Senator Hillary Clintion and Political Future

Senator Hillary Clinton is a very able candidate for the office of Presidency. Through a combination of tactical error and ill-fortune, Clinton is and will be (at the conclusion of the Democratic party primaries and caucuses next week) about 125-150 pledged delegates short of Senator Barack Obama.

Clinton's closing arguments -- she has won more delegates from the primaries (leave those caucuses alone), there is evidence to show that she may stronger than Obama against John McCain in the big states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the general election (these are based on today's data and it is not reasonable to base the November forecast on today's data,) may be more number of popular vote, and the core constituencies of the Democratic party (e.g., catholics, women, and working class electorate) appear to be more supportive of her candidacy -- are sound and reasonable.

But we can also present several arguments -- all of which would be reasonable and plausible -- in favor of Obama's candidacy.

Therefore, at this point we can argue and debate because there are no definitive answers to any of these arguments.

At the beginning, the rules of the game were set and everyone agreed to it. The Democratic party presidential nomination will be decided by the delegates, and in this metric Senator Obama is ahead (in pledged delegates -- delegates won through elections.) Sure, the super-delegates can overturn and give the nomination to Senator Clinton. That's not unreasonable but it looks most unlikely because the super-delegates have been publicly expressing support for Senator Obama overwhelmingly.

That's where it is.

Then why not suspend the campaign? In fact, objectively Senator Clinton should have suspended the campaign after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. Why?

Clinton would have, any way, won the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, and she would equally certainly win the Puerto Rico primaries. Wouldn't it have made Senator Clinton stronger to win these primaries as a non-candidate than as a candidate? Further, if the super-delegates and even the pledged delegates were to confront some extra-ordinary situation or revelations that render Senator Obama as not a viable candidate for the party before the convention in August, the chance that the party will turn to Senator Clinton as its standard-bearer would have not diminished (it probably would have increased) an iota.

In any case, there is a case to be made -- a strong one at that -- for Senator Clinton to complete and contest in all the Democratic party primaries. That does show her determination and strength -- she has been a fighter.

But when the last primaries are over on June 3rd, Senator Clinton should suspend her campaign and let the chips fall where they may.

So what if the Democratic party's presidential nomination does not happen in 2008? There are many good options. If Senator Obama wins the general elections in November Clinton can still seek the Presidency in 2016 -- she would only be about 68 years of age. If Obama does not win the general elections in November, Clinton is most well poised for the 2012 presidential contest. In the meantime, Clinton can continue in the U.S. Senate and/or explore other interests such as governorship of the state of New York though that it not such an attractive office.

Senator Clinton is in a good spot -- that sounds odd in the midst of the current titanic struggle but that's the truth. She has a bright political future -- but she has to tread the needle a bit gingerly now.

The Karnataka state assembly elections results, and the fortunes of Congress party

The recent Karnataka state assembly produced discouraging results for the Congress party and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA.) The Congress party secured about 80 assembly seats -- an increase of about a dozen seats from the last elections. The Janata Dal (secular) secured only about 28 assembly seats -- a substantial decrease in the number of seats from the last elections. And then there is Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which has secured 110 assembly seats -- a very sharp increase of almost 33 seats from the last elections. The BJP is set to form the government in Karnataka.

All this does not bode well for the Congress party and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) as India prepares general parliamentary elections.

And here is why --

(1) Out of the 21 states that have gone to elections went to polls since the UPA took over, UPA has won only in eight of those elections.

(2) In spite of very strenuous efforts by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Karnataka state elections, the electoral performance of Congress party and its allies in UPA has been most unimpressive.

(3) While the economic growth has been reasonable, the recent sharp increase in prices -- particularly of the food -- has taken much bite out of the benefits of economic growth.

(4) The series of electoral losses for the Congress party and its allies in UPA comes even after sustained populist policies including the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme by the government. For example, the UPA government also implemented Rupees 60,000-crore farm debt relief package for Karnataka and that did not seem to help.

Of course, this does not mean that Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies (National Democratic Alliance, NDA) are going to win the next parliamentary elections. On the contrary, the next elections are also likely to produce a coalition out come -- and who will form the government (UPA or NDA) will be decided at the small margins.

The travails of Pakistan

Pakistan is yest again in a bind. For a county that is full of thoughtful and vibrant citizens, its polity has let it down since its independence. Unfortunately, Pakistan -- though was gifted with the same norms and institutions as India for political pluaralism by the British -- has not found its political governance model.

