Kausfiles: A mostly political weblog.

Maybe It Was A Game Changer After All

Rasmussen's robo-poll, which discerned a big bounce in Obama's favor on health care after his speech last week--a bounce that soon dissipated--now reports opposition to health care reform has risen to a new high of 55%, with only 42% in favor. Yikes. ... P.S.: It's possible that Sunday's numbers were just mysteriously awful for Obama, dragging down the two-day average. But there was no equivalent drop that day in Obama's overall approval rating. ... Sorry, Nate.** ... .P.P.S.: Here's a more comprehensive Pollster chart of various health care surveys. Not quite as bleak, but the red line of opposition trending ineluctably upward is not what you would want to see if you were in the White House. ... 9/18 Update: Pollster says the red line's alarming trajectory is the product of a "mysterious bug," and publishes more elaborate charts here. They're less grim but aren't auspicious--and since then, Rasmussen opposition has reached a new high of 56%.

**--Nate Silver in a  9/14 post:

The real question, of course, is not whether there's been a bounce, but how long-lasting its effects might be. Bounces usually dissipate. ...[snip] ... I'm not yet prepared to render a prediction on this subject, although for a variety of reasons -- basically, the GOP having used up a lot of its firepower coupled with Obama having underachieved his overall approval ratings on health care reform -- I think the bounce (if there is one) is more likely to have "oomph" than it usually does.

Lucky that wasn't a prediction! ... 1:10 A.M.

___________________________

The MSM Plot Against Obama Continues: I've run into a surprising number of people who don't know that Obama called Kanye West a "jackass." Apparently the press' reluctance to publicize an off-the-record remark has worked to inhibit dissemination of what otherwise would be a juicy little bit of news. (Try to find a mention in the print Washington Post, for example.) But everybody's heard about Jimmy Carter saying that an "overwhelming portion" of animosity to Obama stems from "racism." ... Hmm. The suppressed Kanye remark helps Obama. The heavily publicized Carter remark hurts Obama. Coincidence? Or yet more evidence, if any was needed, of the secret Mainstream Media plot to sabotage the President at this crucial time?  ... 1:47 A.M.

___________________________

90% B.S.

90% BS: Obama's claim that  

"more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border"

appears to be deceptively hyped, at best. (The 90% figure only covers the guns that are sent to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireams for testing. There seems little reason to assume it is a representative sample of all the "guns recovered in Mexico"). But is the suspect factoid really designed to "weaken the Second Amendment" and promote gun control, as the NRA charges? Or is it just convenient diplomatic BS because it allows the United States to be partly blamed for Mexico's embarrassing inability to control its violent drug cartels?  (True, you'd think it would be unnecessary, since the U.S., as the consumer of the illegal drugs the cartels sell, is already partly to blame.)  ... 

Update: Obama's stat has now received the Official Annenberg Seal of B.S. from FactCheck.Org, which notes: 

the guns that ATF is given to trace are far from a random sample of all guns recovered. Indeed, it omits those that Mexican officials have reason to believe come from elsewhere, and includes only those guns with a good chance of being traced to U.S. sources.

FactCheck's seemingly thorough analysis concludes an accurate estimate would be "probably less than half of the 90 percent claimed by the president and others in his administration." But then we'd have less to apologize for! ... [via Insta via Andrew Malcolm] 1:06 A.M.

___________________________ 

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Screwing the Chooch: Did auto czarito Steven Rattner pay to play at his investment fund?... With the GM and Chrysler auto negotiations at their current critical stage, isn't he too big to fail--the Geithner Put? ... P.S.: In what may be an admirable display of independence, the NYT's story makes Rattner--a former Times reporter and buddy of Times CEO Pinch Sulzberger--seem more potentially culpable than the WSJ's story does. Formally, if the accusations are true, Rattner would merely be the shakedownee in the pension fund deal in question. But the Times makes it seem as if he aggressively plunged ahead in what was allegedly a seamy business. [More 'allegedly's?-ed. Think I'm OK] ... Bonus Question: How many vetting problems make a "handful"? ... P.P.S.: How bad is "Chooch," the 2003 film Rattner's firm (allegedly) indirectly bought as part of the complicated financial machinations? Pretty bad, said the NYT. But according to the Village Voice it "charms with its p.c. portrayal of Italian Americans" and "rebuilds cultural bridges." So there. ... 

