South Carolina: Results & Race

by Ali-Asad

"Until justice is blind to color, until education is unaware of race, until opportunity is unconcerned with the color of men's skins, emancipation will be a proclamation but not a fact".
Lyndon B. Johnson

In an op-ed piece, Dick Morris posited an interesting theory; he speculates that the Clinton campaign intentionally brought race into the democratic primary race in order to provoke a white backlash against Obama. This strategy involves making Obama a racial candidate, and letting him win South Carolina in order to allow Hillary to sweep up the votes of all those white voters who fear an actual black candidate. How does this theory hold up against the results of the South Carolina (SC) primary results? (Obama won taking 55% with Hillary at 27% and Edwards at 19%). The first part of Morris’s strategy would involve reducing expectations for Hillary in SC in order blunt any potential momentum Obama could receive from a victory in the last primary before Super Tuesday, Feb 5th.

The Expectation Game

In numerous press releases the Clinton campaign claimed to be competing hard in SC. But the press pays much more attention to where the candidate actually spends their time campaigning, and Hilary spent a lot more time in Feb. 5th states such as California and New York than first-in-the-south SC – Hillary did not even stay in SC on election night after her loss to give a concession speech; she flew straight to Tennessee which is another state voting on Feb. 5th. Another vital cog in the media expectations game is the polls which showed Obama holding a healthy 10-15% lead over Hillary. After the failure of the polls in New Hampshire (where not one poll predicted the Hillary victory), the media relied much less upon the SC polls in making their judgments. But they didn’t have to. The media had already established that Obama had secured overwhelming support in the black community and so would definitely win SC. Hillary’s expectation strategy appears to have worked except for one small tiny issue – the actual result. Obama beat Hilary by more than 25%. From pundit expectations to poll driven predictions, this margin is outstanding. Obama well and truly trounced Clinton with the Yahoo! front page calling it a “rout”. This point is crucial because how the media spins Obama’s victory here will determine whether he has any momentum (ie press coverage and poll bumps) going into Tsunami ‘Feb 5th’ Tuesday. And Obama’s big margin of victory will give him that boost. But this victory does not discredit Morris’s theory; race could still be a huge factor in the race.

Racing against Race

Below are the results of an exit poll conducted in SC among those who voted. In total, around 2000 people were polled giving the results a margin of error of 2.25% (see Understanding Margin of Error).



Obama is doing well among blacks. There is no doubt about that. But among white his support appears to be fading. Is this a national trend? I think not? Obama lost support among white voters in Nevada and South Carolina. From these two states, we can identify two reasons Obama is losing support. Firstly, in Nevada, Hispanics are loath to support a black candidate especially when they are competing to become America’s most influential minority. Hispanics in Nevada supported Hillary heavily. Secondly, Morris’s argument assumes that when white voters realize Obama is truly black they will run to Hillary – i.e. white people will never vote a black man into the presidency. Iowa and New Hampshire voters disprove this theory. The (mostly white) voters of these two states did not concern themselves with the race issue. Then why is Obama losing support among whites? Remember, the southern states have not yet been able to come to terms with the past in terms of slavery, and so race still lingers as an issue. Apart from the south, I see no reason for Obama to start hemorrhaging white votes. But he is still fighting a 2 front war – Hispanics don’t want to vote for him and they make up a sizable population in many important Feb. 5th states, and whites still need to be convinced that Obama is an all-inclusive candidate. We’ll have some more answers come Feb 5th, and hopefully we won’t let the media spoon feed them all to us.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

How Clinton will win the nomination by losing South Carolina by Dick Morris

Primary Results for South Carolina – CNN Election Center

Rogue Nation: Israel

by Clint Johnson

"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children".
~Golda Meir

Last Friday, Israel closed off occupied-Gaza Strip and its 1.4 million residents from the rest of the world, blockading the flow of basic supplies – including fuel and humanitarian aid. It’s understood that the blockade could lead to a humanitarian crisis in the already-destitute area. The lack of diesel fuel, for instance, threatens “such vital services as hospitals, bakeries, water supply and sewage.” Yesterday, Hamas blew holes in a separation wall that divides Gaza from Egypt, and brought most of it to the ground. An estimated 350,000 Gazans (more than 1/5th of the population) poured into Egypt to purchase supplies – a sign of how poor the living conditions have become.

Israel says they closed the border crossings to stop Hamas’ continued Qassam rocket attacks. However, Israel is once again violating international law, defying international institutions and ignoring international protests – with the help of the United States. International Humanitarian Law, as laid out in the Fourth Geneva Convention, strictly prohibits collective punishment of a population, calling such an action a war crime. With that in mind, the UN Human Rights Council slammed Israel today, passing a resolution that called for "urgent international action to put an immediate end to the grave violations committed by the occupying power, Israel, in the occupied Palestinian territory".

