Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Italians Head to Voting Booths, Election Ends 9:00AM EST Monday; Surge for Grillo and "The Apathy Factor" Will Doom Bersani Coalition
Voting booths are open in Italy though 3:00PM Monday (9:00AM EST). Exit polls will trickle in soon after but early exit polls could be misleading. If the result is close will may not know for over a day.
The Wall Street Journal offers this Italian Election Guide.
Italian voters can cast ballots Sunday and until 0900 ET Monday, after which exit polls will provide quick but approximate insight into the probable result of the election.
The center-left coalition led by Democratic Left leader Pier Luigi Bersani was five percentage points ahead of Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right coalition according to the average of polls before a blackout on such surveys kicked in two weeks ago, giving it clear front-runner status.
Exit polls in 2006 and 2008 underestimated votes cast for Mr. Berlusconi, but unless Italy’s 51 million eligible voters shifted dramatically in recent days, Mr. Bersani should – even with fewer than a third of the ballots cast – win a plurality, meaning his coalition will be awarded a majority of seats in the 630-seat lower legislative chamber.
Shift Has Taken Place
The Journal says “unless Italy’s 51 million eligible voters shifted dramatically in recent days, Mr. Bersani should win a plurality.“
I suggest such a shift has taken place. The open question regards turnout and apathy, not a shift, per se.
Loser’s Penalty
In the Chamber (the lower House of parliament) the party with the largest plurality in the national vote gets a majority (54%) of the seats. In the Senate (the upper chamber of parliament) each of 17 Italy’s regions operate independently and the winner of each region gets a majority (55%) of the region’s seats.
There are 315 seats in the Senate. Lombardy, Italy’s largest region gets 49 seats and the winner will take 27 seats (55%). The other parties will split the remaining 22. Second place may only get 10.
The Journal sums it up this way.
“If Mr. Bersani wins all 17 regions, his coalition will have 178 seats and a commanding upper-house majority. However, if he loses Lombardy, the most populuous region, he will have only 162 seats. If he wins Lombardy but loses Veneto – a near certainty given polling trends – and also loses Sicily – to Mr. Grillo rather than Mr. Berlusconi – the center-left will have 159 Senate seats, a razor-thin majority.“
Not So Fast
I am not convinced Bersani wins the Chamber, let alone the Senate. Some 22-25% of Italians were undecided in the election polls before blackout two weeks ago. Since then, I suggest (based on crowd turnout and social media comments) that there has been a surge for Beppe Grillio and Silvio Berlusconi.
The last election polls before the blackout look like this:
- Bersani center-left 34.5%
- Berlusconi center-right 29%
- Beppe Grillo’s Five-Star Movement 19%
- Monti Civic Choice 12%.
Given the number of undecided voters, Bersani can easily drop 3% or more (and I suspect more). If Berlusconi and/or Grillo gets a huge percent of the undecided votes, Bersani can easily drop to second or even third place.
Senate Coalition Unlikely
Monti is a lost cause and I doubt he gets more than 10%, making a Senate coalition unlikely if not impossible.
I commented on the possibility of a win by Berlusconi or Grillo in Germany Warns Against “Silvio the Savior” (And That May Backfire); Fake Horse Race Odds Get Around Blackouts.
Reader “AC” who is from Italy but now lives in France writes …
Hi Mish
After a hung parliament, the next most likely outcome may very well be the Five Star Movement (M5S) getting an absolute majority. Rage against the political class is extremely high in Italy, everything that looks “new” is getting votes. Grillo was able to catch the sentiment shift with extremely populist proposals even though his economic program is quite incoherent if not blatantly preposterous.
Grillo support comes from the youngest part of the population.
Undecided voters may not vote at all (in Italy you do not have to register to have right to vote, you are registered by default) or they will probably shift massively to Grillo. The outcome will depend on whether the undecideds stay home.
How Grillo’s parliament members will react as newly elected officials is a real unknown. Grillo himself will not be in the Parliament, and his party will be quite young. None of them have much political experience, even not in smaller city councils.
What they will do? How they will react? Nobody knows. That’s the most “fascinating” thing of M5S, completely new people of a completely new party managed in a completely new way. Grillo and his candidates never did a single minute of TV interview during the whole campaign. They decided to ignore completely TV (but TV has not completely ignored them). This also is completely new, probably new in the modern world.
I do not think Berlusconi will be able to win this time. He has definitely lost a part of his voters, those that expected from him to keep his past promises.
The hung parliament is the most likely outcome, as I said months ago, and I do not even think that Bersani and Monti together will have majority.
