Opening the Ballot in North Carolina

I could hardly believe my eyes this morning as I perused The Chronicle, Duke's daily which bills itself as "The Tower of Campus Thought and Action" or some such drivel. Buried inside was some real reporting, regarding efforts by North Carolina's Libertarian and Green Parties to liberalize state ballot laws, currently among the nation's strictest. The present requirement to collect 70,000 votes in order to qualify obviously discriminates against such small parties, which usually spend the majority of their respective budgets in the process. Now, however, the Greens and Libertarians have laid their ideological differences aside in an attempt to overturn the law.

First, I was flabbergasted by such reporting in the Chronicle; more often than not, I feel that the thing should come in two ply on a roll because that's about the limit of its value. Second, and this isn't always the case, I like the idea. It's not out of any ideological willingness to see third (and fourth) parties compete in the general - it's bad enough having Ron Paul in the debates without having Cynthia McKinney in there. Rather, it's because of the Libertarian Party's gubernatorial candidate Mike Munger.

Munger, the Political Science Department Chair here at Duke, has a well-deserved and legendary reputation. He's also inarguably brilliant. He almost certainly wouldn't win election - he's too smart for that (a sad testament to our political system) - but I'd love nothing than to see him get into the gubernatorial debates. This isn't to say the others are dunces, indeed by Tarheel State standards, they're not a bad lot (Wake Forest grads, one graduate degree from LSE). But Mungowitz is a) brilliant and b) absolutely without regard for political convention. Thus the debates would quickly become must-see TV (and I might not be joking had the writers strike recently ended). Oh and Munger's an enormously amusing blogger. Check him out.

I won't cry if he and his greenie counterpart don't make the ballot - but I do think North Carolina politics will be the worse for it.

South Africa Takes A Big Step Backwards

South Africa is like Japan (until recently, at least) or Russia in that it's effectively a one-party state: become top dog in the ANC (African National Congress) and you're more or less assured the presidency. The ANC's political domination is of course in large part due to its role in the downfall of apartheid, but recent developments should make any sane observer wonder how much longer that should qualify them to keep power.

The party's national conference recently concluded; media reports make it out to be one part political, one part theatrical - think the Republican National Convention with dancing and chanting - and on the political side of things, Jacob Zuma became the heir apparent. His victory over incumbent president Thabo Mbeki was both surprising and unsurprising, but Zuma's triumph is enormously depressing.

This is the man who's tainted by corruption charges. More infamously, this is the polygamist who once raped a woman, claiming that her knee-length skirt was an invitation to do so, and despite the fact that she was known to be HIV positive; he later nonchalantly stated that he'd minimized risk of infection, as he'd taken a shower. Ladies and gentlemen, the next president of South Africa (and the former head of the National AIDS Council).

Which isn't to say Mbeki's an angel. HIV/AIDS is unequivocally the most important issue facing South Africa as well as the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa; Mbeki has publicly questioned the scientifically-proven link between the two. Instead, he claims it's a "disease of poverty," whatever exactly that means besides being a fine justification for a welfare state; his intransigence might also be rooted in his opposition to imperialism, despite the fact that Europeans left long before the AIDS epidemic exploded.

So why did the ANC do themselves and their country this disservice? The Tribune's correspondent (previous link) suggests that it's partially personal, partially political, with a dash of ethnicity to boot - Mbeki was a technocrat where Zuma is a populist, Zuma's populism has won him support of the party's left wing which Mbeki has alienated, Mbeki (like Mandela before him) is Xhosa, Zuma is Zulu (thus the polygamy). Some also think that perhaps the ANC will finally split, with Zuma forming a leftist party and Mbeki a center-left party. Coverage from the Times (New York) and Times ("Times") are also worth reading, though there is little novelty.

Clinton and the War

Conventional wisdom holds that among members of the Democratic Party's base, Hillary Clinton's "support" for the Iraq war (or at least her refusal to apologize to the wild-eyed peaceniks for her vote for it) is something of an albatross. Conventional wisdom and polls collide. Hard data crushes fuzzy conventional wisdom. Both Chris Cillizza and Ben Smith responded to the findings in the latest WaPo/ABC poll, which suggests that HRC is the favored candidate among respondents who favore immediate withdrawal. Cillizza has the more substantive analysis, including an intriguing paragraph which notes that

when presented with potential negative consquences of that withdrawal they become more circumspect. Seventy-Three percent say they would support legislaton to set a deadline of next spring for withdrawing combat forces, but that number falls to 65 percent when an "increased chance of Iraq going into full-scale civil war" is floated and down to 60 percent if withdrawal "increased the chance that Al Qaeda could establish terrorist bases in Iraq."

That is to say when people stop and think about it, more realize what a dumb idea a withdrawal is. Put it another way: Washington shouldn't be listening to the fickle mob.

Smith also has this to say, which itself shatters conventional wisdom: Clinton "does better the farther left you go, and that the Democrats with the most doubts about her are the ones in the middle." This despite her attempts to reposition herself as a moderate, suggesting that the only ones buying into that farce are the media, who would like voters to believe in her moderation. Of course I find Smith's argument contradicted by those damned polls again (though of the less scientific variety) at places like DailyKos, where Edwards is always the favorite. In any case, if Smith is right, two conclusions can be drawn: first off, it helps explain why 52% of respondents in another recent poll said they could never vote for Hillary and second of all it suggests that the Edwards love-fest at places like DKos are aberrations, that Hillary's lefty credentials (however un-trumpeted) are what's putting her in first in almost all primary polls.

Iraq? Surge? What Surge?

White House Press Corps has gone loony for Libby, as John Hinderaker notes. Check it out here.

Democratic Base Solid

Barone analyzes party ID numbers from Scott Rasmussen's polls; seems that despite an impotent Democratic Congress, the party's base remains solid; however the gap between them and the GOP is at its narrowest in the past year - a Republican revival? Too soon to be sure.