"None Of The Above" kicks ass in Nevada Senate debate.

Image ripped from the LA Times

Dear People of Nevada,

I just watched your Senate debate, and I am just so... so... sorry. I feel so bad for you. Really. I mean - WTF?? Look, I don't know how this happened, but you really should try and avoid choices like this in the future.

What to do? If you want to vote NOTA, I get it. It is a tempting choice under the circumstances. But for those of you willing to "man up" and make a decision - lets take a clear eyed view of your choices. There is a real difference. You can choose between a lightweight incompetent, or a craven, duplicitous, heavyweight partisan hack incompetent. Neither is going to be good for Nevada. You need to go with what is best for the country. Obama is going to be President for the next six years. You need to take one for the team and vote for the lightweight. It is the only way to limit the damage. I'm sorry - it is just the right thing to do. Look, it's only six years. In 2016 you can vote for a new Senator and President. Try to give yourself better choices next time.

Your Friend,

The Dividist

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Investors still love divided government. A lot.

Last July 7, we took note of CNBC's Amanda Drury worrying about double D's and Ron Insana offering an explanation for a stock market rally in the midst of unrelentingly bad economic news.

"All of a sudden there are some reports coming out saying the politicians are underestimating the possibility the Republicans take either one or both house of Congress. If that political uncertainty disappears and you get a Democratic President and a Republican Congress - that is the best combination for stock prices." - Ron Insana

On that day the Dow closed up 276 points at just over 10,000 with the S&P 500 up 30 at 1060. Since then, the Dow and the S&P have each added another 10%+. As I have said before, I do not believe there is any case for a statistical correlation between market direction and political parties in power that will stand up to rigorous mathematical scrutiny over the long term.

However, in the short term, if investors believe that divided government is good for markets, then that expectation can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. That may be what we are seeing now in anticipation of the November results. Apparently the investor class really believes that divided government is good for the market.

On Friday, in the face of yet another bad jobs report, the market rally continued, prompting an interesting segment on the Larry Kudlow Report. A panel consisting of Steve Moore (who worked for Dick Army in '95); Jeff Matthews (investment manager); and David Goodfriend (who worked for Bill Clinton in '95) discussed whether the market's continuing strength was attributable to an anticipation of the return of Divided Government:Money quotes:

Why did stocks rally though 11,000 today? on this poor jobs report? Might it be hope for Republican tsunami in November? ... I have this suspicion that the stock market is mightily rooting for a Republican tsunami on November 2nd. - Larry Kudlow

"I am not saying this as a Republican - I just think that the financial markets want to see divided government. One party control has not been good for financial assets and it has not been good for workers. " - Steve Moore

The most interesting exchange is between Goodfriend and Moore (around the 5:30 mark) arguing whether Republicans or Democrats could take credit for the prosperity and relative financial sanity that prevailed during the Clinton/Gingrich divided government. I am happy to give credit to both, and to the benefits that accrue when divided government keeps the worst impulses of both parties at bay.

Lest anyone think that Republican Kudlow is being disingenuous when he asserts that the investor class prefers divided government and is not just flogging self-serving Republican spin - let me reprise one of my first YouTube efforts. This from from four years ago, shortly before the 2006 mid-terms. Here we see the selfsame Kudlow noting a rally and wondering if the markets are anticipating the Democrats taking the majority, restoring divided government, prompting what he called the Pelosi Bull Market:


Is 2010 like 2006? Kudlow thinks so. Intrade is giving the Republicans better odds now than they gave the Democrats in 2006.

We can only hope.

And the Dividist is fully invested.

So far, so good.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

It's the spending stupid - Part 111

Just in case there is any doubt about why the American people consider One Party Democratic rule to be fiscally frightening, economically irresponsible, and are apparently poised to hand them a stunning, historic, midterm defeat - The CBO released the latest spending and budget numbers last week. From the Wall Street Journal:

"Perhaps you missed it, but then so did the Washington press corps. Late last week the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary budget tallies for fiscal year 2010, and the news is that the U.S. government had another fabulous year—in spending your money... Once again domestic accounts far and away led the increases. Medicaid rose by 8.7%, and unemployment benefits by an astonishing 34.3%—to $160 billion. The costs of jobless insurance have tripled in two years. CBO adds that if you take out the savings for deposit insurance, funding for all "other activities" of government—education, transportation, foreign aid, housing, and so on—rose by 13% in 2010.

As for the deficits, the 2010 total was $1.29 trillion, down slightly from $1.42 trillion. That's a two-year total of $2.7 trillion, or more than the entire amount during the Reagan Administration, when deficits were supposed to be ruinous. Now liberal economists tell us that deficits are the key to restoring prosperity. But all we have to show for spending nearly 25% of GDP for two years running is a growth rate of 1.7% and 9.6% unemployment...

The 21.4% federal spending increase in two years ought to put to rest any debate about the nature of America's fiscal problem. The Pelosi Congress has used the recession as an excuse to send spending to record heights, and its economic policies have contributed to a lousy recovery. The solution is to stop the spending and change the policies. Polls open on November 2."

You'd think it would be as obvious to the Democratic leadership and party faithful as it is to the American people that flawed policies and batshit insane spending are the prime cause for their impending electoral disaster. Instead, Democrats continue to delude themselves that the election is about crazy Republicans, stupid Republicans, Republicans with too much money, flawed messaging, and Democrats just not attacking business enough.

Sorry Andy, It is not the stupidity, stupid. Maybe it will be in 2012 when the GOP has found new ways to alienate the electorate, but for 2010 - there is no doubt: It's the spending stupid.

