chrisishardcore.com

Kerry-Weld

Can anyone help me locate the Kerry-Weld debates either online or on tape from the 1996 Senate race? Apparently they are pretty good.

Jim Wooten

As soon as the Christian Coalition gives up their non-profit status (seeing as their director is a delegate to the RNC), I will take your complaints here seriously.

What does it say that Jim Wooten thinks it is worse for a political party to exercise free speech and purchase ads on a candidate's behalf than it is for someone running for the Supreme Court to lie about having been nominated to the federal bench? And another thing, to say that Republican party help to Brantley was overstated is just not true. Perdue stumped for him and his party organization took leaves of absence to run his campaign.

The sad thing (for Perdue and his handpicked campaign manager for Brantley -- Republican Party Executive Director Paul Bennecke) is that 1 lowly paid 19 year old summer intern being directed by a lone research analyst doing research for about two weeks sunk that entire ship -- they found the tax liens, they found the embarassing ABA ratings from the past, old direct mail, old newspaper ads, and the find of the year -- the lie about being nominated. Somehow, I think Georgia voters are thankful that the DPG kicked in some funds so they didn't accidentally vote in some stooge to the Supreme Court.

Coming soon I will scan in some mail that Brantley sent out to show you just how viscious Governor Perdue and his people think campaigns should get in this state. And I doubt Wooten will complain about that.

What a Loser!

The biggest loser in Georgia Politics this week is Grant Brantley and his crack team of Sonny Perdue operatives. He ran for Supreme Court and his biggest credential -- that he had been nominated to the federal bench by George HW Bush -- turned out to be a little less than true. I saw Brantley say this a number of times on the trail, and I'm happy to say that two of the times I got it on tape and his appearance at the Lumpkin County GOP BBQ ended up on the TV for all to see! I also played the "deadbeat dad" in a Leah Sears commercial that was getting handcuffed by a deputy -- Georgia State YD President Jeremy Buckmaster.

Anyway, I hate to rub in the drubbing that Brantley got but check it out for yourself. See for yourself his "Lucky 13" counties and also note that he lost his home county (Cobb), Perdue's home county (Houston), the most Republican county in the state (Forsyth), every county in Congressional District 8 (which had a hotly contested Republican primary) and every county in state Senate District 24 (near Augusta) which had a nasty GOP primary where social wedge issues took front and center.

McKinney Race

I am very tired tonight, but I leave you with this statistic:

Cynthia McKinney 2004 Vote Total: 48,313 (51%)
Cynthia McKinney 2002 Vote Total: 49,058 (42%)

She got fewer votes this time, but a higher percentage.

Tort Deform?

Short but sweet the night before the primary...All right my pro-tort reform friends, is this worth a mere $250,000 to YOU???

(We'll return to less crazy environs after the primary is over tomorrow)

Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan's been devoting a lot of ink to the gay problem that his party has. He compares current efforts to use gay marriage as a wedge issue with previous efforts, saying "now gays are the new blacks." Well, not exactly, and this is one of the reasons I don't think it will be as effective.

One of the keys to having a wedge issue work is that it drives your opponents supporters to you and also helps you consolidate your own base. In the old days in a state like Georgia you have basically two sets of white voters, those that live in homogenous areas and those that live in diverse ones. They key to a racial appeal working is to fire up those whites who live around blacks while not alienating those who don't.

And so you have code words and coded appeals, "local control" or even the word "Atlanta" or more recently being discussed at the "way" the flag was changed. In all of these examples, your suburban or intown Republican who is not necessarily very culturally conservative and could care less about the flag either shrugs off the rhetoric as generally not a bad idea (after all, who isn't in favor of local control?) or agrees with the text (that flag change was kind of pushy) while totally missing the subtext (blacks forced them to do it!).

A good advantage to this type of appeal is that the suburban white soccer mom isn't really in tune to these covert racist appeals because being white, she doesn't really have any black family members that will be upset about it.

Big difference with the whole gay marriage thing. I'm not suggesting that every Republican voter has a gay family member, but I'm willing to wager that the percentage of Republican leaning voters who have a gay family member is higher than those who have a black family member. And Republicans don't just want to use them in some direct mail to gin up votes -- they actually want to vote to restrict their constitutional rights!

Santorum and Cornyn and Bush think they are beating up on some bogeyman just like politicians attack deadbat dads or drunk drivers. But I think that they'll increasingly find that Americans look at gays not as deadbat dads, but as brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, and one day husbands and wives. And Santorum, Cornyn, Bush et al? Dinosaurs.

What Happened To Cynthia?

There is a lot of lofty rhetoric and few facts regarding the 4th Congressional District Primary in 2002. Republicans acknowledge that there was some "crossover" voting while McKinney's allies blame it for her defeat. Well...