Meanwhile, the US said the blockade was in self-defense and appears to be obstructing a UN Security Council action, even after language was added condemning Palestinians for the rocket attacks. All this comes just days after the UN said Israel was guilty of another war crime – a bombing of a wedding party that killed about 40 Palestinians. But this is nothing new. From 1967-1989, the UN General Assembly passed 321 resolutions condemning Israel, while the Security Council passed 88 criticizing or opposing Israeli actions.

The international community has strongly rebuked Israel. Condemnations have come from all over, including from Britain, France, Russia, Egypt and Iran. As well they should. It must be understood that the Qassam rocket attacks are a violation of international law, and as such, they should be condemned. Why then am I focusing on Israel? Two simple reasons. First, the relationship between Israel and its occupied territories is not one of equals. Qassam rockets, while deplorable, are not effective weapons, and suicide bombings, while grotesque, kill far fewer people than Israeli military action – and potentially far fewer than a humanitarian crisis resulting from this blockade. In 2007, the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed in the conflict was 40:1, up from 30:1 in 2006.

Second, as citizens of the US, we are responsible in a very real way for the crimes committed by Israel. Approximately one-third of all US foreign aid goes to Israel; in 2008, we will provide more than $2.5 billion in military aid. In other words, we’re paying for the helicopters that kill civilians in air strikes, and we’re supporting unspeakable crimes such as this blockade. This should move us to act.

And that's jus' the tip.

* Clint Johnson is the former online, assistant features and summer editor of the prestigious college paper ‘Daily Tar Heel’. Mr. Johnson is also an aspiring novelist. He can be reached at: clintjohnso@gmail.com

*Correction to ‘The Kenya Solution’

In a previous post, I suggested that a parliamentary vote of no confidence would solve the current political crisis in Kenya. The passing of a no confidence motion would force parliament to dissolve itself or the president to resign; either way another election would have to be held. My central premise in this argument centered on the required number of votes to win a no confidence vote – a simple majority from my research. Unfortunately, my research, and a number of online Kenyan constitution texts, failed me. According to reliable journalistic sources such the BBC and the East African Standard newspaper, a 2/3^rd majority is required to dissolve parliament and force an election rerun. This fact renders my previous analysis wildly inaccurate. Simply put, the opposition and it’s allies have no where near the required number of votes (138 out of 207) to win a no confidence motion. So that’s that. Sorry.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Kenyan diplomatic moves intensify – BBC News

Kenya’s Kibaki: let’s form a unity government – Telegraph

Commentary on the Kenya Constitution – East African Standard

Behold the Marathon Primary Season (R)

by Ali-Asad

"Democracy is being able to vote for the candidate you dislike the least"
Robert Byrne

In the democratic version of this same post, I speculated that the republican race was too chaotic to analyze because 5 different candidates could potentially win the first 5 primary contests. Before today, January 19th, three different candidates had won in the first three primaries. And now Nevada and South Carolina have spoken; Nevada to McCain (with Paul in a surprising second) and South Carolina to McCain over Huckabee in a very tight race. Do these results make the Republican primary race less chaotic? Yes, but barely. So let’s review: Huckabee surged from nowhere to take Iowa. Then, McCain came from behind to beat Romney and take New Hampshire. A Michigan victory helped Romney stay in the race, and Gov. Romney has managed to win Nevada mainly because the other candidates forfeited the race (except for Paul who came in 2nd). And in the latest twist, McCain is poised to put to rest the demons of 2000 by securing a tight win in South Carolina by beating Huckabee. What does this all mean?

McCain is in driving seat. There’s no doubt about it. McCain’s victories have been tough wins where for most of the campaign season he has been way behind and counted out. The media loves to tell a compelling narrative and John McCain provides one. Look out for the media to swoon over McCain and prematurely declare this (South Carolina) moment as the defining moment when he secured the candidacy. It’s a lovely tale. Last summer his campaign was broke and suffering in the polls. The media wrote his obituary. And now, McCain has come back to win in New Hampshire and exorcise the demons of 2000 by winning in South Carolina. But there’s a problem with McCain being in the driving seat; there are still 5 candidates trying to grab on to the wheel and they each have their own different strategies for doing so. The next primary contest will take place in Florida on Jan. 29th. Enter Guliani.

The Guliani campaign endlessly talks about how in Florida Guliani will make his first stand and then ride his Sunshine Wave all the way through the delegate-rich states on Super Duper Whooper Tuesday, Feb. 5th. We must give credit to the Guliani campaign; he has successfully convinced the media of his strategy, and so they have given him a relatively free pass up until now. But Guliani has put all his eggs into a Floridian basket. The Guliani campaign will counter by saying that while all the other candidates have spent their time in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Rudy has cultivated a broad base of support by focusing his time and attention on Florida. There’s one major flaw to this argument. The other candidates have been getting just as much attention and publicity in Florida, and they’ve managed to do this for free. How? They’ve all been in the news since Iowa. Once the Iowa results were in, the media transformed into full campaign mode – talking endlessly about all the candidates except Guliani. So, unless Guliani pulls of a big 5 to 10 point margin victory in Florida, he will have little credibility and perceived electoral viability going into Tsunami Tuesday.

