Categories
Politics & government

[1518] Of Ayatollah Huckabee lost

Mr. Mike “I-want-to-change-the-Constitution” Huckabee lost the South Carolina’s primaries. Just days before the South Coralina’s primaries, Huckabee said this (via):

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view. [Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in ‘God’s standards’. The Raw Story. January 15 2008]

Though it is hard to say how his call for God’s standard affected his odd of winning the primaries, I am sure we will find out soon. But why his loss in South Carolina is so important?

Mr. Huckabee’s loss in a Southern state with a strong turnout of religious voters was a setback to his campaign as it heads toward potentially less hospitable states. [McCain Has Big Win in South Carolina; Huckabee Falls Short. NYT. January 20 2008]

As for Iowa where he won earlier (before the Ayatollah expressed his desire to undo secularism in the US), his appeals to the Christian right might actually put the Catholics off:

One of the commenters to my post below suggested that Mike Huckabee was unlikely to do well among Catholics. Philip Klinkner (who is really blogging interesting stuff on the races) has some county-level data from Iowa suggesting that this is true. [Huckabee, Romney and Catholics. Crooked Timber. January 7 2008]

The Crooked Timber has graphics to show how Huckabee fared in Catholic-dominated countries in Iowa.

And yes, Ron Paul has outdone Giuliani for four out of six times now: Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina all prefer Paul to Giuliani. In Nevada, Ron Paul is second!

I am not the only one whom are excited of Dr. Paul’s consistent performance against Giuliani:

In case you’re wondering how fringe candidate Ron Paul has fared against “front-runner” Rudy Giuliani, here are the approximate popular vote totals for both candidates so far this primary season (including 93% reporting from South Carolina):
Paul: 105,848 votes
Giuliani: 60,213 votes [Go Ron Paul. Daily Kos. January 19 2008]

As a result so far, Paul has approximately 6 delegates behind him. Giuliani has only abot 2. The front runner is Romney with possibly 68 delegates.[1]

I used to have high hope for Giuliani but as time progressed and as I learned more about each Republican as well as Democrat candidate, it became clear that his position on the question liberty and security does not match mine. With other candidates possibly mirroring his more palatable positions, it was not hard to remove him from my list.

I know that Ron Paul has no chance of winning but I think, like all that support him, it is mostly about principles and issues rather than a bandwagon effect that plagues many observers and voters alike. David Brooks may have described many voters succinctly two days ago:

In reality, we voters — all of us — make emotional, intuitive decisions about who we prefer, and then come up with post-hoc rationalizations to explain the choices that were already made beneath conscious awareness. ”People often act without knowing why they do what they do,” Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, noted in an e-mail message to me this week. ”The fashion of political writing this year is to suggest that people choose their candidate by their stand on the issues, but this strikes me as highly implausible.” [How Voters Think. David Brooks. NYT. January 18 2008]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — See Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries at Wikipedia. [↩]

Categories
Politics & government

[1511] Of Ron Paul outperforms Giuliani again!

Ron Paul has outdone Giuliani yet again. This time, it is in Michigan!

Fair use. Copyrights by NYT.

It is good to remember that Michigan primaries is more important to the Republicans than to the Democrats. Indeed, unless the penalty on Michigan is removed, Clinton’s win is practically worthless. And it is good to note that Wastenaw, the country which Ann Arbor is situated in, is one of two counties that refuse to commit to anybody (read, Clinton), probably in protest of the penalty imposed on Michigan.

For the Republicans, three different candidates — Huckabee, McCain and Romney — have won three different primaries.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1509] Of a rational world with perfect information makes fuel prices hike irrelevant

There is strong expectation that fuel prices will increase after the expected upcoming general election and the impetus for such expectation is clear. The Malaysian government’s no-hike guarantee lapsed as 2007 regressed into history while crude oil prices have increased significantly since the last hike took place.[1] Meanwhile, prices hike is a very unpopular move[2] and it can be disastrous for any incumbent facing an election. While the reasoning does make sense, it somehow reminds me of the Ricardian equivalence. Indeed, I am inclined to say that given strong expectation of a hike, it does not matter when the hike will take place. In other words, assuming rational individuals with perfect information, fuel prices hike is irrelevant to the result of the expected Malaysian election.

First of all, while I mentioned Ricardian equivalence, the economic theory has only a hint of relevance to the issue at hand. I will not go into the theory in great detail but somewhere along its rationale, the concept suggests that it does not matter when the state raises funds through one-time taxation or debt.[3] The effect will be the same with only one exception: timing difference. This is because individuals accommodate their expectation and shape their behavior accordingly. In either case, between raising debt or rising tax, individuals changes their saving and spending levels to make their lives less painful especially given the eventuality of taxation in the scenario. This is where the concept influences my thought on how fuel prices hike affects Malaysian election.

Honestly, if people greatly suspect that fuel prices hike will follow the election in the tradition of fatalism, assuming the incumbent stays in power, does it matter when the hike will occur?