Majette beat McKinney by 19,554 votes. An analysis of previous primary votes, looking at the 2000 and 1998 general primaries and the 2000 presidential primary shows that of the 113,356 people that voted in the Majette/McKinney race, 25,761 people had voted in a Republican primary in the previous 4 years. While this number is larger than Majette's margin, 10,572 of those voters had chosen a Democratic ballot before, and 9,154 of them had most recently voted in a Democratic Primary.

That leaves 16,607 who had chosen a Republican ballot in the previous primary they voted in, and only 15,189 who had never voted in a Democratic primary. Both of these numbers are less than Majette's margin.

Now for the Democrats. 52,667 of the 113,356 voters had grabbed a Democratic ballot in previous primaries, 51,249 of them had voted D in the most recent election they participated in, and 42,095 hadn't voted in any Republican primaries.

So what group of voters swung this district, enabling a challenger to McKinney to win where others had failed in the previous elections? New primary voters made up a whopping 45,500, a share equal to 40.1%, greater than the number of solid Democratic voters who showed up.

And you might be surprised who these new primary voters were. 24,170 were African American and only 20,111 were white. And what did these new primary voters do in the presidential primary this year? Of those that voted, they broke more than 3:1 as Democrats.

What's my prediction for 2004? Without Republican crossover, I'll predict a runoff. With Republican crossover I'll still go with a runoff because Woolard is coming on strong this last week and will deny Levetan a lot of liberal white voters on the first ballot. And as far as a runoff goes, it is very hard to say. If those 20,111 white voters who didn't vote in primaries before 2002 don't vote this year they can still show up in a runoff, but if they vote Republican they'll be stuck in that runoff. We just won't know for a while.

Endorsements

As if anyone cares, here are my endorsements for races I'm voting in:

In the race to succeed retiring closet Republican Zell Miller, Cliff Oxford gets the edge. Oxford is promising on two fronts -- he's willing to kick considerable money into his campaign and he looks set to run a populist campaign, which is exactly what Democrats need to do to win in the South. State Sen. Mary Squires should be commended for stepping in when no one else would, and her grassroots army should prove worthy in a future campaign for a countywide or Congressional run.

In the race to succeed Rep. Denise Majette, I'll be voting for state Sen. Liane Levetan. Levetan has proved one thing again and again in her long career, she can bring home the bacon. And what I call the "other DeKalb" could really use a hands on Congresswoman with an emphasis on constituent services and bringing home needed resources. Levetan, who is not the most impressive campaigner of the bunch, will be devoted 100% to the needs of the district and her constituents. Cynthia McKinney and Cathy Woolard have proven themselves able public speakers, but in voting for Congress I'm not interested in sending someone who will either be fodder for or a regular guest for Bill O'Reilly.

In the race for DeKalb County CEO, I'll stick with Vernon Jones. Commissioner Judy Yates has a spotty record and may have picked the CEO's race because she already had opposition from Ken Jones for her commission seat. Ken Jones is running against neighborhood activist Kathie Gannon, who has a good handle on issues important to the Emory area. Unfortuantely for Gannon the super district she's running for stretches from Ellenwood to Dunwoody and their needs, especially in the Southern part of the district, don't align with the affluent and static Druid Hills area. In the Republican Primary for the commission district that stretches from Dunwoody to Stone Mountain, I would vote for Jarett Gorlin. Elaine Boyer's divisive politics have excluded her district from reciving HOST funds and her brand of combative politics won't solve any problems for the county.

In state legislative races, DeKalb voters would do well to pick Mike Jacobs in District 80, which stretches from Perimeter Mall to Toco Hills. In Senate District 40, former Deaniac Camille Kokozaki will face a tough general election fight but is ready to work the district from top to bottom. In Senate District 42, my sometimes boss David Adelman shouldn't have any problem dispatching a perennial candidate. Adelman's gotten things done in a Republican Senate without selling out his Democratic principles (or constituents).

Well that's how I'll be voting. I can't vote in these other races, but here goes nonetheless:
Republican US Senate: Mac Collins has been so inept so far I can only hope that by some miracle he wins this primary. Either Cain or Isakson would probably be formidable opponents in November.
6th Congressional District: Chuck Clay is the last of a dying breed of moderate Georgia Republicans. In this district, he's the best of a bad crop.
8th Congressional District: Lynn Westmoreland didn't think gay marriage would be his ticket to Washington, like the unheard from Mike Crotts. Voters should be confused by Dylan Glenn, whose only qualifications seem to be that he knows both President Bush and Sonny Perdue. By that test, I'm halfway to being the Congressman from the 8th district.

They're Up!

I finally saw a Mac Collins ad on the Georgia Gang today. One thing about the Georgia Gang, I don't think that many persuadable voters watch it but I'm glad campaigns seem to think so, as I got to see Isakson, Collins and Cain as well as the 6th district contenders.