The Paul campaign is going through a credibility crisis. Ron Paul has yet to place 3rd or better in a competitive primary - the media will attach an asterisk to his Nevada 2nd place citing the very little amount of time and money candidates put into that state. This situation leaves Paul in a hopeless position; he must do really well in Florida and hope the media talks about him enough for him to gain the appearance of viability and credibility as a mainstream candidate. But, unlike Thompson, Paul has money. If Paul runs effective television ads, he may succeed in drawing some independents out to vote for him. Unfortunately, the Democratic race is so exciting that a lot of the people who want drastic change support Obama and Edwards. In the end, Paul will need to win or come second in most of the Feb 5th states to stand a change of accumulating enough delegates to win the nomination. Being a libertarian maverick, he cannot rely on the support of any other candidate. I’ll say it again: Ron Paul, run as a Libertarian Party candidate. This will serve to increase the credibility and popularity of the most established third party in America. America needs a seriously competitive third party.

Thompson looks poised to finish in 3rd just piping Romney for 4th. This result does not work for Thompson. He’s from the south and needs to be winning a state like SC in order keep his campaign going otherwise the money and support will dry up. Some reports state that Thompson will stay in the race till Florida’s primary. I see very little point in this endeavor. Unless Thompson beats Guliani decisively and goes on to get a huge amount of media attention, Thompson will simply not have enough money to compete (buy ads) in the Feb. 5th primary states when around half the delegates will be decided. If and when Thompson drops out, look for him to get on the McCain juggernaut.

With wins in NH and SC under his belt, McCain has the wind at his back going into Florida and Feb. 5th. How did McCain manage to come from behind and take the lead? Simply put, establishment conservatives have not found a champion, and so they’ve been splitting their votes between Huckabee, Romney and Thompson. This split has allowed McCain to capture the security hawks along with the more independently minded conservatives. Another factor may be electability; The media perceives McCain as the most competitive republican against the democrats because of national head-to-head poll numbers – these mean very little because electoral votes are designated by state and polls have this small note at the bottom that reads ‘margin of error’. Guliani positioned himself as the best republican to stop the Clinton machine because of his competitiveness in the North-East. But with the ascent of Obama, who better to defeat a freshman hopeful senator than an experienced war hero like John McCain. Remember, the republican establishment does not like McCain and so all bets are still off. Huckabee has the same problem.
Exit polls show that Huckabee consistently wins the plurality of voters who go to church more than once a week and does not do well with less frequent churchgoers. These exit polls show that Huckabee has not expanded his base of support much from the evangelical/religious crowd. Fiscal conservatives don’t like his track record as governor and national security hawks don’t like his talk about George Bush having an “arrogant foreign policy”. This opposition presents a serious problem for Huckabee but could also be his biggest strength. A fair number of southern states will vote on Feb. 5th. If Huckabee wins those states look, for Huckabee to use those delegates later as a bargaining chip to secure the vice-presidential nod (a very likely outcome in the event of a McCain nomination).

And then finally, there’s Romney who has tried to be everything to everyone. This perception of pandering has hurt seriously and probably cost him New Hampshire. He will have a tough time uniting the ‘Reagan coalition’ of social, fiscal and national security conservatives if no one believes him. Having said all that, Romney has money, and so should be well positioned for Feb 5th. But he has not yet one a competitive primary contest and so has not achieved the name recognition that other candidates have by accumulating over time (McCain and Guliani) or spectacularly surging (Huckabee). It will be a very tough uphill battle for Romney. This primary campaign has scarred to the point of not even being a viable VP candidate. The charge of flip-flopping sticks.

Behold the marathon primary season! It does not matter who is in the driving seat but which candidate(s) are still in the car at the finish line...

References

Thompson plans to go on to Florida - Boston Globe

Behold the Marathon Primary Season (D) - Jus' the Tip

South Carolina Exit Poll - CNN Election Center

Understanding Margin of Error - Jus' the Tip

Media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates? YES

by Clint Johnson

The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it."
- Jack London (The Iron Heel)

I don't believe that John Edwards is entirely shut out of the media because I don't believe he's as much of an outsider as he paints himself; he's not a true threat to concentrated power in the way that Gravel and Kucinich are. I did some LexisNexis searches of the NYT and a couple other places, spanning the last 6-12 months, and he consistently received a good amount of mentions in articles, typically third behind Obama/Clinton in the DNC, but not too far behind (and probably the result of polling). A lot of the coverage deals with his haircut and his huge house (as his camp complains), but trivial coverage extends across the board. On a side note, there was a study done by a Harvard polling center recently that showed "88 percent agree that the news media focuses too much on trivial rather than important issues." You can check that in the middle of the Salon article.