Pakistan military -- unlike in India -- has been too willing to seek political power. Three military rulers -- Ayub Khan in the 1960s, Zia-ul-Huq in 1980s and now Musharraf -- each with substantial longevity have dominated Pakistan's political leadership. The challenge with military autocracy as with any dictatorship is that there is no accountability and the desire to hold on to power warps even the most sane human mind. In a democracy, elections are as inevitable as the seasons and the political leadership is naturally held accountable and prevented from amassing power.

Look at Musharraf. First, in trying to hold and then in trying to consolidate his political power, Musharraf decided to align himself with the U.S. in the fight against terrorism. Instantly, Musharraf gained a certain respectability and credibility, and access to resources because of the patronage from the U.S. However, Musharraf squandered this opportunity though hubris and a greed for power.

Musharraf amended the constitution to suit his whims and fancies, refused to let political parties and leaders operate in Pakistan, intimated the press, and finally threatened the judiciary and removed the inconvenient judges. Musharaff disguised all this for a long time as necessary actions to fight fundamentalism and terrorism. But this excuse soon wore out.

Musharraf, finally and reluctantly, allowed parliamentary elections and participation by political parties. And then tragedy stuck in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto's compromised and corrupt husband, Asif Ali Zardari, was then elected as co-chair of Pakistan People's Party.

In an effort to divide the political opposition, Musharraf adopted the old Machiavellian approach by dismissing all the criminal and civil complaints against Zardari prior to the recent parliamentary elections. But Musharaff prevented Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister, from contesting the parliamentary elections. While Zardari's Pakistan People's party won enough parliamentary seats for a simple majority, Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League also won substantial number of seats.

After much hard-pressed negotiations, Zardari and Sharif agreed to form the government together. But within months, the coalition has come apart. What a tragedy for Pakistan! What a gift to Musharraf!!

The agreement has come apart on a simple but enlightening issue. Sharif, rightly, wanted the Supreme Court justices who were removed by Musharraf for his own political expediency be restored to their positions through parliamentary action. That was the right constitutional, moral and political decision. But Zardari, after initially agreeing to this, blocked the rightful action because Zardari himself could not afford an independent judiciary given his precarious situation.

Of course, Musharaff is smiling. But people of Pakistan have much to be disappointed.

Myanamar: There has to be immediate change in governace

The dire situations in cyclone-battered Myanmar and quake-tossed southwestern China have drawn out the world -- there has been a huge outpouring of sympathy (emotional giving) and financial support (monetary giving) to the victims of these disasters.

What makes human beings give -- emotionally and monetarily? Scientists tell us that we are hard-wired to help others, to drop everything in crisis situations. It has to be a crisis but it also has to a new and a sharp situation.

Note that even crises can lose their newness and sharpness after sometime, and perceptually and emotionally become a routine irritant. That is the case with Darfur. Is the situation in Darfur a crisis? Yes but we are tired of it and so the urge to give has died. That's why it is important to deal with the crisis immediately, otherwise everyone becomes worn out and distraction sets in.

The military junta in Burma has accepted the terrible conditions of its citizenry as a matter of fact and necessity to maintain control and power. That partly explains the junta's horrendous response to the tragedy and shockingly tawdry relief efforts. On the other hand, the Chinese political leadership (while not a paragon of tolerance or democracy) is aspirational -- it is intent on growing China and improving the lot of its citizens. So the Chinese political leadership has not become jaded as the military junta in Burma has.

It is time for the world -- including China and India -- to demand changes in the governance of Myanmar. The current junta has lost its conscience, and with the loss that conscience the ability to be shocked and roused.

The state of the US: America is rising or declining?

The size of the Unites States economy is about $13 trillion. Assuming the average annual growth of 2.5 percent (this has been the average since World War II), the U.S. puts. out about $320 billion annually. On the other hand, the sizes of the economies of China and India are estimated t o be about $2.5 trillion and $1 trillion respectively. Assuming a monumental and unsustainable 10 percent average annual growth, China puts out about $250 billion annually and India puts out about $100 billion annually. So every year, the U.S. still adds more to its economy more than China or India does.

In this face of these empirics, it is impossible to argue that either China or India is going to overtake the U.S. in economic superiority.

However, what might change the equation is one of two very discrete and dramatic events. First possibility is a collapse of the U.S. economy triggered by some event or a set of events. But that's unlikely. Even the current oil price increase from about $20 per barrel to about $130 per barrel has had only marginal impact on the larger economy. The U.S. economy has shown remarkable resilience -- the Savings and Loans Industry crisis in 1980s, the dot com bust in the early 2000s, and the housing crisis in the last year or so are troublesome but they have not and cannot break the U.S. economy.