Update: One of Rattner's "handful" of vetting problems was his conflict of interest due to previous dealings with Chrysler's owner, Cerberus. Jane Hamsher says 

Rattner's Quadrangle has a financial relationship with Cerberus, having loaned them $125 million to buy the Maxim and Blender magazine parent two years ago (Cerberus is currently in default). 

That's wrong. But close! It's Cerberus that loaned the money to Rattner's firm, not the other way around (see link). Hamsher's error is repeated and amplified by TPM's Moe Tkacik.  (Journolist synergy?) If Hamsher, who's well-connected with the labor movement, and Tkacik have it in for Rattner, maybe he really is the right guy for the auto bailout job--i.e. the guy who might force the UAW, as well as Detroit's bondholder's, back to reality. (Contra Hamsher, it's not "a national moral outrage that [UAW members] should expect to make $33 an hour in this day and age." The problem is expecting to keep making $33 when your firm has effectively gone bankrupt.) ...  10:34  P.M.

___________________________

I'm late ...

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 

Making this obvious joke (about how to balance the budget) ...In the future, everyone will be secretary of Health and Human Services for 15 minutes. ... 6:15 P.M..

___________________________

Pointing out that Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano has made the sort of mindless PC-trumps-common sense statement that gives Democrats a bad name--calling for "parity" in security on the Mexican and Canadian borders:  

 "We shouldn't go light on one and heavy on the other," she said of the Canadian and Mexican borders.

"This is one NAFTA, one area, one continent, and there should be parity there."

That's because of the vicious Canadian drug gangs now threatening to take over Vancouver. ... Or is it bootleg CuddleCore CDs? ... Update: An alert reader emails to note that drug-gang violence is erupting in Vancouver, although on nothing like Mexico's scale. ... 6:08 P.M.

___________________________
 
Tedisco--the Republican--will win that New York special election on the absentee vote, no? Nate Silver is ducking .... Maybe there'll be a write-in surge for Taraji P. Henson! Ha ha ha ha. ...6:02 P.M.

___________________________

Special Slow-Moving Targets Edition

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 

The Case Against Mayor Villaraigosa: "[V]irtually every major initiative from Villaraigosa has been a dismal failure."  Even among the ardent L.A. Dems I know, nobody isn't disappointed in this guy. It's amazing that he is essentially running unopposed. ... We need the L.A. Times to go broke fast so we can start other publications, with a pulse, and begin to build a New York-style political culture. ... 10:36 A.M.

___________________________

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 

Nate Silver: The Final Humilation! 

Former genius Nate Silver's Oscar prediction record: 4 out of 6.

Fox blowhard Bill O'Reilly's Oscar prediction record: 5 out of 5.

O'Reilly says, "I am an oracle once again. But it wasn't even difficult." It was for Silver! ... P.S.: I've checked out O'Reilly's claim on NEXIS, and unfortunately it is accurate. Here is the relevant passage, from his Friday pre-Oscar show. (His secret methodology: He bet on Hollywood liberal politics.)

I believe "Slumdog" will win best picture, as it deserves.

Frank Langella should win best actor. His performance as President Nixon in "Frost-Nixon" is simply off-the-chart brilliant. But Mr. Langella was humanized Nixon, so he will lose political points from some members of the very liberal academy. That means it's between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn. With gay marriage being a big Hollywood issue, you do the math.

Mr. Rourke, by the way, was great in "The Wrestler," but he is acting a bit strange this week here in L.A.

[runs video clip of Rourke saying "I should have been in that gay movie."]

"Check" is glad Rourke was not in "Milk."

Best actress, Kate Winslet. Best supporting actor, the late Heath Ledger. Best supporting actress, Penelope Cruz in the Woody Allen movie.

P.P.S.: O'Reilly did "predict this will be the lowest-rated Oscar telecast in history." It wasn't. ... P.P.P.S.: And ... Frank Langella? ... 10:14 P.M.

___________________________ 

Cincinnotus: Steven Rattner isn't just leaving his investment firm to go work for the Treasury Department on the auto bailout.** He's leaving investment banking ("after 26 fulfilling years on Wall Street") to "begin a new phase of my life in the public sector." [E.A.] Sounds like he doesn't intend for this to be his last Administration job. ... What if, you know, he succeeds and Detroit doesn't need bailing out in a year? Geithner, watch your back. ... [via Gawker]

**--where he will be either "a" lead advisor on the bailout or the lead advisor, depending on which part of the NYT's account you read and how carefully you read it. ... P.S.: He has my full support. ... 9:52 P.M.