Anyway, I think poll numbers are a huge part of how they shape their coverage, and, of course, they shouldn't use poll numbers since they are wildly inaccurate this early in the race and probably reflect name recognition more than anything else. Note, for instance, how off the polling was for the New Hampshire primary. However, I don't think that's the only explanation. In addition to a lack of coverage for Kucinich/Gravel, there's a general attitude of contempt for them -- especially Gravel.

Bob Schieffer (CBS Face the Nation):
"Is it fair to have all these people out there? I mean, it is a free country. Everybody wants to run for president should have that opportunity and does. But clearly, somebody like senator—former Sen. Mike Gravel is not going to be a serious candidate, and yet he gets equal time, and... I would just say it honestly: In my view, it just wastes time."

George Stephanopoulos (ABC):
"Setting aside Mike Gravel, who provided the comic relief, everyone else seemed credible, seemed intelligent, seemed like they knew what they were talking about."

Howard Kurtz (CNN):
"[Gravel] was sort of a bomb thrower on that stage. Why should a network allow somebody with, say, zero chance of becoming president into these debates?"

OK, well clearly something besides just polling is going on here. It's one thing to barely ever mention a candidate, and it's another to talk about him/her as a lunatic when you do get around to mentioning him. Nevermind that Kucinich and Gravel represent the majority of Americans/World on: Iraq, Healthcare, Global Warming, Net Neutrality, the military budget, preemptive war/UN cooperation, etc, they must be crazy extremists. By the way, why aren't poll numbers on those subjects reported on and used as a basis for coverage?

Now, I haven't followed the Republican primary as closely, but that article also contends that their was much more media openness towards the lower-polling, more conservative GOP candidates.

Kucinich is interesting because he actually wins some online polls and occasionally beat Dodd/Richardson/Biden in state by state polling, yet was and is still shut out of debates and still excluded from any significant media coverage. And the same could be said of Ron Paul, who obviously has significant money and support yet is virtually shut out.

This theory of media exclusion – contained in the "Propaganda Model" – is not a conspiracy theory; it's the opposite. It's an economic analysis of the media. In brief, the media are enormous corporations selling audiences (privileged, elite audiences in the case of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) to other enormous corporations (advertisers). Remember, news companies working in print, on TV, on the internet and on the radio don't make money from selling the product; they make it from selling advertising. The Propaganda Model predicts that the news that results from this economic setup will serve the interests of the news corporations, the advertisers and the audience – in other words, elite interests. It would predict that candidates who are fundamentally at odds with the elite corporate interests (i.e. like the ones that own the NYT, advertise in it and the audience the advertising is targeted at) would be more or less excluded from the discussion. This seems to hold true for Gravel, Kucinich, Paul and to a lesser extent, Edwards.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates - Salon.com

Media Advisory: Democratic Excess

* Clint Johnson is the former online, assistant features and summer editor of the prestigious college paper ‘Daily Tar Heel’. Mr. Johnson is also an aspiring novelist. He can be reached at: clintjohnso@gmail.com

Media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates? No

“More things in politics happen by accident or exhaustion than happen by conspiracy".
Jeff Greenfield

A future Jus’ the Tip contributor suggested I read the following Salon.com article entitled: “Media Hostility Toward Anti-Establishment Candidates. To summarize, the article argues that the mainstream media has been paying very little attention to “anti-establishment” candidates that deserve more attention. The article cites the examples of Ron Paul (huge internet fundraising), Mike Huckabee (surge in Iowa) and John Edwards (the overlooked 3rd candidate for the Democrats).

I agree with the article to a point. Up until a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses, the polls were showing John Edwards stuck in 3rd and Obama surging. The media played this up and it soon became a 2-way race between Obama and Clinton . Therefore, one can't blame the pollsters for using the candidates that were in the forefront of their minds. For example, notice how they focused Romney, Guliani and Huckabee on the republican side but left out McCain and Thompson. Did they display unwarrented hostility towards these two candidates? I don't think so. Those two republican candidates also had a tough time of it in the polls; witness how until a few weeks before Iowa the press had virtually written off McCain. Some would argue that this lack of coverage is another example of media bias against an anti-establishment candidate. But, later, McCain surged and the media starting paying much more attention to him because of newspaper endorsements and rising poll numbers. Also, in the last week before Iowa the Obama and Clinton campaigns got increasingly worried about Edwards surging in Iowa and this news got a lot of press attention. I thought he could pull off a surprise (refer to my ‘Edwards for Iowa?’ post), and the media had not written him off either. All the pundits were talking about Iowa as a true 3-way race.

