"What's the Frequency Kenneth" - REM
Sorry for the absence. I was up in the City of Brotherly Love today and the Amtrak wifi kind of sucked. You would think that the high speed train from DC to NYC would be the one place where they would make sure it was up to snuff.
- So I suspect that I joined a lot of you in getting slightly freaked out by the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll that showed Romney with a 52-45 advantage. I was waiting for Nate to talk me down and he just obliged. (It must be quite a burden to be the oracle of the overly educated and excitable.) Princeton Election Consortium seems to be moving in a more favorable direction the last couple of days. And the latest swing state polls, though close, still seem to lean Obama's way.
- This was some more good news on the marriage equality front. I like the idea of winning in both the courts and at the ballot box in close proximity. We will hopefully have good news forthcoming from Maryland, Maine, Washington, and (fingers crossed), Minnesota.
- Naturally, I found the Romney conference call with the NFIB membership urging them to push employees to support him deeply disturbing. This kind of barely concealed coercion should be distasteful to everyone. I'd like to think that there is some way that this sort of thing can be made unlawful without trampling on First Amendment rights. Employers really have no business implying that their employees will lose their jobs for supporting a candidate.
- I was just noting to my wife the other morning what a total sausage fest Morning Joe is -- someone else noticed. Not to mention an orgy of the worst kind of middle-aged Washington guy conventional wisdom around. Contrast it sometime, if you will, with Chris Hayes' Up program, the most intelligent hour of television you will see anywhere, a place that features an incredibly diverse array of intelligent guests.
Man I will be happy when this election's over -- assuming Obama wins and we retain the Senate.
What's on your minds?
I'd like to think that there is some way that this sort of thing can be made unlawful without trampling on First Amendment rights. Employers really have no business implying that their employees will lose their jobs for supporting a candidate.
I can't see what the First Amendment problem would be. People give up their free speech rights in a variety of circumscribed situations. Nobody's saying my free speech rights have been trampled on because I can't put an Obama sticker on my cube at work on account of the Hatch Act.
I think one of the important attributes of a workplace, politically, is that it's not an open forum. If the boss says Candidate A is the one you ought to vote for, employees don't exactly have the freedom to give him chapter and verse about why Candidate A sucks, and how his logic is completely backwards. Whether or not the boss intends his words to be coercive, those who are dependent on him for a paycheck will certainly feel pressured.
If the boss wants to take out ads in the local paper, or plaster billboards all around town proclaiming his support for Candidate A, he's got all the freedom in the world to do that. But in an environment where speech is inherently coercive, I can't see that the right should exist.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | October 19, 2012 at 05:57 AM
The horse race is looking a little better. Nate's model has Obama's chances of winning at over 70% for the first time since the post-Debate 1 plummet. A 29.6% chance of a Romney win is still way too big to get complacent about, but at least the numbers are moving in the right direction.
And the chances of retaining our Senate majority have gone up to >86%; they didn't seem to be affected by Obama's plummet after the first debate. At this point, we've got a decent chance of retaining control of the Senate even if Obama should lose.
Even given the oft-mentioned possibility of Romney picking off a Dem Senator or two to jam his program through on reconciliation, that's going to be harder than it looks: first, the Senate would have to have a vote specifically to rescind the point of order that mandates that measures passed under reconciliation can't increase the deficit.
And while that vote can't be filibustered, it would mean that the picked-off Dems would be openly voting against fiscal responsibility. I would think that even a Joe Manchin might have trouble explaining that one to his constituents.
Speaking of which, one of the great failures of contemporary journalism is that most people apparently still believe that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility. That hasn't been true since tax-cut fever overtook the party back in 1978. But everybody knows it's true because, well, big-spending Democrats. Like who? Carter? Clinton? You really have to go back to LBJ to find a Democratic President who might be described that way, and that was a loooooong time ago.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | October 19, 2012 at 09:15 AM
"Nobody's saying my free speech rights have been trampled on because I can't put an Obama sticker on my cube at work on account of the Hatch Act."
Actually, that claim has been made quite a few times. The Hatch Act has been under attack as a violation of the 1st Amendment ever since it was first passed, althought the argument has faded due to lack of success. It applies, in any case, to government specifically and not to employment per se.
I'm with Sir C on this. There are laws prohibiting employers from making threats against employees regarding union organization, so you'd think that principle could be applied somehow. I'm a steel worker, landscaper and a computer programmer though, not a lawyer, so...
