Roy Ho’s Blog

Although McCain may not be as much of a moderate as you think he is, McCain is out of line from his Republican party than Obama can be from his Democrat party.  Although McCain’s platform may not be as environmentally friendly as Obama’s platform, McCain is trying harder to sell his environmental policies than Obama, see CNN.  It all means McCain is trying to define the stage the environment better: to choose his battle field to his advantage.  

Environmental crisis is more than oil.  Climate change is also driving the food cost.  The ethanol market is now driving food prices world wide.  It is also driving the agricultural land prices up as well.  Consequently, we are now having a farm bill that is trying to cut down on the farm subsidy.

This is the first time that a Republican President is saying the cut in farm subsidy is not enough.  And this insufficient in farm subsidy cut is the cited reason for veto.  

On the contrary, a Democrat constituency group would want to support a farm bill and may even want to decrease the cuts in order to lower food prices. 

McCain may not have been explicit about his position in farm subsidy.  However, a thorough environmental policy will eventually lead to that point: cut farm subsidy.  

Environmental crisis is eventually down to this point: efficiency on resources, i.e. economics.  Traditional tree huggers, the ones from 60’s, cannot tolerate the word “economics”.  However, this is what it will go down to.  And McCain will feel very comfortable if he will be able to define this issue.  

If McCain is able to define environmental crisis well, McCain will be able not only to fight Obama better than any Republican can, but also expand Republican base to a new territory and grab the traditionally Democrat constituency group over: intellectuals, and some religious left (both Christians and otherwise).  More importantly, McCain can do something other countries have not been successful: take the green voters to the right wing rather than letting left wing to hog them.  Better yet, eliminate the possibility of growth for the Green Party.  

Green parties are getting strong footholds everywhere around the world.  Germany had Green Party to be part of the ruling coalition.  Green parties in Canada are getting 10% of the world both federally and provincially.  The way to starve off your competitor is to offer products the buyers have been looking for.   

1)       the other two parties seldom address;

2)       draws an equal amount of voters from both sides.

Environmental crisis is such an issue.  The biggest loser from McCain’s aggressive environmentalism is to starve off the Greens and continue a 2 party system.  If McCain is successful, then he can make the game even by 2012.

The most difficult asset, in politics, to obtain is not policies or platforms.  In politics, policies and platforms are commodities.  Message is produced.  Brand is a product of time and money.  This difficult-to-obtain asset is the salesmen: politicians.  Obama is a great weapon for Democrats’ long term growth.  Can Obama contribute to this environmental debate? 

Nancy Pelosi (House Majority Leader) says the race should go on because of high turn out rate it is drawing in all the states.  Pressure has been on Clinton to quit as it would be divisive.  Pelosi is the first politician who acknowledges the positive benefit of a long race.  This is consistent with this blog’s philosophy (2008.04.07, 200804.23).  Why is Pelosi saying that? 

She is looking at the seats in the House of Representatives.  She wants to shake more Republican seats.  And she probably sees that the Democrats are now enlarging their base so great that they can eat into Republican base.  

Interestingly, what did Clinton say?  In the same CNN article, Clinton says it is a “civil rights” issue.  Therefore, if FL and MI will not get seated (however they will be seated), DNC, using Clinton’s idea, the civil rights of FL and MI have been violated.  Will Clinton defend their rights?  Does it mean Clinton will sue to get their rights re-installed?

This primary gets more twists and turns than Gore vs. Bush.  Want some more popcorn?

Obama needs approximately 80 super delegates.  How much will these 80 super delegates cost him? 

There are 280 uncommitted super delegates left. 217 pledged delegates are left for contest.  Obama needs 189 to win (Clinton needs 356). 

At this stage, the answer of electability is fairly clear.  Each candidate’s core constituency is known; their turn out rate is know.  Nothing can really get “negotiated” there.  You see what you buy.  Similarly for platform.  Other than a noble cause to vote for the winnable candidate, is there something a candidate can do for a super delegate just to get one additional vote?

It goes down to the question: what will convince a super delegate to vote for a candidate?  Electability?  Policy platform?  Popular vote count? Or something else?

All these above are very legitimate criteria.  However, some super delegates may have something more urgent on their hands: their own incumbency.  If a super delegate is in a tight race, his personal interest may be more at stake.  And Obama is not naïve about this: he has been fundraising for other candidates to gather favours.  The earliest senator endorsements are of this type. 

Other trades are typical political brokering: a promise of a specific legislation or pork barrel project.  What about fundraising support for a super delegate’s 2010 governor race?  Now, we are talking about money, real money for a politician.

Political Action Committees are the only ones that can accept political donations.  And they are owned by politicians.  The owner can forward the money to another PAC.  In fact, the surplus after campaigns belongs to the candidate.  They are structured very much like a personal account.  The point of this status is for the monitoring of Federal Election Committee.  