Last but not least: Monti has declared yesterday that Merkel was not comfortable with Bersani as Prime Minister, but Merkel officially denied the minute after. Really a strange declaration from a man like Monti that made of international credibility its main “value proposition”.
Regards
AC
The Apathy Factor
I expect a surge of voter enthusiasm for Grillo that will take votes away from Bersani and Berlusconi. Somewhat paradoxically, I also expect a surge in apathy where voters stay home.
The apathy I refer to is not on the Grillo or Berlusconi side, but apathy for Bersani and Monti. Certainly the campaign by Monti is anemic. Thus, unless there is a late surge of energy for Bersani (and I highly doubt there is), Bersani is going to come up short.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Italians Head to Voting Booths, Election Ends 9:00AM EST Monday; Surge for Grillo and "The Apathy Factor" Will Doom Bersani Coalition
Italians Head to Voting Booths, Election Ends 9:00AM EST Monday; Surge for Grillo and "The Apathy Factor" Will Doom Bersani Coalition
Voting booths are open in Italy though 3:00PM Monday (9:00AM EST). Exit polls will trickle in soon after but early exit polls could be misleading. If the result is close will may not know for over a day.
The Wall Street Journal offers this Italian Election Guide.
Italian voters can cast ballots Sunday and until 0900 ET Monday, after which exit polls will provide quick but approximate insight into the probable result of the election.
The center-left coalition led by Democratic Left leader Pier Luigi Bersani was five percentage points ahead of Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right coalition according to the average of polls before a blackout on such surveys kicked in two weeks ago, giving it clear front-runner status.
Exit polls in 2006 and 2008 underestimated votes cast for Mr. Berlusconi, but unless Italy’s 51 million eligible voters shifted dramatically in recent days, Mr. Bersani should – even with fewer than a third of the ballots cast – win a plurality, meaning his coalition will be awarded a majority of seats in the 630-seat lower legislative chamber.
Shift Has Taken Place
The Journal says “unless Italy’s 51 million eligible voters shifted dramatically in recent days, Mr. Bersani should win a plurality.“
I suggest such a shift has taken place. The open question regards turnout and apathy, not a shift, per se.
Loser’s Penalty
In the Chamber (the lower House of parliament) the party with the largest plurality in the national vote gets a majority (54%) of the seats. In the Senate (the upper chamber of parliament) each of 17 Italy’s regions operate independently and the winner of each region gets a majority (55%) of the region’s seats.
There are 315 seats in the Senate. Lombardy, Italy’s largest region gets 49 seats and the winner will take 27 seats (55%). The other parties will split the remaining 22. Second place may only get 10.
The Journal sums it up this way.
“If Mr. Bersani wins all 17 regions, his coalition will have 178 seats and a commanding upper-house majority. However, if he loses Lombardy, the most populuous region, he will have only 162 seats. If he wins Lombardy but loses Veneto – a near certainty given polling trends – and also loses Sicily – to Mr. Grillo rather than Mr. Berlusconi – the center-left will have 159 Senate seats, a razor-thin majority.“
Not So Fast
I am not convinced Bersani wins the Chamber, let alone the Senate. Some 22-25% of Italians were undecided in the election polls before blackout two weeks ago. Since then, I suggest (based on crowd turnout and social media comments) that there has been a surge for Beppe Grillio and Silvio Berlusconi.
The last election polls before the blackout look like this:
- Bersani center-left 34.5%
- Berlusconi center-right 29%
- Beppe Grillo’s Five-Star Movement 19%
- Monti Civic Choice 12%.
Given the number of undecided voters, Bersani can easily drop 3% or more (and I suspect more). If Berlusconi and/or Grillo gets a huge percent of the undecided votes, Bersani can easily drop to second or even third place.
Senate Coalition Unlikely
Monti is a lost cause and I doubt he gets more than 10%, making a Senate coalition unlikely if not impossible.
I commented on the possibility of a win by Berlusconi or Grillo in Germany Warns Against “Silvio the Savior” (And That May Backfire); Fake Horse Race Odds Get Around Blackouts.
Reader “AC” who is from Italy but now lives in France writes …
Hi Mish
After a hung parliament, the next most likely outcome may very well be the Five Star Movement (M5S) getting an absolute majority. Rage against the political class is extremely high in Italy, everything that looks “new” is getting votes. Grillo was able to catch the sentiment shift with extremely populist proposals even though his economic program is quite incoherent if not blatantly preposterous.
Grillo support comes from the youngest part of the population.