Posted by: Bill H | October 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM
bad enough if a rogue employer tells his employees how to vote. it is appalling for a candidate to tell employers to do this.
i'm still burning at the casual dismissal of women as serious and full-fledged human beings. should not be a surprise, after his party has devoted so much to putting women back in their place -- opposing equal pay, saying women should be at home with the kids, advocating forced pregnancies, denying even contraceptive care. and the hits keep coming: a religious dude who thinks women should not be involved in political decisions; a legislator who says abortion is *never* necessary to save the life of the mother because of "modern technology."
Posted by: kathy a. | October 19, 2012 at 12:14 PM
medical advances horseshit reason for no abortion nevah.
and, jebus tells me he hates the ladiez in the political arena.
Posted by: kathy a. | October 19, 2012 at 01:35 PM
">http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/romney-obama-state-president.html.csp"> salt lake tribune endorses obama, saying "too many mitts."
Posted by: kathy a. | October 19, 2012 at 05:07 PM
That Morning Joe episode give me reason to sympathize with Mika Brzezinski, something I wasn't sure was possible. Normally I think she's far less intelligent than her father, but on this one she's a lot more sensible than Scarborough and the others. Not that it will matter either to him or to the show's producers.
Posted by: Linkmeister | October 19, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Where are the men on this issue? Why aren't they screaming bloody murder? Do you think many men are ready to sacrifice wives in childbirth to save a newborn? Will they be ready to raise that baby and other children alone if something goes wrong in a pregnancy and it's one life or the other?
As for "modern technology," do you mean the stuff that keeps 1.5 pound babies alive during $1 million pregnancies/childbirths? We have one of those in our extended family. The kid was born at less than 2 pounds about 6 months into the pregnancy. The mom came so close to death, she's lucky to be alive. This pregnancy was never meant to be, but "modern technology" kept it going, despite grave danger to the mother. Docs still don't know if this baby will have a normal life, but the mom will never get pregnant again.
Posted by: paula | October 19, 2012 at 06:29 PM
See today's NYT editorial. Again, this is not a women's issue, but a human issue. If the GOP gets its way, it will set in motion policies that will affect individuals, families, marriages, schools and the medical community, for years to come. If the tables were turned, and the government wanted to control men's reproductive rights in ways that could lead to men fathering children whether they wanted to or not, and in ways that might actually lead to their own deaths, maybe they we would hear a peep from men beyond those on the NYT editorial board.
Posted by: paula | October 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM
paula,
I think a good many of us men are quite committed to reproductive rights -- in fact, it is an issue where the attitudes by gender are not terribly divergent. I am always shocked by the fact that there are large numbers of women who are not pro-choice. It's unfathomable to me.
Posted by: Sir Charles | October 20, 2012 at 04:24 PM
paula -- a great many thinking, caring, informed men absolutely are devoted to reproductive rights. it is just VERY easy for men (especially older men) to dismiss the difficulties of pregnancy, and in general to dismiss the rights of women as autonomous human beings. they are aided and abetted by women devoted to "purity" for various reasons -- sometimes it is religious, sometimes it is a class thing [fed by the notion of "irresponsible welfare mothers"].
it is a fact that most full-term pregnancies nowadays (those that do not spontaneously abort -- which amount to a large number) end up more or less with an OK delivery. the ability to save mothers and babies has increased a great deal in the last 80 years or so, and more in recent decades. for example, my paternal grandmother delivered two children who lived (1930, 1938), and one child who died soon after birth, and she suffered several miscarriages between the living children. had my grandmother been less fortunate, she could also have lost children to disease [antibiotics were not available, nor were childhood vaccines], or starvation [the great depression affected others more than her].
my baby sister was born premature, weighing in at 2.5 lbs. in 1965, and she was not expected to live. her first interaction with our church was the last rights. they stuck her in an incubator with extra oxygen, and she lived, against all odds. there was no other intervention available at that time.
but women still die carrying and bearing babies. a woman in my lamaze class died of an amniotic fluid embolism; her baby was reportedly saved, delivered very early via c-section. i do not know what happened to the dad and baby. at the time, i was too busy freaking the hell out about having a baby in a position where we both might die if i delivered "naturally."
i know several women who bore babies with serious abnormalities. and they thought their families could bear that; but they all ended up needing to place their beloved children in care settings. they could not personally do enough; certainly not without sacrificing the rest of the family. not one of these women blames families who learn about such defects for making another choice.
the things that can go wrong are many. i do not know women who have chosen abortion for frivolous reasons. i have known some who could not care for an unwanted child, and thing went very badly - -for them and their children. family planning is really important.