___________________________

Cruz Crushes Silver!

Was that a light stand making that sickening "thud" in the background--or was it Nate Silver's aura of infallibility crashing to the ground? Where is your Taraji P. Henson now, Mr. Right-to-the-Last-Decimal? Ha ha ha. You are one of us now. ... Recommended: Rob Long's twitter commentary. Not for the Denby-minded! ... Also the authoritative Kim Masters. ... And XX. ... And darlakbrown. ...and scottimmergut. ... Update: Silver actually missed two out of six. (His "logistic regression" also favored Mickey Rourke.) The categories he picked in were not tough ones (e.g., Heath Ledger). Back to baseball for you! ... 6:11 P.M.

___________________________

Taraji P. Henson and the Oscar of Doom!

Saturday, Februay 21, 2009

Will Taraji P. Henson destroy Nate Silver? Oscar oddsmakers say yes! ... But given Silver's track record, the odds on Henson (you can currently get 19-1) look mighty attractive. ... Except, you know, she wasn't that good in the movie. ... There is also Dana Stevens' methodological objection:

The Academy's voting practices don't involve "logistic regression"; they involve actual regression, the acting out of primitive, unmappable affects like grief, pity, fear, and desire. 

 8:10 P.M.

___________________________

Isn't the border fence shovel ready? ... [Thks. to reader C.W.] 8:03 P.M.

___________________________

"The Best We Can Do": A few days ago I said there were only four GM cars I would consider buying. That was before I bought the most recent Consumer Reports guide, in which the Cadillac CTS and the GMC Acadia --about which GM VP Lutz said, "This is the best we can do"--get below-average reliability ratings. That leaves two, the Chevy Malibu and Pontiac G8 (and one of those two, the G8, is too new for reliability reports). ... The case for further subsidizing GM would seem to be almost entirely macroeconomic (i.e., bankruptcy now would deepen the recession). ... 7:32 P.M.

___________________________ 

Don't Answer That, Part XVIII: Mark Hemingway, among others, is charging that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "is angling for a 'big chunk"' of the stimulus bill's $8 billion for high-speed rail "for his pet project," a magnetic-levitation train between L.A. and Las Vegas. ... Am I crazy--I sort of like the idea of a high-speed rail line to Vegas. It wouldn't destroy existing communities--the route is mostly desert. It seems like a good full scale test bed for new technology that, if it works, can later be applied in more densely-populated, harder-to-build-in areas.  And it would open up the route for development. (Don't worry about an office park boom destroying the fragile Barstow ecology. Barstow is already a mess.)  .. As Keynesian boondoggles go, this seems like a promising one (although, Yglesias notes, there are other possible routes) ...  7:07 P.M.

___________________________

Will the Oscars Spoil Nate Silver?

Kooky Kabuki? From NYT:

The administration official said the president was reserving for himself any decision on the viability of G.M. and Chrysler.

Hmmm. Isn't this the sort of decision that plays out better if the president at least pretends that some cabinet or other official is making the basic decision? Does Obama really want to pull the plug on G.M. and Chrysler himself? The time-tested way of doing this, you'd think, would be to have some hard-ass Larry Summers type recommend cutting off federal subsidies. They take the heat. Then Obama can intervene to soften the blow a bit. ... Unless, that is, Obama has no intention of cutting off subsidies. ... But even if that's just a threat designed to prod the cost-cutting negoatiations, why make it a less credible threat? ...   2:28 A.M.

___________________________

News Flash: Mayors Want More Federal Money! Sorry, they want a new "urban policy agenda." This was the most depressing story of the day. Is there even a hint that all the ongoing bleating for subsidies will be accompanied by any reforms? Or will it simply be more money to maintain existing (unionized) civil service bureaucracies? ... P.S.: Of course, if the new stimulus welfare money helps rebuild the underclass, that will give big city mayors even more guilt-trip power, no? It's all beginning to make sense. ... P.P.S.: "Recovery Zone" bonds! I'm deeply suspicious. Sounds like a Carter-era Washington Monthly waste story waiting to happen. ... ...  2:06 A.M.