Undecided voters may not vote at all (in Italy you do not have to register to have right to vote, you are registered by default) or they will probably shift massively to Grillo. The outcome will depend on whether the undecideds stay home.
How Grillo’s parliament members will react as newly elected officials is a real unknown. Grillo himself will not be in the Parliament, and his party will be quite young. None of them have much political experience, even not in smaller city councils.
What they will do? How they will react? Nobody knows. That’s the most “fascinating” thing of M5S, completely new people of a completely new party managed in a completely new way. Grillo and his candidates never did a single minute of TV interview during the whole campaign. They decided to ignore completely TV (but TV has not completely ignored them). This also is completely new, probably new in the modern world.
I do not think Berlusconi will be able to win this time. He has definitely lost a part of his voters, those that expected from him to keep his past promises.
The hung parliament is the most likely outcome, as I said months ago, and I do not even think that Bersani and Monti together will have majority.
Last but not least: Monti has declared yesterday that Merkel was not comfortable with Bersani as Prime Minister, but Merkel officially denied the minute after. Really a strange declaration from a man like Monti that made of international credibility its main “value proposition”.
Regards
AC
The Apathy Factor
I expect a surge of voter enthusiasm for Grillo that will take votes away from Bersani and Berlusconi. Somewhat paradoxically, I also expect a surge in apathy where voters stay home.
The apathy I refer to is not on the Grillo or Berlusconi side, but apathy for Bersani and Monti. Certainly the campaign by Monti is anemic. Thus, unless there is a late surge of energy for Bersani (and I highly doubt there is), Bersani is going to come up short.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Italians Head to Voting Booths, Election Ends 9:00AM EST Monday; Surge for Grillo and "The Apathy Factor" Will Doom Bersani Coalition
4 Bogus Right-Wing Theories About Poverty, and the Real Reason Americans Can’t Make Ends Meet (Hard Times USA)
When is a secret not at all secret? Consider the fact that one in three Americans are poor, if we define it as struggling to cover the basic necessities of life. That"s according to a Census Bureau analysis, and it was reported in the New York Times, but I have yet to hear a politician or pundit make reference to this eye-opening reality of our vaunted “new economy.”
In 2011, the Census Bureau took a new look at the “near-poor” – Americans with incomes between 100 and 150 percent of the poverty line. They found that this group, most of whom earn paychecks and pay taxes, represented a whopping one in six U.S. households – a figure that was almost twice as high as had previously been thought.
When those under the poverty line are added, Census found that a stunning 33 percent of the population was struggling to make ends meet in 2010. Analyzing the Census data, the Working Poor Project suggested that the number of near-poor, which they define as those making between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty line, continued to inch up in 2011 as many returning to work in this sluggish recovery have been forced to settle for lower-paying service jobs.
Nearly four years after economists tell us the “recovery” began, almost half of all American households lack enough savings to stay above the poverty line for three months or more if they should find themselves out of work. Another third are living paycheck to paycheck, teetering on the brink with no savings at all.
It would require a lengthy sociological treatise to fully explain why this isn"t considered a huge national crisis. But one part of the equation is the existence of a long-standing and ideologically informed project by the right to portray the burden of living in or near poverty as a liberal delusion. In these narratives, which come in a variety of forms, the poor have it pretty darn good – good enough that we really shouldn"t spend much time thinking about them.
For these conservative think-tankers, pundits and politicians, obscuring America"s grinding poverty and spiraling inequality is an exercise in service of a status quo that works pretty well for them, but not for most families.
1. But the poor have color TVs.
Consider the boilerplate conservative column about how many wondrous household appliances the average low-income household owns. Back in the 1930s, this argument goes, poor people didn"t have running water, but now they have color TVs, so life is good.
As I write this, my local Craigslist offers multiple televisions, a dining set, several treadmills, a mountain bike, an oven (with hood), a blender, a coffeemaker, a slew of couches and beds, a piano, a hot-tub (needs repair) and a complete stereo system, all free to anyone who will pick them up. We live in a consumer economy that creates an abundance of surplus and rapidly obsolete goods, and people who struggle to put food on the table can nonetheless get their hands on all manner of electronics for nothing.
2. The poor have lots of room to enjoy poverty.
A similar argument holds that in the United States, poor people have more living space, on average, than low-income households in other developed nations. As the Wall Street Journal was eager to point out, “The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.”