What did McCain do after he won over Huckabee?  Help pay off Giuliani’s campaign debt.  How?  Forward the money from his PAC!  Now, why did McCain do that?  Once Giuliani is out of the picture and since Giuliani and McCain share similar constituency, McCain wants to use Giuliani to help do fundraising.  And Giuliani was too busy with his own debt.  So, a favour was made, and a favour was returned.  

If the race gets another dramatic turn, the cost of super delegate will definitely rise since the Obama’s need of super delegate will increase.  However, if Obama can win the race all by him (through pledged delegate), then there is no need for Obama to get any more super delegate.  If not, no matter how much old politics he distains, he is still not immune to realities.  

In any given year, I would see the following news story by CNN as a human rights issue.  Not this year.  In a year where we have a long and arduous primary on the left side, the Thai shrimp story is a good way for a non-profit to get the attention to the topic it cares the most: free trade.  Here is the link to the story: 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/23/shrimp.workers.report/index.html

Who sponsored the study? According to CNN, it is an “international nonprofit allied organization of the AFL-CIO”.  Even if AFL-CIO did not intend to project this issue on the stage of primary race, the media is doing the job.   

What is the interests of this story?  This story is to drive the readers to import products are morally tainted.  To prevent that is to establish a higher labour rights overseas among our free-trade trading partners.  That will increase the costs of production overseas and thus make the domestic products more competitive, at least domestically.  And even though US may not import shrimps from Thailand, the image that “imports are morally tainted” is implanted in the minds of the voters.

This is the same tactic (or effect) that the Tibet protests / Olympic torch protests achieve.  If the timing of these stories are timed and are in a sequence, then they can build up a very effective momentum to force the issue from an individual story into a campaign issue where all candidates cannot afford to ignore. 

Of course, the organization has to have some sort of ground level organization to make it work effectively, such as “concerned citizens” asking the right question in town hall meetings when the candidates attend.  And such schedule is easy to obtain.  Better yet, find out which media outlet and the name of the reporter were attending.  (planting)

And when third party campaign work (i.e. soft money) in conjunction with these releases, they become powerful.  While the media attention is on the issue, fundraising can get a much better lift of response rate.  The metric of one time donor amount will see a spike.  This is also a wonderful time for donor acquisition.  Elections are exciting, even for shrimping!

This 2008 election proves to be a textbook material for advocacy, fundraising and electioneering, even better than 2000 election.  Clinton’s victory will certainly encourage her to continue her race.  What Clinton shows this time in Pennsylvania is similar to what Obama showed when he was the underdog: money does not buy election victory all the time.  Clinton won by 10%, CNN reports.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/23/us.primary.intl/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

An indecisive Obama Super Tuesday victory brought this “lengthening, torturous” race because, as always, an indecisive result invites the loser for a re-match.  And Clinton gladly took on the challenge of a re-match.

Obama out spent Clinton by 2 to 1.  Obama enjoyed the positive media attention.  And he had the momentum, the most important thing of all.  And he yet he was behind by 10%.  A lot of people may expect him to win and would not be surprised by a loss.  But 10% probably is the threshold for “failure”. 

The real loss of this race so far is Ralph Nader.  He and/or his party have not improved their platform, i.e. the product, much since 2000.  Neither did they improve their election techniques.  Ralph Nader does not have the charm Obama has.  However, the electioneering could have been improved when in fact Obama took the great leap.

Clinton won by canvassing, the most important virtue of a politician.  Politics is a service industry.  Responsiveness to voters, not leadership, is the virtue promoted by democracy.  She canvassed hard in every county, in every city hall.  And she mobilized her daughter and husband in the state.  The air war of TV and Radio ads rained down by Obama did not bring him a victory just like money did not the Iowa victory for Clinton.  Obama won Iowa by the activists.  Clinton won by her hard work and her organization’s (or Governor Ed Rendall’s organization) hard work.  

This race broadened the voter base of Democrats in Pennsylvania.  And this is what advocacy / non-profit groups want.  The organization itself need not lend its name in the campaign in order to reap the benefit of it.  It’s the board members responsibility to participate in individual campaigns in order to gain the political access to the politicians, even though they may be the city council politicians.  It is this type of occasion that the cause focused groups can cultivate the next group of volunteers, big ticket donors, board members, fundraisers.  A broadening base means a longer list of “concerned citizens”.

When an election gets voters excited, voters are more willing to increase their level of civic participation, be it scrutineer, dropping flyer for an advocacy group, phone bank caller for a fundraising campaign of MADD, or even better attendance for the local recycling organization.  Although this race is dragging on, this serves as an opportunity for all non-profit groups to enlarge their voice and base.  

Leadership is wanted when voters are unable to specify their needs.  When change is wanted without a laundry list is change for the sake of change.  A victory by promoting leadership shows people want to be led, people expect someone who knows better than they do.  