___________________________

Sorry, Steve. Back to Maxim! Reporter-turned-financier Steve Rattner won't be the car czar after all. There will be no car czar. ... Was Rattner ever really actually under consideration for this job, or is he just well connected at the New York Times and other media organizations? ... The Times' account of his non-ascension has a plaintive tone ("It was not clear why the administration changed course or whether Mr. Rattner would have a role on the task force."). ... [Wasn't he your candidate?--ed. I was working this one from both ends. You have a problem?] ...1:11 A.M.

___________________________

Nate Silver Infallibility Watch: Hah! The whiz who predicted the election correctly goes fish-out-of-water and uses his "logistical regression" to predict the Oscars. Please, let him be wrong. ... P.S.: Taraji P. Henson is his Achilles heel! (He picks her for Supporting Actress.) The rest of the awards are actually pretty cut-and-dried. Most people in the U.S. with indoor plumbing could get them right. ... 12:53 A.M.

___________________________

Don't Sweat the Details?

Where's the Quirk? The seemingly infallible Nate Silver counts cloture votes on 'card check,' with a particular focus on Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln:

Arkansas is not the only state with a Democratic senator and low union membership. Pretty much the entirety of the South is in the same boat, with the important exception of Louisiana. But, while there aren't many union members in Virginia, North Carolina or Florida -- nor in some states like New Mexico outside of the South -- Barack Obama is quite popular in all of those areas, which he is not in Arkansas. Arkansas and really Arkansas alone presents the unique combination of Obama being unpopular and the union movement being virtually nonexistent, and among the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, Lincoln is up for re-election in 2010, whereas Mark Pryor is not. It's not a coincidence that she's hemming and hawing on EFCA. [E.A.]

Except that Pryor is hemming and hawing too. ... P.S.: Does this mean we can abandon the grail-like quest to find an instance where Silver was wrong? Not quite. But it does suggest the flaw in his mode of thinking--which seems to be to assume that pols respond in predictable ways to predictable factors (just as voters vote in predictable ways according to demographic factors). Isn't there room for persuasion and quirkiness? ... True, when I made this criticism before, during the Dem primaries, Silver turned out to be right (everyone did behave predictably). But the night is young! Someone will behave unpredictably at some point. ... P.P.S.: In this case, the quirky factor Silver would be overlooking is the inherent non-appeal of the specific "card check" idea--i.e. it's hard for pols to publicly defend eliminating the secret ballot, even if Obama swept their states. ... 10:32 A.M.

_____________________________

The Devil is In the Details, But Do the Details Matter? Steven Pearlstein's confident analysis of the auto bailout makes me think its critics, myself included--may have overly depressed ourselves by focusing on the actual details of the agreement--like the "non-binding" nature of the concessions required of the U.A.W.. Here's the more sanguine syllogism:

1) There's no way GM** and maybe even Ford can survive in the long run without either a) more bailouts or b) major sacrifices from workers, dealers, creditors, shareholders. That includes concessions on wages and work rules from the U.A.W. that would make GM factories competitive with foreign transplants in the U.S. (though not, I assume, with U.S. car factories in Mexico and elsewhere). The $9.4 billion the taxpayers have just loaned GM will be gone soon enough--within months. Then what will the company do?

2) There's no political appetite for bailing carmakers out again in March--i.e. for lending much more money to the automakers beyond the $17.4 billion already designated for both GM and Chrysler. The current bailout is unpopular enough. Critics say it won't work, that the car companies will just come back for more government money in a few months. When the companies prove the critics right, do you think Obama and the Dems, even with big majorities, are going to bail them out again? Maybe make a multi-billion dollar Federal subsidy permanent--a sort of underground conveyor belt from the Treasury to Detroit? I don't think so. GM and the UAW may be shocked that the public has not rallied to their side, but that seems to be the case. Obama has certainly given no signals that he's willing to permanently subsidize uncompetitive car companies (as opposed to not letting them go bankrupt at a time when that would have semi-cataclysmic ripple effects).

3) Therefore the workers, dealers, creditors and shareholders will have to make major sacrifices. It doesn't matter whether those sacrifices are spelled out in the legislation. It doesn't matter if they are vague-but-binding agreements or mere "targets." It doesn't matter if Barney Frank and Congressional Democrats keep the targets in or take them out at the urging of the UAW. The Congress and the President don't have to demand the taxpayer's $17 billion back (the sanction Bush boasts of). They can let GM and Chrysler keep the $17 billion. But as long as they don't offer up more billions, the manufacturers (and the UAW) will have to make the necessary changes, whether or not they technically go bankrupt.

