Brendan Nyhan

  • WSJ dissembles on FL-13 controversy

    In a silly editorial, the non-reality-based editors of the Wall Street Journal offer groundless speculation that the undervotes under dispute in Florida’s 13th Congressional district race were mostly Republican:

    [I]f anyone ought to be complaining about undervotes, it’s the GOP. Sarasota is the largest and most Republican county in the district, yet the Democrat, Ms. Jennings, carried it handily. In fact, it’s the only county in the district that she did carry, which makes it more likely that it was Republicans who declined to vote in the Congressional race, not Democrats.

    Do they do any research before writing these things? The Orlando Sentinel demolished this possibility more than a week ago:

    The group of nearly 18,000 voters that registered no choice in Sarasota’s disputed congressional election solidly backed Democratic candidates in all five of Florida’s statewide races, an Orlando Sentinel analysis of ballot data shows.

    Among these voters, even the weakest Democrat — agriculture-commissioner candidate Eric Copeland — outpaced a much-better-known Republican incumbent by 551 votes.

    Meanwhile, if you want to read a serious analysis of why it seems like something went wrong in Sarasota County, the respected MIT political scientist Charles Stewart III submitted an expert deposition for the Jennings campaign in the court case there that is highly instructive.

  • Misleading Washington Times reporting on taxes

    The Washington Times once again misleads its readers with right-wing agitprop:

    Though Republicans dramatically sliced taxes without money in the budget, they now can point to historic levels of tax receipts because of the healthy economy that was, they say, spurred by the tax cut.

    “They now can point to historic levels of tax receipts”? Total tax receipts may be up, but real revenues per capita are flat, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out:

    Even when the stronger revenue growth now projected for 2006 is taken into account, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level they reached more than five years ago when the current business cycle began in March 2001. (March 2001 was the peak, and thus the end, of the previous business cycle and the start of the current business cycle.) In contrast, in previous post-World War II business cycles, total real per-capita revenue growth over the five and a half years following the business cycle peak has averaged about 10 percent.

    For more on tax cut myths, see CBPP’s excellent primer on the subject.

  • Disturbing: Seinfeld DVD sales up?

    I assumed Michael Richards’ racist diatribe would kill sales on the Seinfeld season 7 DVD, but it’s actually boosting them (via Drudge):

    THE K-K-Kramer scandal murdered Michael Richards’ career – but it’s doing wonders for sales of the latest “Seinfeld” DVD.

    Season 7 of the popular sitcom is outselling the Season 6 set (released on the same day last year) by more than 75 percent, and more than 90 percent over season 5 at some online DVD retailers, according to TMZ.com.

    If Mel Gibson’s “Apocalytpo” succeeds at the box office (it’s coming out Dec. 8), will racist diatribes become a Hollywood career move?

    Update 12/1 12:34 PM: Readers have offered some good methodological critiques of the Post article, which is ambiguously worded. As they point out, it’s not surprising that season 7 is selling better than season 6 right now. The question is whether season 7 is selling better now than season 6 did in the same period. Some articles suggest that it has already outsold the previous discs, but it’s not entirely clear.

  • New IRS data on income and inequality

    The indispensable David Cay Johnston of the New York Times writes about new IRS data showing that average incomes declined from 2000 to 2004:

    Despite significant gains in 2004, the total income Americans reported to the tax collector that year, adjusted for inflation, was still below its peak in 2000, new government data shows.

    Reported income totaled $7.044 trillion in 2004, the latest year for which data is available, down from more than $7.143 trillion in 2000, new Internal Revenue Service data shows.

    Total reported income, in 2004 dollars, fell 1.4 percent, but because the population grew during that period average real incomes declined more than twice as much, falling $1,641, or 3 percent, to $53,974.

    … Analysis of the I.R.S. data by The New York Times found that average reported incomes fell or were virtually flat at the end of the period at every level of income except for the poorest 26 million taxpayers, the bottom fifth. Those impoverished taxpayers made less than $11,166 each in 2004 and had an average income of $5,743, up $135 or 2.4 percent, from the year 2000.