The media relies on poll numbers in determining to whom they should give their attention. This understanding contains flaws. Can we really assume that poll numbers are a true reflection of support? This assumption has to be taken with a grain of salt at best (refer to my post on ‘margin of error’). But I do think that there is a vicious cycle; poll numbers result in media coverage which translates into public awareness which in turn reinforces poll numbers. This ‘poll-driven media’ theory seems more plausible and more in line with the evidence than a theory of a collective media conscience that conspires to choose our leaders. I am open to changing my mind if the evidence can be brought forward.

But we all agree that there is a problem and Tom Brokaw’s exchange with Chris Matthews on the night of the New Hampshire Primary may give us some direction as to how to solve this issue. These two newsmen were talking about how the polls got the result of the primary dead wrong. Chris Matthews explains that: “We’re going to have to go back and figure out the methodology, I think, of some of these (polls)”. Tom Brokaw replied, “You know what I think we’re going to have to go back and do? Wait for the voters to make their judgment”. Brokaw has a point. Ideas such as banning all reporting on polls and complete public funding of campaigns would reduce the media’s influence on determining the viability of candidates. But the media would resist the former idea. As Chris Matthews asks, “What do we (the media) do in the days before the balloting? We must stay home then”. Brokaw simply suggested that they should do some real journalism.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Media hostility towards anti-establishment candidates, Glen Greenwald – Salon.com

Edwards for Iowa? Jus’ the Tip

Understanding Margin of Error – Jus’ the Tip

The Kenya Solution: Vote No Confidence

by Ali-Asad Somjee

* This article has an appended correction.

"If the National Assembly passes a resolution which is supported by the votes of a majority of all the members of the Assembly…declaring that it has no confidence in the Government of Kenya, and the President does not within three days of the passing of that resolution either resign from his office or dissolve Parliament, Parliament shall stand dissolved on the fourth day following the day on which that resolution was passed".
Constitution of Kenya, Chapter 3 Section 55 (3)

Take note of the quoted text above; it presents the most basic legal and political solution to the current turmoil of the results of last months election. Why? Firstly, only a simple majority is needed in the parliament to declare no confidence in the government. Now for the numbers; the Kenyan parliament has a total of 210 seats, and so 106 votes are required to pass a no confidence motion. Raila Odinga’s party (Odinga is the opposition and allegedly disenfranchised presidential candidate) the ODM and it’s allies have secured 106 seats. Mwai Kibaki’s party (Kibaki is the incumbent president and ‘official winner’ of the presidential contest) the PNU secured 78 seats. Kalonzo Musyoka’s party (Musyoka was the 3rd presidential candidate who won 9% of the vote) the ODM-K secured 16 seats. Interestingly, after his inauguration, Kibaki quickly moved to appoint Musyoka as his Vice President. But it would be a stretch to regard the ODM-K as an ally of the ODM; Kibaki and Musyoka are probably just allied of convenience where shoring up the credibility of the government was of prime importance. 11 seats belong to independents and the elections for 3 seats are to be redone. In short, Odinga and co don’t have the votes to pass a no-confidence resolution by themselves. So, can a no-confidence motion pass?

Yes, theoretically. With scores dead and the pressure of the international community, members of parliament will feel the need to somehow rectify the situation. But they will only take this step if the party leaders agree that a no-confident vote best solves the current political crisis. And this step is potentially a major road block. Odinga’s ODM party decisively thumped Kibaki’s PNU in the parliamentary election. Now, would these freshly elected members of parliament, some of whom ousted senior cabinet members, take a chance in a new election? Not really. Kenya’s politicians are well known for holding on to power once they get in. Also, Musyoka sees himself as a peacemaker between the two group. But Musyoka has already secured the Vice-Presidency. Why would he jeopardize his sky-rocketing political career with another election that may render his position and party useless? Another possibility is a unity government where the ODM and PNU unite to form a governing coalition. This result will only occur if Kibaki concedes major cabinet positions to Odinga’s ODM. But even if Kibabi compromises heavily, one must remember that Odinga feels he has been cheated out of a presidency that he deserves and won. Nothing short of a recount will suffice. In the end, a vote of no confidence and a consequent revote appears to be the only reasonable solution to the current impasse. But in Kenya, politics is anything but reasonable.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.

References

Results of Kenya 2007 Parliamentary Elections, Wikipedia

Kenya Constitution, Law Africa

Kenya’s feuding parties face parliamentary showdown

To choose a Vice President….

by Ali-Asad

"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"
Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle at the 1988 Vice Presidential debate

Now that we’re in the thick of the primary season, let's step back and assess another important decision that must be made; who will the parties' nominees choose as the Vice Presidential candidate? This decision will depend a lot on who becomes the eventual nominee of the parties because presidential nominees decide who their running mates will be, and not the primary voters or the parties’ establishment.

So, on what basis are vice presidents chosen? The first question every vice presidential candidate is asked concerns their readiness to assume their presidency in the midst of the crisis. And so, experience and trust should weight heavily in voters minds. But voters tend to mostly ignore who is running for vice-president; very rarely has a vice-presidential candidate made or broken a presidential election - witness our amnesia when recalling those vice-presidents who never ascended to the presidency; in the voter’s mind, this position is not all that important. Therefore, presidential nominees know that the vice-president they select need only barely pass the experience and trustworthiness test. This fact lets presidential nominees weigh another important factor more heavily - electoral impact.

