The Blue State

Study: liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives

I get nervous each time that I come across studies like these, and shy away from posting them out of fear that they oversimplify the nuanced world of electoral politics.  However, this study is not partisan, and for the most part objective in how it analyzes behavioral patterns.  It was conducted by scientists at UCLA and New York University:

Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "veryliberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboardwhen an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tappingwhen they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participantsto press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recordedactivity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain thatdetects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and amore appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had morebrain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they sawa W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accuratein recognizing M.

Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment inreverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute ofPersonality and Social Research who was not connected to the study,said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individualdifferences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related tobrain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely asconservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal withconflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of thedistribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrateda single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some peopleperceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat whoopposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" forchanging his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Accurate.  Thinking things though before acting.  No, let's choose a president that would be a cool guy to meet at a barbecue.  What were we thinking?

Why Conservatives Only Speak in Slogans

Recently, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll noted that liberals read more books than conservatives. This combined with a poll noting that 1 in 4 adults in the US did not read any books in 2006 indicates a trend toward sound bites and slogans.
Pat Schroeder, head of the American Association of Publishers, has a theory as to why this is the case. Note: The following section may be considered offensive to our conservative readers. Fortunately, according to the AP-Ipsos study, no conservative readers will manage to read this far.
Says Schroeder:

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes. It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Once again, we're stuck with a generation of voters on the right side of the aisle that don't want to actually be informed of the very issues that affect their lives. The Right packages up talking point slogans and bores them into the heads of the American people. "Terrorists hate our Freedom. Iraq is making Progress. Democrats want to 'cut and run.' We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."
Without context, these slogans mean nothing. But through the miracle of incessant repetition, people start to buy into it. One poll I would love to see AP-Ipsos run would be applicable only to the population of Americans that still support the president and his war. There only has to be one question; multiple choice of course!
Question: Where do you obtain your information on the government and the war?
A. Newspapers
B. Newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch
C. The Internets
D. Television News Stations
E. Television News Stations owned by Rupert Murdoch
F. I read a book about it

See how many of these conservatives want to know more about the world than the sound bites they hear on Fox News.

Study: Republican support eroding fast

According to some new polling data from Pew Research, which was reported in the LA Times, the Republican Party has been in decline ever since 2002.  Look at this chart:

This was only just part of the Pew Research Study.  The most striking statistic pertains to the faith that Americans have in their politicians, which is near a 20-year low:

Americans feel increasingly estranged from their government. Barely athird (34%) agree with the statement, "most elected officials care whatpeople like me think," nearly matching the 20-year low of 33% recordedin 1994 and a 10-point drop since 2002.

Bottom line: Howard Dean's message of "we want our country back" was ahead of its time, and should be the driving theme in 2008.

Immigrants aren't criminals

Everyone thinks the borders should be secure.  Everyone wants immigrants to go through the full legalization process.  Yet, not everyone thinks that immigrants increase crime.  A new report shows that the perceived connection between immigrants and crime is overblown:

Another study released Monday by the Washington-based ImmigrationPolicy Center showed that immigrant men ages 18 to 39 had anincarceration rate five times lower than native-born citizens in everyethnic group examined. Among men of Mexican descent, for instance, 0.7%of those foreign-born were incarcerated compared to 5.9% ofnative-born, according to the study, co-written by UC Irvinesociologist Ruben G. Rumbaut.

Full Story

This study was based on U.S. census data.

President Bush and a bipartisan coalition in Congress are about to unveil a bill that would give lawful, tax-paying undocumented immigrant families a path to citizenship.

Take the political quiz

Every six months or so I like to post the link to the "OkCupid! The Politics Test".  Hands down, compared to the other ones I have seen, this is by far the best political quiz out there.  No, it isn't perfect.  There are some obvious flaws.  But it forces you to take clear stances on issues by thinking about them in a different way.

So if you have time, fill out this political quiz.  It consists of about 45 questions, but they go by very fast.  It takes roughly seven to ten minutes.  The questions around the end get quite humorous.  Feel free to comment on where you get mapped.

Just in case you were wondering, this was where I finished:

You are a               Social Moderate          (56% permissive)                and an...           Economic Moderate            (50% permissive)                  You are best described as a:      Centrist                                                                                                                       Link: The Politics Test  on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

So no, I'm not some raging socialist like some of you commenters claim I am.

GAO: Afghan poppy production up by 50% this year

Inadequate security for poppy eradicators and the ailing infrastructure are making Afghanistan a narco-dependent state -- as reported this month by the Government Accountability Office.

Hazart Ali was one of many drug lords who the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon relied on to catch Osama bin Laden when he escaped into the mountains of Torra Borra in December, 2001.  Ever since the Bush Administration began relying on these influential poppy growers, they have had no such luck in terms of locating the terrorist leader's whereabouts.  However, Ali and a number of other Afghan drug lords have benefited economically from the unusual alliance.