Carter says Hamas is ready.  Why is Hamas “ready for peace” all of a sudden?  What does it mean to us?  Carter’s full transcript is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4641038

Middle East is a difficult place to negotiate peace.  It is even more difficult between Israel and the rest of the Middle East.  Israel, due to historical baggage or lack of military depth, does not deal with anyone who does not recognize its existence. 

Hamas understands they do not much chips to bargain with since Palestine is small, no resources to fight.  The best they can do is to use their quantity and determination to maximize the damage in order to draw a negotiation.  Their pledge to destroy Israel could be a real commitment among the religious zealots but cannot be taken seriously among the politicians in Hamas. 

The question for Hamas should always have been timing: Are we ready to negotiate?  They could have been ready for a while and we just do not hear much about it.  These are the reasons they could be ready: they are confident they will be able to direct the debate in the next referendum, should a truce be produced with Israel and Abbas; Egypt is pushing toward an end game; they have completely digested their political gain from 2006 and military seizure of Gaza.

If peace deal is produced, Hamas would want to defeat it if it is not to the Hamas’ liking.  Given that they are a grass root movement and they had a good election infrastructure proven by 2006 election victory, they should be able to feel that they are the ones who will have the veto power of the next peace process product: a truce. 

Ever since Israel no longer manages the Gaza border with Egypt, this border became open and thus the border management became the responsibility of Egypt.  And it would be difficult for Egypt to say no for people moving in and out of Gaza.  So, this border management issue became a refugee management issue literally.  For Israel, since peace means co-existence, two-state is inevitable.  So, why border with it? Let it be someone’s problem.  And if it became Egypt’s problem, Israel can make the argument that Egypt is failing in the war against terrorism.  Now Egypt may have a greater incentive than before to push for a quicker resolution. 

Hamas would not want to get eat more than they can chew.  They were the underdog; they had to win over Fatah in order to face Israel.  Then they won the election without “representation” internationally.  Now they have a complete control of some territory, they now do not only have some vague concept of militia before the international media, but the military force in Gaza, electoral majority from 2006 election, they can be ready. 

Hamas have a few good chips on their hands: 1) any deal needs democratic affirmation and they had the majority, so their opinion counts; 2) they out gunned everyone in the last battle (Gaza), they are here to stay and no one can get rid of them; 3) the pledge of “destruction of Israel” is on the table for negotiation. 

For Israel, they know they will always be outnumbered.  Even within Israel the Arab population is the fastest growing population.  Peace cannot come from military might, for it requires an extinction of the enemy.  When Hamas did not have any kind of mandate, Israel could afford not to negotiate to Hamas.  After 2006, it would be a difficult proposition.  Both sides needed a proper stage to facilitate en entry. 

Carter may want to project this issue in the election.  If Bush really wants to accomplish something like he said he was going to try, he could use this opportunity.  Israel would want to wait and see who the next president is to formulate their next course of action.  2008 is unlikely to be the year for this kind of breakthrough. 

The most important thing is Hamas will recognize a referendum.  Hamas refusal to recognizing Israel will be dropped if the populace takes peace and precedence.  Hamas cannot recognize Israel without a price.

Bush announced his goals on climate change.  Sierra Club already says Bush’s plan will require a miracle to save our planet.  Even McCain’s ideas are more agressive than Bush’s.  Very little is said about climate change in yesterday’s Pennsylvania presidential debate between Clinton and Obama.  Why is Bush anouncing something so useless and so late?   Is it part of his last minute legacy plan?  How does it relate to my non-profit organization when it is not an advocate of climate change?

This is his stall tactics. 

Getting a bill passed requires a process in the congress and senate.  It goes through committee, agenda arrangement, scope definition, text proof reading among members and aides, negotiation among members, parties and administration.  By providing something (anything), it takes off some of this momentum to his goals. 

Bush realizes that something will get passed in the next administration.  But providing something so vague, he can drag the bargain wide open for the next round of lobbying and thus provide a possibility of pushing a resolution less aggressive than it otherwise would be. 

In other words, he is not aiming for any kind of success.  He is aiming for a pay back to his constituence.  He is not even aiming for a legacy.

However, one point is worth noting: if Bush recognizes the need to address this issue, it will be difficult for anyone in the future to deny climate change.  The remaining question will be what and how: what should be done and how to get it done.

A lot of attention will be focused on what the emission will be.  However, the how question will affect more people in a wider range than media will be able to focus on.  Advocacy groups/nonprofit organizations representing interests not directly affected by the emission will have to pay attention on the how question.  Unfortunately, since media do not focus on the how part, advocacy groups and nonprofit usually lose their sight of it. Here are two examples to achieve the same goal with different implementations and their corresponding effects outside of pollution.