Perhaps that"s true, but it"s also divorced from context. There is a simple matter of population density at work: in the core states of the European Union, there are 120 people per square kilometer; in the United States, we only have 29 people per kilometer. And the average is a bit misleading as it includes the rural poor – low-income households in tightly packed urban centers don"t tend to have 1,200-square-foot apartments.
3. The poor are actually rolling in money.
A new and equally distorted argument entered the conservative discourse just recently. It holds that poor families receive $ 168 per day in government benefits – more than the median weekly income in this country. If that were true, low-income households in the United States would enjoy quite comfortable living standards.
But as I noted last month, that number is inflated by around eight-fold. The claim originated with Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation and then underwent some revisions on its journey to Republican congressional staffers, and finally to the conservative media. It gets to that number by counting things like federal aid to rebuild communities after natural disasters as “welfare,” including programs that assist the middle class and the wealthy and then dividing the costs of all these programs by the number of households under the poverty line, despite the fact that many more families benefit from them.
4. It’s just how they are.
And then there are the ever-popular cultural explanations for poverty. This is a storyline based on confusing correlation with causation – a rookie mistake in any introductory college class.
The Heritage Foundation, for example (it"s Robert Rector again), sees a lot of poor, single-parent households, and would have you believe that “the main causes of child poverty are low levels of parental work and the absence of fathers.”
But this gets the causal relationship wrong. The number of single-parent households exploded between the 1970s and the 1990s, more than doubling, yet the poverty rate remained relatively constant. In fact, before the crash of 2008, the poverty rate was lower than it had been in the 1970s. So, as the rate of single-parent households skyrocketed, poverty declined a little bit. Saying single-parent homes create poverty is like claiming the rooster causes the sun to rise.
As I"ve noted in the past, this is an essential piece of the “culture of poverty” narrative, and it is nonsense. Jean Hardisty, the author of Marriage as a Cure for Poverty: A Bogus Formula for Women, cited a number of studies showing that poor women have the same dreams as everyone else: they “often aspire to a romantic notion of marriage and family that features a white picket fence in the suburbs.” But low economic status leads to fewer marriages, not the other way around.
In 1998, the Fragile Families Study looked at 3,700 low-income unmarried couples in 20 U.S. cities. The authors found that 90 percent of the couples living together wanted to tie the knot, but only 15 percent had actually done so by the end of the one-year study period. And here’s the key finding: for every dollar that a man’s hourly wages increased, the odds that he’d get hitched by the end of the year rose by 5 percent. Men earning more than $ 25,000 during the year had twice the marriage rates of those making less than $ 25,000.
Writing up the findings for the Nation, Sharon Lerner noted that poverty itself “seems to make people feel less entitled to marry.” As one father in the survey put it, marriage means “not living from check to check.”
Why People Are Really Poor
During a period of less than 20 years beginning in the early 1980s, the American economy underwent dramatic changes. It was a period of policy-driven de-unionization and the offshoring of millions of decent manufacturing jobs. The tax code underwent dramatic changes, as CEO pay sky-rocketed and the financial sector came to represent a much larger share of our economic output than it had during the four decades or so following World War II.
And our distribution of income changed dramatically as well. During the 35 years prior to Ronald Reagan"s election, the top one percent of U.S. households had taken in an average of 10 percent of the nation"s income. When Reagan left office in 1988, those at the top were grabbing 15.5 percent of the pie, and by the time George W. Bush took office in 2000, they were taking over 20 percent of the nation"s income.
We can either believe that this shift was a result of changes in public policy (combined with new technologies), or that in just two decades there was some sort of rapid cultural decline among everyone but those at the top of the economic heap.
All of the false narratives are intended to distract from the structural causes of poverty and inequality, and they ignore two simple and indisputable truths. First, contrary to popular belief, we don"t all start out with the same opportunities. The reality is that in the United States today, the best predictor of a newborn baby"s economic future is how much money her parents make.
It also ignores the fact that living in an individualistic, capitalist society carries inherent risk. You can do everything right – study hard, work diligently, keep your nose clean – but if you fall victim to a random workplace accident, you can nevertheless end up being disabled in the blink of an eye and find yourself in need of public assistance. You can end up bankrupt under a pile of healthcare bills or you could lose your job if you"re forced to take care of an ailing parent. Children – innocents who aren"t even old enough to work for themselves – are among the largest groups receiving various forms of public assistance.
The reality, despite the spin from the conservative movement, is that poverty in America is very real, and it"s anything but fun.
Tue, 01/22/2013 – 14:35
4 Bogus Right-Wing Theories About Poverty, and the Real Reason Americans Can’t Make Ends Meet (Hard Times USA)