There is a speeding train running on an unfinished track leading to a horrifying large canyon with no chance of halting the train. You know that the train will be at the bottom of the canyon within the next few minutes. Assuming you actually care for self-preservation, does it matter when you should jump off the train as long as you do not end up at the bottom of the gorge with your face rearranged?

The nature of fatalism is that it is unavoidable and one might as well accept it. Through interaction with a lot of people, I have the perception that they embrace fatalism as far as the fuel prices hike is concerned. There is a clear resignation that nothing could be done about it among them. I have to admit though that I am one of those fatalists and actually support a hike. In fact, I advocate taxation along with floating prices arrangement but that is another issue altogether.

Alas, not all of us are privy to complete information regarding the hike. On top of that, not all of us are a fatalist, either by ignorance or special knowledge. In an imperfect world unfortunately, fuel prices hike will affect the election to a certain degree.

While the conclusion may look like mere mental masturbation and irrelevant to the real world, it does inform policymakers, or rather, the incumbents on how to manage the general public expectation to the incumbents’ benefit, given belief in fatalism and imperfect information. I will share some thought on the matter later.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5 (Bernama) — The government has reiterated several times that there would be no increase in the price of oil or gas products for the year 2007.

But the reprieve is expected not to last long as we enter the new year and as global fuel prices continued to surge.

Oil prices added nearly US$12 a barrel since the start of October and reached US$93.80 (about RM313) a barrel last Monday (Oct 30) and US$96.24 (about RM321) on Nov 1. Some reports have also mentioned that oil prices could break the US$100 mark if risk factors influencing the sharp rise are to continue. [Bracing For Another Price Hike For Fuel Products. Bernama. Extracted November 5 2007]

[2] — As expected, Malaysians reacted with shock, frustration and anger to having to pay 30 sen more for every litre of petrol and diesel.

Unexpected was the ferocity of sentiment on the ground a day after the biggest single petrol price hike. The common man, already feeling the pinch of the rising cost of living, spewed a litany of complaints and grouses. Consumer groups and trade unions warned the fuel price hike would set off a chain reaction across the board. [Price hike pain for RM4.4b gain. New Straits Times. March 1 2006]

[3] — See Wikipedia for more on Ricardian equivalence.

Categories
Politics & government

[1508] Of expect Democrat but prefer Republican

From the Wall Street Journal (via):

When asked whom they expect to win the presidency, 63% of the economists in the survey picked a Democrat — with their choice split between Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, with 33% of the total, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, with 30%. (The survey was conducted before Mrs. Clinton’s win in New Hampshire.) Republican Sen. John McCain was the pick of 30% of economists, with two other Republicans, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, each getting 3%.

However, when asked their personal preference, the economists favored Republicans. Sen. McCain led the field with 39% of the forecasters’ votes, compared with 11% for Mr. Giuliani and 7% for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Among Democrats, Sen. Obama edged Sen. Clinton, 14% to 11%, while former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards took 4%. [Odds of Recession Seen Rising. Wall Street Journal. January 11 2008]

I share the same sentiment and I have rationalized it earlier last year.

Categories
Politics & government

[1506] Of those wierdos whom are NH Republicans

Ehem… WTF?

Exit polls found 64 percent of Tuesday’s Republican voters still support the conflict — and Romney, whose criticism of President Bush’s management of the war has been muted, outpolled McCain in that category.

But among the 34 percent who said they disapproved of the war, McCain had a wide advantage over the GOP field — even over Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the sole advocate of a U.S. withdrawal in the Republican field. [A ‘very personal victory’ for McCain in New Hampshire. CNN. January 9 2008]

The anti-war Republicans voted for a pro-war candidate?

I know, I know. Ron Paul has no chance in this world but anti-war Republicans for McCain? That is just out of this world. But yeah, yeah. I know. There are issues other than the war.

After the New Hampshire’s primaries, I think an Obama-Clinton, or a Clinton-Obama campaign is inevitable. Those combinations are most popular at the moment. That is, unless, of course, for some reason, Obama and Clinton hate each other enough that they would not work with each other. There is no doubt that there is still a long way to go but most polls for future races show first and second place for Clinton and Obama respectively or vice versa. Even a poll conducted over a month ago for South Carolina, the state which Edwards was a senator once, shows that Edwards is behind you know who.[1] It is another story for the Republicans though.

As I have said earlier, if I cannot have Paul, I will back Romney. Having Mankiw as an adviser is too cool a factor to resist!

Oh, Mankiw is an adviser to Romney, in case you did not know:

Mitt Romney gets advice from some of my favorite economists.

Update: Several readers have asked for more details about my involvement here.

I first met Governor Romney several years ago, but only briefly at that time. Recently, I have talked with him more substantively about a range of economic policy issues. I was impressed by his intellect, open-mindedness, and overall economic philosophy.

I was honored when he asked me to serve in a more formal advisory capacity. My role will be that of an outside adviser. My teaching at Harvard will continue to be my main responsibility and the focus of my attention, and the posts on this blog will reflect those priorities. [Advisers to Mitt. Greg Mankiw’s Blog. November 29 2006]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — From the NYT:

Fair use. Copyrights by NYT.

[South Carolina’s Primaries. NYT. Extracted January 8 2008]