The second possibility is a new innovation or a set of innovations that dramatically alters the way of life. Think of steam engine, or Bessemer process for mass production of steel, or world wide web (WWW) technology. But, here, too the U.S. appears to be, if any thing, poised ahead of other societies -- think of genetics and genome therapy, or genetically modified food, or clean technologies, or nano-technology, and more.

The general argument that the U.S. has borrowed so much from other societies that it has now become a servant of these societies is not compelling – simply put, where are these societies, individuals and organizations going to put their monies? If not the U.S., where else? Of course, there will be some nominal and periodic variations and ups and downs but it is unlikely that there can ever be a run on the U.S. economy because there is no there large-scale alternative.

May be I am missing a new breakthrough -- a new steam engine -- but short of that the U.S. is likely to dominate the world of economy, commerce, and innovations for the next 50 years.

Clinton or Obama in Kentucky and Oregon Democratic primaries?

It is time for Kentucky and Oregon Democratic party presidential primaries tonight. Who will win those primaries -- Clinton or Obama?

Of course, there are public polls that show Clinton trouncing Obama in Kentucky, and Obama winning the Oregon primary.

But we do not require any public preference measurements, we can make the forecast based on the demographics. Elsewhere in this blog, I have asserted (with credible empirics from the current election cycle) that Obama dominates those primaries and caucuses in states where the percentage of African-American voters is very small (less than 5 percent as in Iowa or Wisconsin) or relatively large (more than 20-25 percent as in Georgia and South Carolina.) Where the African-American voters are present in the middling range -- 5 percent to about 15-20 percent -- Clinton prevails more often than not.

Demographics has been a reliable indicator thus far, and this assertion has been supported credibly. In the contests thus far, Obama has won 12 of the 15 contests in which the African-American population has been less than 5 percent, and 10 of the 11 contests in which the African-American population has been greater than 15 percent. In those 18 states where the African-American population ranges from 4%-16%, Obama has won 8, while Clinton has won 11.

What are the distributions of African-American populations in Kentucky and Oregon? 7.3 percent and 1.6 percent respectively. So Clinton will prevail in Kentucky and Obama in Oregon. We will know tonight.

Note that the hypothesis and model are postulated only for the Democratic party presidential contests between Obama and Clinton, and not for the general elections.

Confident China and Paranoid Myanmar

Natural tragedies have struck both Myanmar and China in the recent past. However, there could not be more stark contrast in the response to the disasters from Myanmar and China. Myanmar has been diffident and paranoid but China has been confident and open.

Myanmar was struck with a devastating cyclone --Nargis -- which has killed tens of thousands of men, women and children. Death in Myanmar has come not only from the cyclone but from lack of sustained relief efforts -- so there have been deaths due to starvation and disease. The current death toll is at nearly 78,000, though expected to surpass 100,000. Upto 2.5 million people are considered severely affected.

In China, more than 34,000 are reported dead and 4.8 million have been left homeless from the recent earthquake and its aftershocks.

The two different responses from the Myanmar military junta on Myanmar and the China's political leadership reflect on the strength of the two societies. In Myanmar, the military junta refused to give information about the scope of the disaster and the necessary relief efforts. The junta has refused to let reporters visit the disaster area. No external aid was sought, and even when offered was turned down -- aid from the U.S. and even the U.N. was turned down. Even threats from the outside did little to nudge the military junta. And finally, when the relief supplies were distributed the junta converted the exercise into a propaganda effort by placing the names of the generals prominently on the relief goods.

There was no thoughtful remembrance of the dead -- only when China announced a national mourning did Myanmar follow suit.

Myanmar's crass, class-less and paranoid response is born out of the anxiety and weakness of its military rulers. It is a tragedy that the world has not pushed the military rulers hard. The U.S. and other societies do not want to use their political and diplomatic capital on Myanmar because Myanmar is not in their strategic interest.

On the other hand, China was most open and responsive. Within 14 minutes of the tragedy, Chinese officials rushed relief efforts to the disaster area. The authorities also made all the information and data available to the citizens, reporters, aid-workers, and others. China warned the disaster-area citizens of possible aftershocks and their possible fall-outs. While China is a resource-strong society, it did not turn down aid.

China paused the Olympic torch relay, and paid national homage to the dead. China's President, Hu Jintao, and Prime Minister, Wen Jiabo, have made public visits to the disaster-stricken area.