It is too late for Obama and Democrats to get religion now and salvage the 2010 mid-terms. But perhaps it is not too late for Obama to salvage his presidency.

UPDATE: Some Democrats get it.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Taiwanese animation, Christine O'Donnell and an old joke.

As noted before, Taiwanese animation is the future of news. I'm thinking of initiating Taiwan Tuesday as regular feature of the blog, wherein we select a story getting the animation treatment by the Taiwan NMA News Network. This week, Republican Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell is explained to the domestic China/Taiwan audience:

In addition to the entertainment value, perhaps there is something we can learn about ourselves from these animated NMA episodes. We know NMA does not have a news staff on the ground in the US getting these stories first hand. The animated stories are simply a humorous distillation of US media coverage on a particular story. NMA is holding up a mirror to the US media and permitting us a peek at the perspective of an interested outsider digesting our media buffet. US stories selected by NMA for animation get there because the stories have achieved some sort of critical mass in US coverage, and there is enough media grist for the animation mill.

This begs the question - Why Christine O'Donnell? Christine O'Donnell is a clown of a Senate candidate who is going to lose by a large margin to her Democratic opponent in a Democratic state for the seat vacated by Democratic Vice President Joe Biden. The Senate contest does not even make Nate Silver's top 10 list of Senate Seats vulnerable to switching parties.

Now, we know the answer to why NMA selected her for this treatment. It is because watching our media, NMA determined she must be a big story. The real question - Why is she such a big story here? Why is she getting so much new and old media attention that she pops up on the NMA meme radarscope?

Dave Weigel took note of this very phenomena in a recent blog post, using O'Donnell and Republican candidate for NY Governor Carl Paladino as examples:

"I noted in August that Democratic dreams of Tea Partiers handing them the election were overblown; that in a wave year, even deeply flawed candidates can win. Nothing's happened to change my mind. Scan the House races and you'll find dozens of cases where Republican candidates appear to have hobbled themselves -- a sexual harassment case, on-the-record quotes about dismantling Social Security -- but are in strong contention anyway. I think the fact that Paladino and Christine O'Donnell won their primaries the same day, the very last primary day of the cycle,* has revved up a flawed storyline about "crazy" Tea Partiers blowing the election. So the focus on Paladino and O'Donnell is completely out of whack. If the DCCC is a general on a battlefield, it is distracting attention from the army headed straight for it by pointing out that two of the new recruits are holding their crossbows wrong."

Which reminds me of an old joke (modified to suit our purpose here):

A drunk, despondent Democrat was crawling about on the sidewalk under a lamppost at night.

A Police Officer came up to him and inquired, "What are you doing?"

The drunk Democrat replied, "I'm looking for my car keys of hope."

The Officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the drunk, "I don't see any car keys. Are you sure you lost them here?"

The Democrat replied, "No, I lost them over there", and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.

The policeman then asked, "Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?"

The despondent Democrat looked at him and said, "Because the light is better over here."

UPDATED:Added links

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Updating "10 in 10" on 10-10-10 at 10:10 PM

This post was supposed to be the 41st edition of the Carnival of Divided Government - Special "Mystical Numerology" Edition. Indeed the numerological portents are everywhere - this very piece you are reading now was posted at 10:10 PM on 10-10-10 exactly 23 days before the mid-term elections, on the very day my Chicago Bears scored 23 points in a victory that secured sole possession of first place in the NFC North, on the strength of - what else - a 4-1 record. But, as usual, I did not get my act together on the Carnival. So, since I've already listed the Top 10 Dem Delusions, we'll just update our 10 in 10 prognostications for the Senate races. The carnival can wait a day or two.

When last we checked in - Nate Silver (our polling analyst of choice) showed that 9 0f the 10 seats most likely to change parties were all held by Democrats and he was forecasting a net 6-7 seat Republican gain in the Senate. One month later...

... with less than a month to go - 10 of the top 10 seats most likely to change parties are all held by Democrats and Nate is forecasting an 8-9 seat gain by the GOP. So - despite the nomination of a GOP clown candidate in Delaware (virtually guaranteeing a Democratic victory in that state) the odds of a GOP Senate takeover continue to improve.

Nate still gives the Republicans only a 1 in 4 chance of retaking the Senate majority outright. But then he is basing his odds purely on the November 2nd mid-term results. As I have maintained throughout, the GOP need only take 8 or 9 more seats to make changing parties an attractive proposition to Lieberman and/or Nelson, and eight or nine seats look likely now.

The most disappointing potential race result is the one one that hits closest to home. Five points are a lot for Carly to make up in a left leaning state like California with only 23 days remaining. But then... Scott Brown did what Scott Brown did in Massachusetts. Maybe there is just enough of that magic left over to surprise the pundits here on the left coast. I just cannot believe we are going to be stuck with Boxer for another six years. C'mon California! Why wouldn't you vote for a senator who throws down a shot of tequilla before delivering a stump speech? The Dividist's last contributions will go to Carly in California, and Kirk in Illinois. These are the seats that will make the difference.

I will make one change to my earlier prediction. Then I thought it unlikely that the GOP would take control of the House, invoking the "100 year Rule" and expecting the GOP to come up just short. My new, improved, and updated prediction is that the most likely scenario is that the GOP will go into 2011 with majority control of both the House and Senate. Nate, Charlie, and AJ convinced me.

Political tsunamis just don't care about 100 year rules, nor how deep a hole the GOP dug for itself in the last two cycles.

Looks like The Dividist will be changing teams again in November.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.