Everything else is kabuki.

I can't think of anything major wrong with this logic. It's possible that the companies and the union are somehow hoping that if the economy quickly revives and SUVs start selling they can rebound without much pain and maybe make it to 2011 when the two-tier wage structure they've negotiated will begin to kick in. If that happens, it happens. But if it doesn't, I still don't see the Democrats coming across with a second huge tranche of cash. Maybe I am missing something.

**--I'm focusing on GM because I doubt there's any way Chrysler can survive as an independent company, period. ...

Update: Jim Geraghty dissents on the crucial point #2--

The Obama Administration will  - most likely — look at whatever restructuring effort the Big Three have made and wag their finger at slow progress, but declare that due to the economic circumstances, allowing the automakers to collapse is "not an option," and then open the checkbook again. Lather, rinse, repeat. The successful reform of the auto industry will always remain six months over the horizon.

Well, one of us is wrong. ... P.S.: Sounds like Iraq, circa 2006. The Friedman Unit returns. ... 1:50 A.M.

___________________________ 

You know it's a slow news day when MSN is headlining the feature "Can you name the noodle?" 12:33 A.M.

___________________________

Hillary's Emoluments

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

You have to wonder, can the good Bill Gates is doing with his Foundation ever match the suffering caused by Vista? ...

P.S.:

October,  2001 --Windows XP launches. One month later, economic expansion begins..

January, 2007--Windows Vista launches. Ten months later, economy plunges into recession.

Coincidence? I'm not so sure! ...10:25 P.M.

___________________________

UAW Offers Concessions in Bailout Effort: The key paragraph--

At the meeting, the union did not discuss wage and benefit concessions for active employees, said Jeff Everett, a local Chrysler president.

One problem with the Wagner Act is that surviving in a modern economy requires fast decision-making, but negotiations with unions take time (and energy). Like pulling teeth takes time (and energy). You sometimes wonder whether boosters of Wagner Act unionism are familiar with the concept of "too little too late." ... Update: AP reports that UAW leaders did vote to "let the Detroit leadership begin renegotiating elements of landmark contracts signed with the automakers last year, a move that could lead to wage concessions."  UAW President Ron Gettelfinger "stopped short of saying the union would reopen contract talks with General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co. but said it would be willing to return to the bargaining table to change some terms." But "any modifications would still have to be ratified by local union members." [E.A.] ... Gettelfinger blamed a "perception problem" for (in AP's words) "a negative view of the union." The union is buying TV ads to counteract it. ... 3:44 P.M.

___________________________

A Knack for Diplomacy: What attitude do the Hillary people bring to the State Department? I didn't think her spokesman Phillipe Reines could top his obnoxious and nonsensical response to the Gerth and Van Natta report that Hillary had secretly eavesdropped on her enemies ( “We don’t comment on books that are utter and complete failures”).  But he's come close with his spin on the legal argument--a seeming winner*** if you actually believe the Constitution's language--that Hillary is barred from becoming Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:

This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset,” [E.A.]

Well all right then! No clinging to guns and God in this administration! ... I'm sure they spent a lot of time on the Emoluments Clause at Harvard and Yale. 

Why do Hillary's people think this smug, sneering approach** is productive? Because of its success in winning them the nomination? Think how well it will work in the India-Pakistan crisis! ...

**--The technical term is "Lehanism," coined after its most conspicuous practitioner used it to put Al Gore and Wesley Clark in the White House. ....

Update: Eugene Volokh cites two law professors who agree that the Emoluments Clause means trouble for Hillary. Volokh himself thinks the wording is "ambiguous," but he didn't go to Harvard or Yale so ignore him. ... [via Plank] 

***--Text originally said "slam dunk" rather than "seeming winner." Prof. Volokh convinced me that it isn't a slam dunk. You shouldn't call anything a "slam dunk" anymore anyway. ...12:23 A.M.

___________________________

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

From the NYT account of the GOP runoff win in Georgia:

Many voters interviewed Tuesday said the balance of power in the Senate had been an important factor in their choice of a candidate.

"If you can’t have a little back-and-forth arguing between the parties, then the party in power will make mistakes,” said Ron Zukowski, a computer expert in Atlanta who voted for Mr. Chambliss. “This was my chance to say no, and I said no.”

Hmm. Didn't Mike Kinsley say that "almost no one" thinks like that? I think he did! (He was arguing voters don't choose dividied government, not that they don't choose undivided-but-still-filibusterable government. But it's the same mindset.) ...

