that might have come at the cost of confidence and progress. Moreover, the new direction he is hinting at has dangers in its own right.

A brief on Hank's resume
CHINA -Paulson came into this Administration to replace John Snow. Snow had been ineffectual in dealing with China Paulson was supposed to be skilled in plying the Chinese while at Goldman. As Treasury Secretary, however, his secret powers failed him. He mostly succeeded in getting us to be tolerant of their slow speed of response. He had no real success with China, prompting me at one point to term him, The "Manchurian Candidate.'
Stimulus - Paulson was good in working with Congress and reaching across the aisle. He did help to rebuild a dialog with democrats in an administration that had been very strained in its bipartisan thinking. This talent proved significant when it came time to implement an economic stimulus package.
Crisis: SIV- When the economic crisis broke out Paulson's idea was to form a giant SIV (special investment vehicle) to contain the 'bad' assets. This idea proved unworkable.
Crisis: Fed - When the Fed was shorthanded on its board the Treasury Secretary used a little known rule to add the needed vote at the Fed to get a Fed program in place. Hank is and has been a team player- it is one of this true strengths.
Crisis: TARP - The TARP is his biggest efforts and has been the most controversial so far. In the first place he scared the heck out of us by asking for $700billion with no strings no oversight and no recourse in a joint appearance with Fed chief Bernanke. Eventually that plan was scrapped for something more elaborate with checks and balances. In their initial presentation, Bernanke and Paulson were championing the idea of asset purchases from banks using a 'reverse auction' that is a new and untested vehicle. However, this auction would take a long time to put in place. And, in the aftermath of the Lehman failure, markets unraveled quickly. The Fed began to employ its funds to put capital into banks and was forced to modify an earlier plan to assist the insurance giant AIG. On November 12th Paulson announced that asset purchases no longer were an objective. After frantically trying to line up professionals to execute this plan the treasury is shifting gears again. It is dropping teh idea of bad asset purchasing and looking instead to do something to assist the asset-backed markets that are a source for much of consumer credit. They are also thinking of making future capital injections in firms contingent on that firm getting private funds as well. This is another big change since up to this point capital injections have been made on their own.

DANGERS
Requiring firms that get future capital injections to also have private funds injected means that the new treasury plan switches to being one that picks winners. Up until now Treasury has avoided that as it purposely injected capital in some banks that DID NOT WANT IT when it first began these injections. The idea was to put funds in all institutions so that the receipt of funds did not flag an institution as 'troubled.' Now that the Treasury apparently has 'stabilized all the main institutions, it is more willing to start giving the market signals about who is good. It is not clear if this was the treasury's plan all along. But it may have been. Co-mingling Treasury funds with private funds help the treasury to make its money go farther, sort of like a financial hamburger helper. But when you do this you run the risk of signaling who is good and who is not. Financial markets are not exactly back to normal so there may still be some 'good' firms that will have a hard time obtaining private capital matching funds.

Trying to find the right gear...
While some are worried that the Treasury has been switching gears too often on its plans and that could be making it harder for firms to figure out what to do, at least it is staying flexible. But, on closer look, it seems that the Treasury is simply changing its tactics when it realizes its old tactics are lacking. There is not much evidence that market conditions have changed appreciably calling for a new Treasury response. There is evidence that the treasury's first plan to use reverse auctions was just too new, too untried, and took too long in developing to be effective. Jettisoning that makes sense. It also seems that the Treasury is simply coming to have a different realization about the markets and their needs than that it is reacting to new circumstances. We will have to see if its assistance to the asset backed market really works.

Electing a BLACK President is not real change

...So let me say something that other people can't or won't say

A rose is a rose is a rose? A man is a man is a man
In America we believe in the equality of people. I understand that electing a BLACK man is an important symbol for America and for others in the rest of the world. But it's only a symbol, so get over it. America does not become more free, black rights are not enhanced nor are black people's opportunities made more even by having a black man as President.

Color is only skin deep
Barack is not smarter than a white man. He does not jump higher, run faster or legislate better, just because he is 'black'. True he breaks a string of Republican control in Washington at the helm. But that is his 'democratness' not his blackness. As politicians go he is not even particularly radical. We did not elect Al Sharpton or Al Gore.