Another thing about the Georgia Gang: it is a whee bit dishonest to pass off Phil Kent as merely a political commentator seeing as he has a financial stake in at the very least a few lower court judges winning and I wouldn't be surprised if he's got something invested in Brantley either. I'm just saying with much higher calibre political commentators out there why go with Phil Kent?

Finally, saw Edwards on 60 minutes with Kerry -- he sure was quick to jump in! I don't think this is a bad thing though, Edwards as a top notch trial lawyer is used to making arguments and selecting him as the VP is probably a very good move for Kerry -- someone to stick up for him (which Edwards is quite capable of) while he can focus himself on the positives or at least the very obvious attacks on Bush. Good thing to ponder tonight: How long until Kerry's adopts the Two Americas?

Rasmussen's Robots

Rasmussen detected a Veepstakes bounce...for Bush. The problem with Rasmussen's robots is VERY hard to put my finger on. But here's a start: Edwards faves/unfaves are 45/24/31, Cheney's are 40/43/17. So in a survey where Bush gets 47% of the voters, 40% have a favorable view of Cheney.

This makes me think that part of the problem with Rasmussen's robots is that somehow it's talking mostly to partisans. I'd say last night's survey was 40% Republican and 43% or so Democratic. Which is weighted a lot higher than the overall population by about 20% total, which means independents are underrepresented in his surveys.

Maybe you could reweight the poll for a more traditional outcome...then those 1 point swings (which is all we ever see anymore) might double or triple and be more like a traditional poll.

Fair and Balanced moment: The good thing about robo-polls is that they are cheap! It doesn't take 60 people a whole night to do a poll, just a computer that can make endless calls. Some political consultants also think they encourage leaners -- for some reason a lot of people tell human interviewers that they are still undecided, but are more inclined to press 1 on their telephone if they're leaning Kerry.

Why? I'm not sure. A lot of people try to either impress pollsters or please them -- indecision can seem intelligent if the impression that you give is that you're following the race closely and trying to make the most informed decision. And if you're just trying to please the person on the other end but you can't figure out what their perceived bias is, just say you're undecided. At least you won't upset them. These human urges don't really apply when a computer is taking the survey.

Medical Malpractice

It seems very obvious to me that "tort reform" as proposed by the insurance companies and the doctors they love to take advantage of is a terrible idea. Namely some sort of arbitrary cap on damages, say $250,000.

When surgery is screwed up the costs of merely living for the rest of your life often greatly exceed $250,000. You may be in a wheelchair, or worse, you may need to be hooked up to expensive machines just to breathe. In most instances, these costs are computed (and are in the million dollar range) and the "award" a court will grant to the plaintiff is usually these costs plus some pain and suffering, and my guess is that the pain and suffering part of the award usually gets soaked up by the trail lawyer's fee.

What really irks me though is an article like this where they interview some doctor or other and don't mention until the end that maybe his insurance rates have gone up because he's admitted guilt in the past few years in a medical malpractice suit.

Dr. Don Campbell entered into a settlement for $350,000. This was not some runaway jury's decision, he agreed to admit guilt and that whatever he did monetarily required a $350,000 settlement to compensate for damages. Now he's in favor of a cap @ $250,000. If I just got into a car accident that was my fault I'd probably think a $1,000 cap on damages to the other person's car was a great idea, too.

But, that's hardly fair and that is what this breaks down to. If I get into a car accident my insurance company will have to pay damages to the other person and then they will raise rates on me. If other drivers in my area get into a lot of accidents, then my rates will probably go up also because I'm in a dangerous situation.

Maybe Dr. Don Campbell's rates went up because his insurance company had to pay a settlement on his behalf and since it recognizes he is more of a risk than when he had paid no settlement it is raising his rates. And because lots of other doctors are getting sued (and found negligent) that may also raise his rates -- he's in a risky profession.

Insurance companies are parroting out doctors as the victims in their ploy to artificially limit their costs the same way they would if they had to insure police officers or firemen. Which makes you think -- if doctors are just as vital to society as police officers and fireman should profit driven insurance companies be this intertwined with their businesses as they are?

The problem seems to be that insurance companies have numerous other business, including investments, and to make up for a bad businesses in their other sectors they are using doctors to try to limit costs there. Maybe a better thing to do would be to regulate doctor's insurance so that separate carriers that dealt only in medical malpractice insurance would be able to write the insurance. Then we'd find out if the "lawsuit lottery" or the poor performance of the stock market were to blame.

One final thought: Because the anesthesia is basically the most dangerous part of any surgery, just about any surgery is just as dangerous as the next, assuming you have to go under to get it. Could the rise in elective surgery, which is just as dangerous as heart surgery, be partly to blame for the rise in insurance premiums? If that's possible, insurers either need to readjust their premiums so that doctors who perform more elective surgery pay more -- and then they can decide if the higher costs of insurance are worth the higher volume of business they receive. If not, only do necessary surgery. Just a thought though -- and one thing this debate lacks is any out of the box thinking on either side.