According to a new report published this month by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Afghanistan's drug economy has grown substantially this year:

Despite increased eradication and other U.S. efforts, the poppy crop grew by 50 percent in 2006 to a record level.

The concern is that the money made in Afghanistan's drug trade helps fund the insurgency against U.S. troops.  This comes despite the fact that USAID -- the United States Agency for International Development -- was given $532 million by last year's Congress to help institute counter-narcotics efforts.

So why is this happening?  That same GAO report cites the depleted security situation in Afghanistan as a key ingredient that has enabled the narcotic boom, since poppy eradicators are being targeted by terrorists:

The worsening security situation and the lack of Afghan capacity are tremendous challenges to the success of U.S. counternarcotics programs in Afghanistan. The security situation continues to decline; during the 2005-2006 growing season, eradicators were attacked several times and alternative livelihoods project personnel were killed. Moreover, due to Afghanistan’s lack of infrastructure, educated populace, and functioning governmental institutions, significantly reducing poppy cultivation and drug trafficking is expected to take at least a decade.

In other words, this is a circular predicament: poppy development has enabled the insurgency, and the insurgency has enabled poppy development.

This situation as described by the GAO runs somewhat parallel with other reports that point to a recent spike in the insurgency.  As of this fall, the United States has only 20,000 troops in Afghanistan -- one-seventh the number of forces currently stationed in Iraq.

The Blue State 2006 U.S. House Projection

In Brief: The Democrats will pick up no fewer than 14 U.S. House seats this November.

After a thorough analysis of nearly 100 House races, we can conclude that there are 64 House seats -- 59 Republican and 5 Democrat -- that have at least an outside chance of switching hands on election night.  Thanks to a diverse collection of polling data and recent political trends, these 64 races can be grouped into one of three categories: "Definite Dem Win", "Potential Dem Win" and "Long-shot Dem Win."

Following this objective, careful andconsistent analysis by The Blue State of every contested U.S. Houserace, the following conclusions have been reached (keep in mind that the Democrats need 15 House seat pick-ups to capture majority):

• The Democrats will "definitely" pick up 14 House seats
• The Democrats can "possibly" pick up as many as 45 House seats
• The Democrats have a "long-shot" of picking up as many as 59 House seats

Each of the races are included below.

Definite Dem Wins = If the Democratic candidate is winning comfortably or is consistently outside the margin of error in all polling data within the last month (color designates which party currently controls seat):

AZ-08, FL-13, FL-16, GA-08, GA-12, IL-08, IN-02, IN-08, IA-03, NM-01, NY-24, NY-25, NY-29, NC-11, OH-18, PA-07, PA-10, TX-22, WV-01.

Possible Dem Wins = If the Democratic candidate is within the margin of error or is behind but closing in fast on the opponent (color designates which party currently controls seat):

AZ-05, CA-11, CA-50, CO-07, CT-02, CT-04, CT-05, FL-22, FL-24, IL-06, IN-07, IN-09, IA-02, KY-03, KY-04, MN-01, MN-06, NV-02, NH-02, NY-03, NY-19, NY-20, NY-26, OH-01, OH-02, OH-15, PA-06, PA-08, VA-02, WA-08, WI-08.

Long-Shot Dem Wins = If the Democratic candidate has consistently been behind and outside the margin of error, but still can make up the ground in one week (color designates which party currently controls seat):

AZ-01, CA-04, CO-04, ID-01, IL-10, IA-01, MN-02, NV-03, NJ-07, NC-08, PA-04, VA-10, WA-05, WY-At Large.

Therefore, we come up with the totals (Democrats need 15 pick-ups to take majority):

• Definite = 14 seat gain
• Definite Possible = 45 seat gain
• Definite Possible Long-shot = 59 seat gain

Barring an unforeseen national event, the Democrats are in a great position to win back majority.  These projections prove that even a low Democratic turnout would allow them to possibly capture the House by a very slim margin.  If there is a high Democratic base turnout, then the Democrats will have a large majority heading into the new Congress in January.  If there is a high Democratic turnout coupled with a deflated turnout among culturally conservative voters, then expect a landslide in the Democrats' favor.

You can view the PDF of the chart that I made here, which shows the match-ups in each contested House race followed by the conclusions that I drew from each one.

House Projection to be released at 12 AM ET

"The Blue State 2006 U.S. House Projection" has been completed, and will be released just hours from now at 12 AM ET/9 PM PT.  It contains a breakdown of the 64 contested U.S. House races for the upcoming November 7th election.

Each race fits into one of three categories: "Definite Dem Win", "Possible Dem Win" or "Long-shot Dem Win".  The chart also contains a key that defines the criteria for each of the categories.

Again, come back in about three and a half hours for the complete analysis.

Nevada: The new political epicenter of the west

As society goes, so goes political power.