P.S.: What's at stake: It's important that Democrats fail to achieve a filibuster-proof Senate. Chambliss' victory assures this. But what's most important is that Nate Silver turn out to be wrong about something, anything, however small. Otherwise he will have to be worshipped as a god. Was he wrong about Georgia? Here's the best I could find in a quick search:

"We think when it's all said and done Martin will lose by around 10 points."--Silver's blog partner Sean Quinn, as the returns came in. The actual margin is looking more like 14 points.

"The question is, will more Chambliss voters drop off or will more Martin voters drop off? That's the unknown. In wave years I'd tend to bet with the wave party, but I'm nowhere near ready to conclude Martin will win."--Quinn again.

[I]f the polls going into December 2nd say that Saxby Chambliss is going to win the runoff by 7 points, you shouldn't be a but surprised if Jim Martin actually wins instead. And you also shouldn't be surprised if Chambliss wins by 20."--Silver on Nov. 13. Final polls had Chamblis ahead by 4-7 points.

Not wrong enough!  Eyes turn to Minnesota, where Silver has a hostage to fortune in the form of his confident prediction (in a TV talk with Arianna Huffington) regarding Al Franken:

[H]e`ll pick up votes in this recount.

Also his Nov. 23 projection "Franken to Win Recount by 27 Votes," Unfortunately, it is still possible Franken will win the recount by 27 votes. ...11:46 P.M.

___________________________ 

A Job for Anna

Monday, November 24, 2008

 Mark Krikorian is not impressed with likely Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano's border-control credentials but concedes

[S]he's about as close as any Democrat governor can get to appearing hawkish on illegal immigration.

He speculates:

"It could mean that the Obama administration picked an immigration person for this job because they want to burnish their pro-enforcement credentials to make a more plausible case for amnesty down the road ...."

That would be shrewd. But I wonder--suppose it all miraculously works according to plan. That is, suppose Napolitano succeeds, against all expectations, in controlling the border. The ACLU sues to cripple enforcement in the workplace. It loses! Illegal immigration in effect ceases. The public feels soon confident enough to allow Congressional Democrats to legalize those illegals already in the country. No more living in the shadows. Celebrations in the streets! But because the border is controlled, no new illegal immigrants get in. Guest workers, including agricultural workers, do get in--perhaps with a "path to citizenship." But only in the numbers authorized. The question is: Would the Congressional Dems and their allies be happy?

I'm not sure. ... They'd get 12 million new, mainly Latino voters. Likely Democrats. But that would be it. I suspect there are a lot of Dem pols who would not-so-secretly be rooting for things to not go according to plan--for an amnesty to be accompanied by a breakdown in border control, as it was the last time it was tried, meaning there would be millions more illegal immigrants, mainly Latino, to legalize and empower in future years.. ... 

I suppose the answer would depend on whether the new rules allowed existing immigrants to keep bringing in members of their extended families, thereby rapidly expanding the newly-arrived, legal electorate. ...

I'm not saying this scenario is likely to happen--it's a thought experment. The very forces that might be happy to see the border-control part break down (low-wage employers, pols hoping to surf the Latino surge, anti-nationalist libertarians) would try to make it break down. Which is why it probably would. ... 12:17 P.M.

___________________________

A job for Anna: New York is still in a state of intense speculation on the central policy question regarding Obama's transition: What does it mean for Vogue? Editor Anna Wintour's "rep" has denied gossip reports that she'll be joining the administration, but that hasn't stopped them. ... She raised some money for the campaign. What might she want? Ambassador to France would be a good fit, no? "The French would deal with her a lot better than the Iceberg Lettuce King of Salinas that W. sent over," says cosmopolitan kf reader Madame S. ... 10:50 A.M.

___________________________

Sunday, November 23, 2008

"Franken to Win Recount by 27 Votes": Give Nate Silver points for not playing it safe. ... Update: A new Silver calculation:

The various versions of the model project a Franken win by between 48 and 136 votes once all ballots are re-counted and all challenges are resolved.[E.A.]

There are some disclaimers about high "margins of error." Nobody will notice them if Silver's right. ...11:22 P.M.

____________________________

Richardson Vets! [You said this wouldn't happen-ed. Vets for Commerce. That's like being "Hot for D.C."] 1:45 P.M.

___________________________