China's thoughtful and dignified response speaks volumes of its strength and confidence. China now should rightfully edge the paranoid Myanmar regime into more political accountability -- but for China's patronization of Myanmar, it would be difficult for the military junta in Myanmar to defy the basic human decency and plod on.

Time for a woman president for the U.S.? Hillary Clinton or ...?

As Hillary Clinton's contest for the Democratic party presidential nomination is becoming less likely, there is a natural and somewhat anguished question: when will a woman be the presidential nominee of one the U.S. parties let alone be the winner of the office?

I think that Hillary Clinton was and remains the most plausible candidate for securing the U.S. presidential nomination and even winning the office of presidency.

Unfortunately, Clinton has let the opportunity silp away from her in 2008 but her best efforts may not have been enough. Barack Obama has not only run a better tactical campaign (for example, Obama wisely contested all the caucus state contests while Clinton did not) but Obama is also the "person" that has met the mood of the country and time in 2008 -- just as Reagan did in 1980, and Bill Clinton did in 1992. When that happens i.e., "the candidate" is in perfect sync with the mood of the country, it is almost-impossible for any other candidate to overcome that.

However, Hillary Clinton is eminently qualified to be the President of the United States. There will be another time -- may be in 2012 or in 2016.

The New York Times has listed some potential women presidential candidates. The names are presented in the enclosed photo-graphics. Clearly, Hillary Clinton is the most credentialed person (who also happens to be a woman) for the U.S. presidency.

The tragedy in Myanmar, and the role of India

The situation in Myanmar is incredibly tragic. The devastation caused by the cyclone is monumental but the paranoia of the military junta is breathtaking. The world has let a paranoid military junta run the country without any compunctions or any fear of reprisal from outside world. We are not talking of a moralist society, we are just talking of some very basic human values.

Why has the military junta gotten away with such crassness? Simply because most nations just don't know or care about what happens in Myanmar -- not dissimilar to the situation in Darfur. And a few nations that may care are keeping their distance for their own interest -- there is nothing wrong this, it is just pragmatic. So a combination of indifference (because Myanmar does not provide any material or strategic or military benefits) and pragmatism has left the military junta in Myanmar wreck havoc to the society.

For United States, Russia or European countries, Myanmar offers precious little -- no great mineral sources or strategic value. One country that ought to have a serious interest -- based on history, geography and strategic value -- is India. However, since China considers Myanmar to be under its protection and tutelage India has quietly avoided confronting the regime. There is little to be gained for India.

devastation caused by the cyclone is monumental but the paranoia of the military junta is breathtaking. The world has let a paranoid military junta run the country without any compunctions or any fear of reprisal from outside world. We are not talking of a moralist society, we are just talking of some very basic human values.

Why has the military junta gotten away with such crassness? Simply because most nations just don't know or care about what happens in Myanmar -- not dissimilar to the situation in Darfur. And a few nations that may care are keeping their distance for their own interest -- there is nothing wrong this, it is just pragmatic. So a combination of indifference (because Myanmar does not provide any material or strategic or military benefits) and pragmatism has left the military junta in Myanmar wreck havoc to the society.

For United States, Russia or European countries, Myanmar offers precious little -- no great mineral sources or strategic value. One country that ought to have a serious interest -- based on history, geography and strategic value -- is India. However, since China considers Myanmar to be under its protection and tutelage India has quietly avoided confronting the regime. There is little political gain for India in a confrontation with China, and that is understandable.

In a farcical display of populism, the military junta has placed the new constitution -- with not anything new to gloat about -- for a referendum. The junta is asking the voters to approve of the new constitution in a vote just a week after tens of thousands have been wiped out by the act of nature (cyclone) and the callousness of the military junta.

What a tragedy! The tragedies such those in Darfur and Myanmar are a blot on all of us. Myanmar does not have to become a pluralistic tolerant society -- just simply shed its such shameful paranoia. Can the world -- including China -- not make this happen? India should make a more concerted (behind-the-scenes) efforts to help assuage the tragic situation. If not India, who else? If not now, when else? It is time for India to expend some of its political goodwill with China, and help coordinate the relief efforts.

Indiana and North Carolina Democratic Party Presidential Nomination Primaries on May 6th

As the voters head to the polls tomorrow in the Democratic party presidential primary contests in Indiana and North Carolina and express their preferences, it is my belief that Clinton will win the Indiana primary by about 6-8 points, and Obama will win the North Carolina primary by about 10-12 points. Here is why.