On the democratic side, Obama and Clinton do not put any traditionally republican states in play. Hillary does have a base in Arkansas but that state has been trending Republican for a decade. John Edwards may be able to put North Carolina and South Carolina in play due to home advantage. However, Edwards was not able to deliver either of the Carolina’s for Kerry in 2004 and won his senate seat in North Carolina by 51% to 48%. Also, Edwards cuts quite a divisive figure in North Carolina because of his work as a class action suit lawyer. Hence, the potential presidential contenders on the Democratic side bring no new electoral advantage to the table. So who should they pair up with?

An obvious candidate is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He’s a likable guy and a hearty campaigner – he has the world record for number of hands shaken in a day (around 18,000). Richardson is hugely popular in his state and would put the West in play for the Democrats. The West will be important for the Democrats come November. This is the only area in the US that has been trending Democratic with the election of Governors and congressmen in hard fought contests. So which states are in play: Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico – a total of 29 electoral votes. What does this mean? Back in 2004, the conventional (and correct) wisdom dictates that whichever candidate won 2 states out of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio would win. Now each of those states has around 20 electoral votes. So, the West gives an added opportunity for the Democratic candidate to make up for a loss in an Ohio or Florida. Richardson passes the experience and trustworthiness test and would not overshadow the eventual nominee. Therefore, I think that he is the best running mate for any of the 3 leading democratic candidates.

But there are other potential candidates; Hillary has become good friends with Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Both men have ambitions for the Presidency. Both would help strengthen the Democrats control of the Mid-West which has been slipping in recent elections though it is unlikely that Bayh would be able to put the very Republican Indiana in play. Iowa is a swing state though but only holds 5 electoral votes. Kerry barely won the Mid-West in 2004, all were in the low 50’s and Kerry actually lost Iowa to Bush very narrowly. Democrats better what their backs in the Mid-West. Former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska ruled out a senate run earlier this year; he may be courting the Veep slot, and he is yet another Clinton ally.

But what about Obama and Edwards you ask? How does an Obama-Edwards ticket sound? This is a very real possibility especially if Edwards garners enough primary delegates to make Hilary and Obama fall short of the required number. In this situation, Obama would be obliged to offer Edwards the VP position in return for his support in a brokered convention. Both men match up well; each appeals to the concept of change and only differ in the ‘how to bring about change’ aspect i.e. they have a major difference in style. Electorally this match brings no benefits for the democrats. Illinois is already a solidly blue state and, as I stated above, Edwards is too divisive a figure to turn around either of the Carolinas. Personally, I don’t like this ticket; Edwards on the ballot again as a Veep just seems a reminder of a forgettable past.

The Republican race is way too complicated and convoluted to analyze deeply. Suffice it to say, Mitt Romney will not be a Vice Presidential candidate; none of the Republican candidates like him. It’s that simple. He’s been a target of the flip-flopping charge in many debates. If McCain wins the nomination, look for him to choose Huckabee as his Veep. This matchup is probably the strongest matchup for the Republicans. McCain appeals to fiscal conservatives and independents while Huckabee gets the support of the evangelicals and religious people in general. But they are both anti-establishment candidates. The Republican party will have to change significantly to get behind these two. Guliani would also look to Huckabee to balance the ticket out geographically and on social conservatism issues. Fred Thompson is quite the lazy man and wouldn’t be much of an asset as a VP candidate unless he starts showing more fire like he did in the fox debate in South Carolina.

Look out for a deeper electoral vote analysis once the nominees are confirmed (and once you are subscribed!)

And that’s jus’ the tip.

References

US 2004 election, Wikipedia

Understanding Sunni-Shia

by Ali-Asad

O you who believe! Obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you...
Quran, 4:59

The ongoing war in Iraq has increased awareness about the two main groups within Islam; Sunni and Shia*. Politicians frequently talk about the need for reconciliation between the 3 groups in Iraq: the Sunni, Shia and Kurds. Firstly, this grouping is inaccurate. The Kurds are an ethnic group who are mostly Sunni whereas the Sunni and Shia are the two main religious groups within Islam. Invariably, the first question that arises concerns the difference between the two groups. But understanding their similarities is just as important.

Sunnis and Shias unite in the most fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith; belief in (the One) God, the belief in the Prophethood of Muhammad and belief in the Day of Reckoning where all will be held to account. The two groups observe the practices of Islam almost identically with minor differences; they both hold 5 prayers a day, fast in Ramadan, give charity and perform the pilgrimage to Mecca. With all these similarities, where do the two groups differ? Simply put, the dispute revolves around the issue of leadership after the death of the Prophet.