People who want REAL CHANGE need to look for something else.

Another democrat...
The fact is that OBAMA is simply another democrat. And, to me, as long as there is democrat or a republican in the White House it is ALL THE SAME. The great fiction of the Obama campaign and why I am less than impressed with him was that John McCain, a war hero, was said to be the same as George W. Bush, a near draft dodger and national guard member. Bush invaded Iraq something McCain surely would not have done. This was a stupid tactic and I don't really think it got traction outside of the party faithful (who liked it very much). Moreover Barack's claims to have been against the war while true was sort of irrelevant. At the time he was a 'nobody senator.' Had Hillary voted against the war THAT would have been bold. The acid test? Barack's dissent did not make headlines.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE FLUNKS TEST OF DEMOCRACY
IF OBAMA wants to be an agent of change then he should work to DISMANTLE the electoral college. Gore would have beaten Bush had the president been elected by popular vote in that contest.

Election Shenanigans
In this election there are allegations that in Mississippi and in Alabama some counties had more registered voters than they had residents of legal voting age. When Kennedy beat Nixon there was talk of election shenanigans in Chicago that might have cost Nixon the White House but he refused to pursue it 'for the good of the country.' That's not the sort of thing we remember Nixon for, is it? Gore and Bush fought over votes (hanging chads...) in Florida with the Supreme court weighing in. Why all this conflict over a few votes? Because the electoral vote system is a winner take all system. Fifty one point one percent is worth 100 percent in electoral arithmetic and forty nine point 9 percent can be worth nothing. the system and its stakes are fraught with the incentive for and possibility of corruption.

THE STAKES
But all these shenanigans are for one thing: a state's electoral vote. Ross Perot got about 19% of the popular vote and NO ELECTORAL VOTES when he ran (apologies: in an earlier posting I wrote that Ross got 27% but that was his high-water poll number; in the general election he actually tallied 19%). The electoral vote winner take all schemes is stacked against outsiders - and mavericks, too. The scheme for for resolving ties is through a vote in the House, another factor that favors existing parties. . Obviously no outsider would win the tie vote in the House if that happened. Ross Perot's campaign underlines how futile it is to run as an independent. The major parties OWN the elections and they in turn are heavily influenced by big money and lobbyists. NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought of running early in this campaign but did not I think after pondering the Perot result. You must win states, not just votes, and a lot of them.

Party TIME!!

The electoral system is supposed to be a sort of large state/small state compromise since states get votes in proportion to their number of senators and representatives. In fact this arrangement is a conservative system that supports the existing party structure. Parties own America not the voters. Parties even OWN the primaries in some states. I cannot vote in NY unless I am a registered something such as a republicans or democrat. Yet my tax dollars pay for these 'elections'. Parties have divvied up the states. Most have such set behavioral tendencies that they are committed almost without regard to the candidate to republicans or democrats election after election.

ELECTORAL MYTHOLOGY:

One state, two state, red state, blue state, Independent? screwed state
Electoral votes were thought to be a way to make small states relevant. But voting patterns have become so set that democrats always know they win NY so why spend much time there? Republicans have similar states/regions of strength. Modern elections focus on campaigning in swing states and so those voters come to have the most influence. As a resident in NY I might not even bother to vote for a republican in the national election since democrats will win the state and all the electoral votes will go to their candidate. The system disenfranchises minority voters in states that are overwhelmingly Red or Blue.

UNAMERICAN; UNDEMOCRATIC
This is I contend is unamerican and certainly NOT democratic. IF ever we want real change - and here I think also of what we are trying to achieve in the financial markets as well with the role of big money and lobbyists - we need to break out of this two-party choke hold.

ONE MAN NO VOTE?
It is not one man one vote. For a republican in NYC it is one man no vote. For voters in Ohio or Florida it is one man swing vote. Those are the sorts of states that decide who gets to be president these days not NY, not Texas, not California. Big states begone.

If we had a popular vote all votes would count equally as we now pretend they do.