Example: emission legislation requires enforcement.  This will increase the government budget, i.e taxes.  Who gets the worst of it? Small business since cost of compliance always takes up a higher proportion of cost than a big business.  Emission can also be achieved by placing a higher gas tax and increasing personal income tax exemption at the same time without affecting the federal government’s revenue as well as its budgeting.  And the effect will be significantly different in aspects outside of the pollution. 

The former will increase government participation in the overall economy.  The latter will not.  The latter will at the same time help elevate the tax burden on the lowest income bracket tax payers, same the $10k/year income group.  Now, the poverty group suddenly have an interest in how the goals are achieved. 

When attention is so focused on emission, attention on other pressing issues are forgotten.  That is why climate change can be percevied, as an elitest cause, as a competing interest against other interest groups, say proverty groups.  It needs not be.  In fact, groups of different causes can exploit opportunities of any issue to further its own goal without sacrificing the issue of the moment. 

And exactly because advocacy groups and nonprofit organizations may not be able to follow these legislation details as well as being not able to provide these suggestions to complement the legislation to achieve its goals (piggy bag), politicians now can service the interests of the lobbyists’ paying customers without much scrutiny.   Therefore, if the issue of the moment is to discourage a certain behaviour (pollution), then your organization can always advocate to tax that behaviour and cut taxes (or spend that same tax revenue) for your constituence (seniors, students, low income, domestic abuse victim).

Fiscal policy is boring.  However, that is the most effectively way to modify the aggregate behaviour to achieve a goal.  Aggregately, people adjust their behaviour to the most use of their budget.  Even people who do not subscribe to that specific ideology now gets taxed and contributed to the cause.  An issue completely unrelated to your organization’s goal can help you when the implementation can be compromised to your favour.  In fact, you can suddenly become an ally of any issue of the moment, if you can demonstrate you can mobilize votes to support a legislation.

The DNC establishment fears (or so we have been reading) an Obama vs Clinton will become a bloodbath, tear the party apart and send the White House to McCain as a complimentary retirement package.  Obama and Clinton are doing exactly what the Democrats have failed to do for 4 decades.  This is a rare opportunity a lot of small charities never managed to have such an impact in a presidential nomination race.

Even if Victor DiMaio will not file another lawsuit against DNC, this nomination race exposed the problem with staging the primaries at different times.  

Nomination and fundraising rules are the two key elements in politics.  Nomination process is a product vetting process, no different from any other decision process in a company board room, charity board room or even high school student government.  This process has to assure all relevant inputs are included into the process, vetted by participants and competitively assessed.  If a process is made to be “not competitively”, it only damages the success of the output in the market place.  In the long run, it will damage the brand.  All products bearing the brand will get discounted, given the time is long enough for the damage to wear into the minds of the consumers.  

Voter turn out increases when there is much at stake.  Read this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-06-voterregistrations_N.htm

This is not only true in this Democratic primary, but also true across all democracies.  Voters will go watch a game when a game is competitive.  TV stations get a higher viewership for the same reason.  

A prolonged primary will force both candidates to build their political infrastructure in the battling states.  The beneficiary is actually the local party.  The state democrats will have a chance to get a higher voter turn out, a higher voter registration, a higher volunteer participation, a higher donation head count as well as dollar amount, more party membership.  A next generation of staffers actually gets more opportunities for training, be they aspiring city councilors, school board district candidates or even nonprofits/charities which have a strong commitment to a cause.  

Charities and advocacy groups now have a much more publicized opportunity to reach the general audience, recruit volunteers, generate donations, outreach and build a bigger infrastructure.  An election is not only for the candidates, but also for every organized civic cause.

There is more.  These late primary states now have much better political access to the candidates than before.  Their concerns now get a chance to get exemplified to the level they never experienced before.  Even a state legislator can have a chance to talk to the presidential hopefuls via a telephone rather than a staffer (or a receptionist) of the candidate.  Every organization that can mobilize voters for voter registration or voter turn out now has a much better chance to influence a presidential candidate than before.

Whom does a newly elected official owe more favours?  The king makers.  And now these late states get more bragging rights and become a heavier weight in the next presidency.  Everyone is now checking their balance sheets of favours owed and favours made to get the biggest block of super delegates.  Even organizations which maintain their own balance sheet should check too.  And if your organization can manage a small amount of soft money for a House Representative race, you now have a chance to influence this super delegate’s vote in Denver.  The super delegates, in particular the super delegates of these final states, should embrace this rare opportunity.  So do the voters of these super delegates too. 

Is it unfair to a voter among the states of Super Tuesday?  Certainly, undoubtedly so.  This system was born in 1968.  And it took 40 years for Victor DiMaio to file a lawsuit (and got dismissed).  

*A lot of progress has been made in political science regarding improving voting systems.  The current Democrat system can be found by keywords McGovern-Fraser Commission.