Sunnis maintain that the leader after the Prophet must be chosen by the people at large, and must be a pious person and a member of the Prophet's clan - the tribe of Quraysh. But Shias contend that the Prophet’s successor must be divinely chosen and within the Prophet’s purified family. Historically speaking, the Sunni view won out and Abu Bakr, a close companion of the Prophet, ascended to the caliphate. This difference led the proto-sunni and proto-shia groups to evolve doctrines that helped explain their position on leadership. The Sunnis used the selection of Abu Bakr and subsequent caliphs to develop the concepts of selection by consultation (arabic: shura) and consensus (ijma). The Shias developed a concept of leadership (imamah) based on designation (nass) by an infallible personality (ma’soom) starting with the Prophet. One must understand that these doctrinal differences on the issue of leadership after the Prophet arose many years after the Prophet passed away. Over time, both sides developed arguments using the Quran and hadith (traditions of the Prophet) in order to back up their views.

So where do these differences leave Sunnis and Shias today? Firstly, many Sunnis recognize that the reestablishment of the caliphate is the most vital component of an Islamic renaissance. Not since, 1924 and the Ottoman empire, has a caliph been recognized among Sunni muslims. Fundamentalist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda have made the reestablishment of the Caliphate a central goal in their self-professed struggle (jihad). Most regimes throughout the Middle East have suppressed these groups because there goals necessitate the overthrowing of the ruling classes. One must remember that these groups first attempted to implement their reforms in a peaceful manner but turned to violence after they were brutally oppressed by the ruling regimes. The situation differs dramatically with the Shia.

Shias believe that the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law Ali was the first of 12 divinely selected leaders (Imams). Shias contend that the 12th Imam went into occultation/hiding (ghayba) in 824, and will reappear at the end of time along with Prophet Jesus to establish a just Islamic state. Therefore, Shia muslims also feel a leadership vacuum but recognize that the return of the 12th Imam is not in their hands. And so the Shia learned scholars (ulema) have taken a greater role in deriving new laws for the modern era (ijtihad). This authority led to Khomeini deriving a new leadership concept – authority of the jurists (farsi:vilayat-e-faqih) which laid the foundations for the scholars to take political power in Iran.

*More historically inclined readers should note that I have used the term Shia as a generalization for the Shia Twelver group which makes up of 90-95% of all ‘Shia’. These other Shia groups include: Zaydis, Ismailis, Alawis etc. They are all characterized by the importance they give to Ali – their rightful successor to the Prophet.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.

References/Further Reading

No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam

The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate

Muslim Brotherhood, Wikipedia

Behold the Marathon Primary Season (D)

by Ali-Asad

"A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation"
James Freeman Clarke

Iowa has come and gone. Obame, Huckabee and McCain are up while Hillary, Edwards and Romney are down. People turned out in droves and voted overwhelmingly for ‘change’. Perhaps the caucus result had less to do with change than the ‘Obama phenomenon’. Looking back, we may pin the ‘agent of change’ label on Huckabee but his win in Iowa really underscored the support among evangelicals for the self-described ‘Christian Leader’. Mitt Romney came up with the second-best line of the caucus night: “This is the first inning of a 50 inning race”. For better or worse, he is right.

Don’t be fooled by Obama’s insistence that a vote for him in New Hampshire will secure the nomination. All politicians need to motivate their supporters; Obama is especially good at this motivation. And yes, a win in New Hampshire will increase his momentum tremendously. But at the earliest, the nomination will be decided by February 5th and, at the latest, at a brokered convention in late August. Let me explain. February 5th is the date over 20 states will hold their primaries. And these states have a lot of delegates up for grabs: California, New York, New Jersey etc. In a competitive primary race, the candidates need to do well in these states. Why? There are two important facts to keep in mind: Hillary has a lot of money and Obama is not the only change candidate. With over $100 million in the bank and just as great determination, Hillary Clinton will do everything she can to win this nomination. And so she will compete all the way up to February 5th and try to win as many delegates as possible. But you would think that if Obama has the momentum he will win all those states and take their delegates; not true. Delegates are allocated somewhat proportional to the vote. For example, even though Obama beat both Edwards and Hillary by 8 % points, he received only one more delegate than Hilary. The final delegate count was;
Obama – 16
Hillary - 15
Edwards – 14
- An extremely close battle.

Now I hear you say that Obama just needs to win a plurality in most of the primary states and he’ll be fine. Not so. For the democrats, there are 4,049 delegates up for grabs, and so to win a candidate needs the support of 2,050. But not all these 4,049 delegates are directly elected through the primaries; 796 are superdelegates (these include members of congress, party officials etc). These delegates do not have to go for the currently winning candidate. In fact, so far, most superdelegates have declared their support for Hillary. My point? In a close race Hilary could secure enough delegates to win the nomination without actually having to win in most of the primaries; she just needs to keep close. But this is an unlikely situation only made possible by one man: John Edwards.