Posted by: kathy a. | October 20, 2012 at 07:28 PM
This endorsement out of North Carolina is encouraging I should think. Four years ago they went with McCain-Palin. (Palin. Still brings on the shudders.) A lot of commenters can't remember the last time the editorial board endorsed the Democratic nominee.
Interesting. A southern schism?
Posted by: nancy | October 20, 2012 at 10:17 PM
nancy,
That is nice to see. I am not sure how much impact newspaper endorsements have in this day and age, but I find it heartening to see the cause of sanity given an endorsement down south. Of course, the Tampa paper also endorsed too.
I would love to see this translate into some votes.
Posted by: Sir Charles | October 21, 2012 at 06:51 PM
100% off-topic, and because this election is rattling nerves. (Let the press jockeying begin, starting with the Times. Manager Mitt -- "unhurried and socratic." Zounds. Who knew.)
Anyway. Can Boston claim "canoodling" ? :)
Posted by: nancy | October 21, 2012 at 08:19 PM
nancy,
Having canoed at Norumbega Park, I'd love to think that was true. (The park is very close to Brandeis.) Although I must say, back when I was doing so, the prospect of falling into the River Charles would have been daunting enough to make the act impossible.
The socratic Mitt meme was nauseating.
Posted by: Sir Charles | October 21, 2012 at 09:17 PM
Per Nate Silver, the gender gap this cycle rivals the largest ones ever measured.
If it was up to American women Obama would win in a landslide and if it was up to American men Romney would win in a landslide.
Posted by: oddjob | October 22, 2012 at 09:23 AM
OJ--The good news is more women are registered and more usually vote, than men. Don't have a source for that information at the moment, but used it in a recent story. Considering the topics du jour, I'm betting even more women than usual vote this time around.
Posted by: paula | October 22, 2012 at 10:32 AM
In light of Nate Silver's data, I'm trying to start a Take-A-Woman-To-The-Polls movement. Women's votes are critical to the Dems and, obviously, the outcome of this election will affect women directly, for years -- maybe generations -- to come.
Help spread the word---take as many elderly, college age, rural, home bound, car-less women to the polls as you can, or babysit for those who need it so they can vote.
Think of it: With help from social media, the promise of performing one small, neighborly act could snowball into a meaningful movement overnight. Pass it on!
Women have the power in this one, and everyone can help them wield it for the good of all.
Posted by: paula | October 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Apparently, as a group registered nurses are leaning Republican this time around because they're afraid of the consequences to them and their jobs under Obamacare.
Posted by: oddjob | October 22, 2012 at 03:20 PM
i have concerns about whether the "pay scale" survey meets trustworthy standards.
Posted by: kathy a. | October 22, 2012 at 03:58 PM
here is the blog from which those "statistics" were pulled.
Posted by: kathy a. | October 22, 2012 at 04:05 PM
oddjob,
I have a difficult time believing that one as well.
Nurses are both heavily female and pretty heavily unionized, which generally would add up to a pretty sizable Democratic advantage. They also tend to be disproportionately located in or near urban areas, which would also tend to make them favor Dems.
Color me skeptical.
Posted by: Sir Charles | October 22, 2012 at 05:56 PM
Skeptical. Me too. The nurses I know would be entirely aware of what rolling back reproductive rights would mean, for example, and not in the abstract. So too PP funding, elder care, cuts to Medicaid, Headstart, food stamps, etc. Nurses tend to know exactly what happens when the safety nets fray. Besides, universal care should bring more professionals into clinical care ensuring their strength in numbers.
I keep marveling at the nightmare "waiting lines" scenarios trotted out ad infinitum on the right. While studying in Edinburgh several summers ago, my kid experienced a minor MRSA scare and was seen in a clinic with an appointment within three hours. At ten at night. Not an ER. Seen promptly, lab test done and sent on his way with medication. Who's kidding who here? And why? Oh, and when we got the bill the clinic charge was £50.
Posted by: nancy | October 22, 2012 at 06:42 PM
nurses know what's going on. in the trenches. and, what nancy said.
Posted by: kathy a. | October 22, 2012 at 07:25 PM