Republican strategists like to brag that in 2004 George W. Bush carried 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the country.  Most of those counties were out west in states like Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.  Of those three states, Nevada is seeing the largest influx of new residents partly because the Las Vegas area has one of the best job markets in the country.

Just as Nevada is booming with new residents, it is also quickly becoming the political epicenter of the west.  Within the last few months, the Democratic Party announced that Nevada will hold its presidential caucus before New Hampshire has its primary.  Other than putting more of a financial burden on the 2008 hopefuls to spend more money on air-travel in between Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire in January of that year, within just weeks it is turned into a stomping ground for individuals, like as John Edwards, who are toying with the possibility of running.  Just last Tuesday the former vice presidential candidate joined Harry Reid in Reno, Nevada as the two rallied candidates running for state offices.  Why else would someone like Edwards travel clear across the country to hold a rally for local Democrats other than to possibly turn new relationships into presidential endorsements a year from now?

And it is not just the Democratic nomination that has made Nevada the most politically powerful state in the west.  An article in Sunday's Washington Post spotlights the state's two senators -- Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell -- both of which have a shot at becoming the next Senate Majority Leader.  Reid is currently the Minority Leader, and would simply take over the Majority Leader status if the Democrats take control of the Senate.  On the Republican side, Bill Frist's retirement opens the door for McConnell to be the top Republican.  As the newspaper added, the two have a western independent streak about them:

McConnell was one ofthree GOP senators to vote against a constitutional ban on flagdesecration, which failed this year by one vote. Reid was among 14Democrats who backed it. Reid bucks Democratic orthodoxy by opposinglegalized abortion in most circumstances.

Still, both men, Simpson said, will have to play down their partisantendencies and emphasize their desire for legislative accomplishmentsif the next Congress is to succeed. "It doesn't matter who the leaderis if there's no outreach to the other party," he said.

Suchefforts have begun. Reid phoned McConnell shortly before Congressrecessed last month "to discuss his desire to work together next yearon a bipartisan basis to work on the priorities of the Americanpeople," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. He said McConnell "expressed asimilar desire and willingness."

Think about how unprecedented it would be to have the Senate leaders from each party hail from the state of Nevada.  Think about how their close relationship and geographical distance from Washington might lead to more bipartisanship for the rest of the country, overturning the gridlock we see today on lobbyist-infested Capitol Hill.  That kind of dual western independent leadership might be what our country really needs at a tough time like this.

The shift of political power out west only underscores the growing importance that the region plays in American life.

2006 Race: Science or Anomaly?

A commentary on why the 2006 race is not a mirror of 1994 and not unique in of itself.  It is both.

For those who have studied both subjects, political science and history are worlds apart from one another in how they look at human events.  For the most part, political scientists tend to look for a set of underlying and reoccurring variables that allow us to compare events.  Hard-line historians see events as unique in themselves, and are reluctant to compare different points in history because it might over-simplify the complexity of each event.

So when it comes to the 2006 election, which is it?  Is a Democratic landslide a few weeks from now predictable only because the current polling and overall mood of the country matches up with 1994 and other previous years when there was a major shift in Congress?  Or are comparisons to 1994 irrelevant because 2006 is unique in itself?  Sorry to be wishy-washy, but I would say the answer is both.

On one hand, you have the poll numbers that are almost exactly comparable with polls taken right before the '94 midterm election.  First, look at the NBC Poll just released late last night:

NBC News Poll

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Congress is doing?

Approve - 16%
Disapprove - 75%
Unsure - 9%

Back in 1994, Congress' approval rating in the same NBC Poll was at 24%.  Corruption was a huge issue then as it is now.  So by comparing the two election cycles, 1994 and 2006, a political scientist would easily conclude that the Republicans will be ousted from Congress in a few weeks.

The historian side of me differs a little bit.  2006 is not 1994 by any stretch of the imagination.  We are in the middle of a war.  There is a major sex scandal.  The Bush Executive is much more powerful than the previous one.  It is likely that some voters will vote for the GOP based on fear alone.  In 1994, the Democrats didn't use fear to hold on to voters.  If only they had gone to war!

My whole point is that while it may be convenient for the traditional media to lump 2006 into the same box as previous minority party victory years, it would be a disservice to history to just leave it at that.  So much has happened since 1994.  We have the internet, which has spearheaded more citizen involvement.  We are fighting a war against terrorism.  Comparing 1994 and 2006 eliminates the proper specificity needed to analyze this race.  And on the flip-side, while specificity makes this race unique, there still are elements of 1994 and 2006 that are worth comparing. 

So to answer the question whether the 2006 election climate is best understood as a comparable science or as an anomaly in of itself, the answer is both.  Some of it is comparable, and some of it isn't.  It is important that we differentiate the two.

Chuck Todd of the National Journal takes this one step further in his latest column.  He lists five reasons why this race is like 1994, and five reasons why it is not like 1994.