Edwards’s performance in Iowa has made it clear that he is the other candidate for change. However, he does not have the level of support or infrastructure that Obama and Hilary have acquired. Many democrats agree with his message of change, and not just any kind of change; real change that will result by taking on corporatism and special interests. But this is a losing message in a general election against any republican candidate; recall the outcome of Al Gore’s shift towards populism in the 2000 election. So, as time goes on, Edwards supporters will realize that Obama is their man. But Edwards is not letting them go. He insists that he will fight all the way. This will only result in splitting the change, anti-Hillary vote, and may end up denying Obama a true majority in the primaries and the delegates contest. In this case, Edwards will be under pressure to through his support to Obama. But not if Hillary has any say. She will put a significant effort towards courting Edwards by possibly offering him the Veep slot (what a bad move that would be!). And so we come to the possibility of a brokered convention where Obama has a plurality of delegates but not the 2,025 to secure the nomination outright. Obama may need to offer Edwards a deal to secure the nomination. Or perhaps, by then, the party will have thrown their support behind Obama and dashed Hilary’s dreams. But that outcome is extremely unlikely. This contest will not come to a swift conclusion. Watch this space.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Primary Results for Iowa, CNN Election Center

Delegates Scorecard, CNN Election Center

Yuwie, Scam or Not?

by Ali-Asad Somjee

"The world's first social networking site that pays its users".
Yuwie tag line

For those not in the know, Yuwie is the latest money-making venture using the much faulted pyramid scheme; these are basically business models where your revenue depends upon the number of people you refer into the scheme. Now, these schemes have a tumultuous history. AllAdvantage and AGLOCO are two examples of pyramids schemes that went bust. So, the question surfaces: is Yuwie any different?

Firstly, Yuwie’s revenue generating system differs greatly from that of AllAdvantage and AGLOCO. These latter two schemes sought to make revenue by having users download a program that would record web surfing time and advertisements viewed in that surfing time. Thus, the amount of time surfed would generate revenue for the user up to a point. Additionally, users would gain a small percentage of the revenue that referred users generated, and hence the pyramid scheme. But Yuwie works differently.

Yuwie relies on the social networking concept as basis for revenues. Online networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook generate revenues mainly though advertising. Why does this strategy work? Because a great number of people use these sites and so these websites are of great value to advertisers who know their ads will be displayed to a wide variety of customers. But where does this revenue go? Straight to the owners of Facebook and MySpace. This is where Yuwie differs; it styles itself as a social networking site that aims to give the users, whose page views generate the advertising revenue, a share of that revenue. How? Yuwie allocates this revenue to users based on how many profile views that user and his referrals have.

Sounds good? It should; pyramid schemes are by nature a very attractive concept. But the traditional pyramid scheme involved having a new user making an initial fee. Then, the user base for the scheme would increase exponentially making the whole system unsustainable. And so, only the users who joined the system early end up benefiting from the whole scheme. But the new online schemes do not have an upfront free. AGLOCO required the downloading of software to track your web surfing, and so the actual cost is your privacy and setup time. Here, Yuwie stands out; the only cost is time which you would have spend doing the exact same activities on other websites such as blogging, networking, posting images etc. But even if the Yuwie system works, flaws exist.

Yuwie pays you a tiny fraction of a penny per profile views. Therefore, it would take tens of thousands of views and more for you to make any substantial income. Further more, Yuwie will only pay out after you have earned $25. Surprisingly, Yuwie will not charge for sending your money to your paypal account, and there is only a $1fee to get your earnings as a check. Yuwie’s terms of service agreement looks quite gimmick free but keep one thing in mind; Yuwie has the right to alter the “revenue sharing rate” – that is the factor by which your page views are multiplied to get your earnings. This rate is already quite small and theoretically Yuwie could easily lower the rate to a level which makes earnings extremely small. This flexibility has led to the downfall of other systems, and so needs to be kept in mind. Having dealt with the potential problems, what are the advantages to this system?

You have very little to lose. As I hinted above, earned revenue depends on being an active visible member so that you get page views and the people you referred get page views as well. So, if you make no money from Yuwie, you would have lost the time you would have spent on other social networking sites anyway. Yuwie offers the same sort of social networking community feel of MySpace. Hence, on balance I would slightly favor joining Yuwie, and only slightly because of the time required to attain the potential earnings that are not 100% guaranteed. But I have taken the plunge, and so you can find my referral link at the bottom of this article. You may cry out ‘conflict of interest!’ but I have tried to remain as objective as possible. You be the judge.

And that’s just the tip.

Comment below.

References

Pyramid scheme, Wikipedia

When Bubble era standouts are exhumed, Techdirt

Lesson Learned: AllAdvantage 2.0 shuts down, GigaOM

It's no longer a test!, Yuwie Scam

Terms of Service, Yuwie