In Indiana, the African-Americans are likley to be about 10% of the electorate and the whites about 90% of the electorate. Among the African-Americans, Obama is likely to secure about 85% of the votes and Clinton about 10%. That gives Obama a net gain of about 8 points from the African-American votes. Among the whites, Clinton is likely to secure about 60% of the votes and Obama about 40% of the votes. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 20 points from the white votes. So Clinton has a net overall gain of about 12 points. However, making some adjustments for age and region in Indiana it is more likely that Clinton's net advantage is likely to be about 8 points.

Let us look at it from another perspective. In all the recently released (i.e., released in the last 2-3 days) public polls, Obama's preference numbers have been in the small range of low-to-mid 40s. However, Clinton's preference numbers have varied from as low as 42 to as high as 54 -- much higher variability. In a closer examintion of the preference numbers, it appears that when the undecideds are nudged and cajoed they prefer Clinton overwhelmingly. In any case, this has been the pattern in the earlier primaries.

Take Zogby's tracking poll released today. The stated preference numbers in Indiana are 42 for Clinton and 44 for Obama. If the undecides break 70-30 in favor of Clinton (not a very unreasonable assumption given the recent history), the undecideds would give Clinton a net gain of about 6 points placing her preference number about 52-53 and Obama's number at about 47-48.

In North Carolina, the African-American vote is likely to be about 35 percent of the electorate on Tuesday. Assuming about 70 perent net advantage in the African-American vote, the overall net gain for Obama from the African-American vote is about 24 points (70 percent of 35 percent.) Assuming about 20 percent net advantage for Clinton in the white votes, the overall net gain for Clinton from the white votes is about 13 points (20 percent of 65 percent.) So the total net gain for Obama is about 11 points (24 minus 13.) Most public polls put Obama's lead in North Carolina in the high-single digits or low double-digits.

We will obviously find out tomorrow night.

Update on Tuesday, May 6th: Based on the reports of large numbers of registered republicans voting in the Democratic primary (the republicans may be mischievous or genuinely engaged -- nobody knows for certain) in Indiana, the overall turnout numbers, and Zogby's final Indiana primary tracking poll including Zogby's report that Obama did well on Monday (47-41 in favor of Obama over Clinton), it is likely that Obama could come within striking distance (within five points) of Clinton's votes and/or may even squeak past her in today's Indiana primary.

Gasoline Tax Holiday and John McCain

John McCain and Hillary Clinton are proposing revocation of gasoline tax for three months -- June, July and August -- for the American consumers. The gasoline tax is about 18 cents per gallon. There are varying estimates of the potential average savings for the consumers -- most estimates (optimistic estimates) appear to put the maximum savings for a family for the entire summer to be about $100.

However, there are several caveats to be stated. First, there may be actually no savings to the families for two reasons -- there may actually be net loss. One reason is that oil companies generally tend to use the repeal of gasoline tax as an excuse to increase the price by an amount that would more than offset gasoline tax. The second reason is that with the repeal of the gasoline tax demand for the gasoline is likely to rise and this demand is not likely to be met by new production essentially leading to a price increase. Second, the repeal of gasoline tax will result in a loss of about $9 billion to the federal highway fund which would result in shortchanging infrastructure development and loss of many jobs -- may be as many as 6,000 in Indiana. Third, this experiment -- revocation of gasoline tax for a short spell -- has been tried (including in Indiana) and the experiment has not only failed to meet the desired goals but also proved counter-productive.

However, all this make political sense for Hillary Clinton -- she is in the fight of her life for the Democratic party presidential nomination, and she wants to get as many votes as possible and differentiate herself from Obama even if it means a bit of theatrical populism.

But the question is this: why is John McCain engaged in this populism? It does not add up. Of course, McCain wants to position himself as a man in touch. However, all this is more likely to muddy up McCain's biggest strength -- an independent, non-populist, somewhat maverick political leader.

Who has a more viable path to nomination? Clinton or Obama?

Both Senators Clinton and Obama are genuinely hopeful of securing the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the presidential contest in the fall.

In a purely rational world, Obama's hope appears more reasonable -- he is leading by insurmountable margin in the delegate count, the only measure that matters to secure the party's nomination.

However, human beings do not evaluate their options (sometimes called prospects) in that simple rational frame work. Two behavior psychologists (Kahneman and Tverskey, 1979) discussed this at length and proposed a new theory to explain choices made by human beings -- the psychologists argued and showed that human beings evaluate their choices based on their own experiences and (subjective) reference frame, and not on some objective and external frame. Kalyanaram and Little (1994) demonstrated the application of this theory to marketing, particularly, to how consumers perceive pricing.

The prospect theory explains the doggedness of the Democratic party presidential nominating contest.