    Here’s the relevant graphic from the article:

    28taxgraphic

    Johnston’s article also illustrates just how unequal the American economy has become over the last 25 years:

    Incomes after 2000 fell the most among those at the top of the income ladder.

    The top one-tenth of 1 percent, about 130,500 taxpayers, reported their average income fell almost 17 percent, to just under $4.9 million each in 2004. Because of the tax cuts after-tax incomes fell by a significantly smaller amount, 12.1 percent.

    Still, those very top households, which include about 300,000 Americans, reported significantly more pretax income combined than the poorest 120 million Americans earned in 2004, the data show. This was a sharp change from 1979, the oldest year examined by the I.R.S., when the thin slice at the top received about one-third of the total income of the big group at the bottom.

    Over all, average incomes rose 27 percent in real terms over the quarter-century from 1979 through 2004. But the gains were narrowly concentrated at the top and offset by losses for the bottom 60 percent of Americans, those making less than $38,761 in 2004.

    The bottom 60 percent of Americans, on average, made less than 95 cents in 2004 for each dollar they reported in 1979, analysis of the I.R.S. data shows.

    The next best-off group, the fifth of Americans on the 60th to 80th rungs of the income ladder, averaged 2 cents more income in 2004 for each dollar they earned in 1979.

    Only those in the top 5 percent had significant gains. The average income of those on the 95th to 99th rungs of the income ladder rose by 53 percent, almost twice the average rate.

    A third of the entire national increase in reported income went to the top 1 percent — and more than half of that went to the top tenth of 1 percent, whose average incomes soared so much that for each dollar, adjusted for inflation, that they had in 1979 they had $3.48 in 2004.

    Because of cuts in the tax rate, the top tenth of 1 percent did even better than their rising incomes alone would suggest. For each inflation-adjusted dollar they had after tax in 1979 they had $3.94 left after taxes in 2004.

    For the bottom 60 percent, their income taxes were so small in 1979 that the cuts did little to change their after-tax incomes. While their pretax average incomes fell by a nickel on the dollar from 1979 to 2004, their after-tax incomes fell by a fraction of a penny less.

    It’s shocking that the bottom sixty percent are doing worse than they were in 1979 – shocking that everyone doesn’t know this, and shocking that our political system is not mobilizing to do something about it.

    When I contacted him by email, Johnston reported that his data came from the data tables here. The paper based on those tables (PDF) includes a graphic that shows just how much the national income distribution has become skewed toward the very top:

    Irsgraphic

    For too long, any attempt to talk about inequality has been silenced with claims of “class warfare.” I think the issue is finally going to come back to the forefront. Senator-elect Jim Webb of Virginia, in particular, has already written a Wall Street Journal op-ed about it:

    The most important–and unfortunately the least debated–issue in politics today is our society’s steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America’s top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.

  • Nominations I’ll accept

    I’m flattered New York Press columnist Russ Smith included me on his list of “quixotic suggestions” to replace John Tierney on the Times op-ed page, though the idea gives new meaning to “quixotic.” And while I’m at it, I’d like a BMW M3 for Christmas…

  • Hotsoup continues third party hype

    The useless Hotsoup.com is still trying to generate PR by getting its big-name founders to exaggerate the unlikely third party threat in 2008.

    I wrote about it last month when Hotsoup’s Joe Lockhart and Mark McKinnon published an op-ed in which they described an alleged “disenchanted middle” that is “ripe for the plucking by a third-party insurgency in 2008.”

    Co-founder Ron Fournier has now published an MSNBC.com column quoting the same two alleged experts going even further. Here’s the statement attributed to Joe Lockhart:

    If 2008 rolls around and not much has changed, the caucuses and primaries descend into their normal petty bickering and negative ads and debates, a new force will inevitably take shape. There has been much talk throughout our history of third parties. But it’s been mostly talk. Every three or four decades we have a challenge to our two-party system, a challenge that recedes as quickly as it came along.