REAL FREEDOM, REAL DEMOCRACY, REAL CHANGE
Moreover with q popular vote tally, anyone could run for president. The party structure would not loom as large. We could have more factions that could combine to back a candidate. We could 'unbundle' the parties. For example the Republican party is a factionalized amalgam of religious conservatives and small government advocates that want taxes low. The republican party lumps them together as 'republicans'. Why? These points of view have nothing in common. The same is true of democrats and their factions. Will Rogers famously said, 'I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a democrat.' With factions formed to support candidates we would have swing factions instead of swing states. Elections would be determined by ideology on the margin instead of by an assault on a piece of geography where voters were thought to be more pliable. Or where gobs of money could turn the tide. That is not democracy. But it is what we got.

So Barack, want to implement some real change? Try that.

More registered voters than 'of age' residents

Can you Spell M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I
More than a third of Mississippi counties have more registered voters than residents old enough to cast a ballot, according to an Associated Press analysis.

In addition to providing ammunition for people who say the voting system is vulnerable to fraud, the flabby voting rolls may make it difficult to accurately determine turnout for the Nov. 4 presidential election...see excerpt form Oct 24th story below.

"

There is no reason in the world why some of these counties should have more registered voters than they have living, breathing people," Mississippi Senate Elections Committee Chairman Terry Burton said.

Twenty-nine of Mississippi's 82 counties had more registered voters than people of voting age. Alabama has a similar problem _ The Birmingham News found that six of 67 counties there have more registered voters than people of voting age.

see AP story at link below:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=125&sid=1503877

So the parties love to blame one another for vote fraud and election irregularities. In this one registering enough voters to hike the percentage of black voters by 2% POINTS was a master stroke sine nearly all of these new voters went for Obama.

McCain ran better than his party?
I still think, though, if you dissect the numbers you find McCain ran better THAN HIS PARTY. For example, despite all the disgust with Bush, the Anti-Bush, liberal talk show host former SNL comedian, Al Franken in Minn, was not able to get himself elected.

Key tactics:

Race and Youth
Race and youth oriented registration seem to explain a lot of the election gap.

MONEY
MONEY explains a lot too. One political analyst who ran campaigns said having a lot of money makes the job so much easier.

SARAH PALIN'S ELITE LIBERAL PRESS
Then there is all the press coverage that favored Obama and that was FREE. the media loved him and promoted him. That was yet another uphill climb for McCain.

TIMING!
Finally there was the timing of the financial crisis. Smartly Democrats made it work for them. But they held chairs on the senate and house financial oversight committees. Dodd a democrat had balked at Fannie Mae reform for years. Fannie Mae grew large and had accounting and executive pay excess problems under Bill Clinton's administration and his choice to run it was Franklin Raines. Raines in 1999 went to head Fannie Mae as CEO, and became known as "the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company." And it was Raines who made the fortune.

Strategy
In the end the Democrats were more successful in using the financial meltdown as a tool than were Republicans. Democrats blamed the Bush Administration while in truth the responsibility/failure was shared with Congress. Moreover Democrats had important troubled antecedents at Fannie Mae.

Press & Policy
Barack Obama's campaign drew a lot more press than did McCain. McCain was back on his heels from the start. He did not press on about the importance of national security even in the face of the domestic meltdown. His housing strategy seemed poorly conceived. Yet Obama's was hardly any better. McCain's DEFINING mistake was acceding early on that he was not an economic expert- as though Barack Obama was!

In retrospect: It's less of an ideological victory than it has been portrayed
So as we look back at the elections, what I see is a lot less landslide and mandate. I see tactics, money and voter registration as the keys to success much more than ideology despite the role ideology supposedly played. Remember th bush was elected twice once by an an electorate angry over the war. In the end the race card played and played in favor of Barack Obama.

DEMOCRATS RULE...such as they are
We will now have a Congress and Senate that is more overwhelmingly Democrat and will be held accountable to make change. But times are tough for that. Moreover, a lot of the newly elected democrats are not very liberal. The good news for the democrats is that the economy is so bad that in two years then four years when they run run again they will be able to lay claim (right or wrong) to how much the economy improved.

The voter registration drive could give them a leg up for years to come...if they registered real people. See the AP story and the link above.