    2008 could be different. There are too many structural reasons to go into that make a third-party candidacy more legitimate in 2008. Suffice it to say; those structural differences mixed in with the mood of the country create a toxic brew for our two-party system.

    If “the caucuses and primaries descend into their normal petty bickering and negative ads and debates, a new force will inevitably take shape”? “[I]nevitably”? What mysterious “structural reasons” could possibly justify a statement like that? For the reasons I’ve outlined numerous times, a successful third party candidacy for the presidency is implausible. For that reason, no one serious is likely to run.

    In the piece, Fournier then quotes McKinnon:

    If things keep going they way they have been, 2008 may make the voter of 1992 look like a bunch of happy campers. The time could be more than ripe for another third-party bid, especially if centrist, bipartisan candidates like McCain and Obama get bounced from their respective primaries.

    All it will take is someone who understands just how hungry voters are for a third way. Someone with a lot of ambition and smarts. And someone with a whole lot of money. Wait, this sounds a lot like Mayor Mike Bloomberg in New York.

    That’s right; Mike Bloomberg could be the Ross Perot of 2008. And I believe he’s not just thinking about it, but has some very talented aides cooking up plans in laboratory in the bowels of Gotham City. If he’s smart, he’ll wait to see how the primaries shake out, find the best person to lead the ticket, make himself the vice presidential candidate (which he has to do in order to fund the effort), and off they’ll go shake up the great race in 2008.

    Is this all Hotsoup has to contribute — third party speculation from the founders? What about the sage wisdom of their readers? Oh, wait:

    Hotsoup

  • Roger L. Simon: Ideology out of date

    Roger L. Simon, the screenwriter/novelist/blogger who co-founded Pajamas Media, sounds like one of the crazed blog triumphalists circa 2002-2003 in this embarrassing quote from a few weeks ago:

    Like Townhall, Pajamas Media leans to the right politically, but Simon is unhappy about it. “Ideology is so last-millennium,” he said, adding that he’d like to bring more liberal contributors to the site.

    So ideology has no relevance to contemporary politics? It’s out of date? Maybe I need to wear pajamas to understand why a sentence that stupid has any place in a major newspaper.

  • The Alcee Hastings concession letter

    From The Corner by way of The Plank, Alcee Hastings ends his letter announcing he won’t be chair of the House Intelligence committee with the best closing of a political concession announcement ever:

    Best of all, I will be seeking better and bigger opportunities in a Democratic Congress. There is much to be accomplished and little time to re-set this nation’s economic and spiritual compass. I look forward to working with our new Speaker of the House and all of my colleagues to see that we do this at once.

    Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet.

  • Sanity prevails: Hastings out

    Some good news – Nancy Pelosi turned back from the abyss:

    Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, impeached as a federal judge in 1989 on corruption charges, dropped his bid under pressure on Tuesday to chair a congressional panel designed to help protect America’s security, a party aide said.

    Hastings took the action after being told by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in line to head the U.S. House of Representatives when the new Congress convenes in January, that she would not give him the coveted job, the aide said.

  • The subjectivity of defining an electoral “wave”

    Via Mickey Kaus, here’s top election analyst Charlie Cook illustrating the subjectivity of defining an electoral “wave” (just like mandates):

    Do the math: An 11-point Democratic lead on the generic ballot test, minus 5 points for the gauge’s Democratic skew, translated into a 6-point Democratic victory. When the 6-point Democratic popular vote win is measured against the GOP’s 5-point win in 2002 and its 3-point win in 2004, it clearly constituted a wave.

    Kaus rightly slams Cook for using a one point difference in the national margin to draw the line between a wave and non-wave:

    Wow. So in 2002, a humdrum, non-wave election, the GOP won by 5 points. But this year, in a “wave election that rivaled the 1994 tsunami,” the Dems won by 6 points. See? No wave: 5. Wave: 6! Cook has a powerful way of putting things.