Back to Work, Obama Is Greeted by Looming Crisis

Newly re-elected, President Obama moved quickly on Wednesday to open negotiations with Congressional Republican leaders over the main unfinished business of his term — a major deficit-reduction deal to avert a looming fiscal crisis — as he began preparing for a second term that will include significant cabinet changes.

Mr. Obama, while still at home in Chicago at midday, called Speaker John A. Boehner in what was described as a brief and cordial exchange on the need to reach some budget compromise in the lame-duck session of Congress starting next week. Later at the Capitol, Mr. Boehner publicly responded before assembled reporters with his most explicit and conciliatory offer to date on Republicans’ willingness to raise tax revenues, but not top rates, together with a spending cut package.

“Mr. President, this is your moment,” said Mr. Boehner, a day after Congressional Republicans suffered election losses but kept their House majority. “We’re ready to be led — not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. We want you to lead, not as a liberal or a conservative, but as president of the United States of America.”

His statement came a few hours after Senator Harry Reid, leader of a Democratic Senate majority that made unexpected gains, extended his own olive branch to the opposition. While saying that Democrats would not be pushed around, Mr. Reid, a former boxer, added, “It’s better to dance than to fight.”

Both men’s remarks followed Mr. Obama’s own overture in his victory speech after midnight on Wednesday. “In the coming weeks and months,” he said, “I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together: reducing our deficit, reforming our tax code, fixing our immigration system, freeing ourselves from foreign oil.”

After his speech, Mr. Obama tried to call both Mr. Boehner and the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, but was told they were asleep. The efforts from both sides, after a long and exhausting campaign, suggested the urgency of acting in the few weeks before roughly $700 billion in automatic tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts take effect at year’s end — the “fiscal cliff.” A failure to reach agreement could arrest the economic recovery.

Corporate America and financial markets for months have been dreading the prospect of a partisan impasse. Stocks fell on Wednesday, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index closing down 2.4 percent. The reasons for the drop were unclear, given that stock futures did not drop significantly on Tuesday night as the election results became clear. Analysts cited fears about the economic impact of such big federal spending cuts and tax increases, but also about new economic troubles in Europe.

While Mr. Obama enters the next fray with heightened leverage, both sides agree, the coming negotiations hold big risks for both parties and for the president’s ability to pursue other priorities in a new term, like investments in education and research, and an overhaul of immigration law.

The president flew back to Washington from Chicago late on Wednesday, his post-election relief reflected in a playful race up the steps of Air Force One with his younger daughter, Sasha. At the White House, he prepared to shake up his staff to help him tackle daunting economic and international challenges. He will study lists of candidates for various positions that a senior adviser, Pete Rouse, assembled in recent weeks as Mr. Obama crisscrossed the country campaigning.

The most prominent members of his cabinet will leave soon. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner long ago said they would depart after the first term, and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, previously the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, has signaled that he wants to return to California in the coming year. Also expected to depart is David Plouffe, one of the president’s closest confidants.

Mr. Obama is expected to reshuffle both his inner circle and his economic team as he accommodates the changes. For example, Jacob J. Lew, Mr. Obama’s current White House chief of staff and former budget director, is said to be a prime candidate to become Treasury secretary. For the foreseeable future, the holder of that job is likely to be at the center of budget negotiations, and Mr. Lew has experience in such bargaining dating to his work as a senior adviser to Congressional Democrats 30 years ago in bipartisan talks with President Ronald Reagan.

“They’ve been thinking about this for some time and they’re going to have a lot of positions to fill at the highest levels,” said former Senator Tom Daschle, who has close ties to the White House.

Both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush ended up replacing about half of their cabinet members between terms, and Mr. Obama could end up doing about the same, especially since his team has served through wars and economic crisis. John D. Podesta, a chief of staff for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama’s transition adviser, said, “There’s a certain amount of new energy you want to inject into any team.”

There is talk about bringing in Republicans and business executives to help rebuild bridges to both camps. The one Republican in the cabinet now, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, has said he will leave. One possible candidate, advisers say, could be Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Republican moderate from Maine who is retiring.

A front-runner for secretary of state appears to be Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Democrats said worries about losing his Senate seat to the Republicans in a special election had diminished with Tuesday’s victories. Another candidate has been Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, but she has been a target of Republicans since she provided the administration’s initial accounts, which proved to be wrong, of the September terrorist attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

While no one in the White House blames her, “she’s crippled,” said one adviser who asked not to be named discussing personnel matters. Another possible candidate, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, has told Mr. Obama he wants to stay in his current position, according to a White House official.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., once expected to leave, now seems more likely to stay for a while. Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, would like to be attorney general and is widely respected in the White House.

Among other cabinet officers who may leave are Ron Kirk, the trade representative; Steven Chu, the energy secretary; Ken Salazar, the interior secretary; Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, and Lisa P. Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency chief. But Valerie Jarrett, the president’s longtime friend and senior adviser, plans to stay, according to Democrats close to her.

It may be weeks before Mr. Obama starts making personnel announcements. His first priority is policy, and its politics — positioning for the budget showdown in the lame-duck session, to try to avoid the fiscal cliff by agreeing with Republicans to alternative deficit-reduction measures.

If Mr. Obama got a mandate for anything after a campaign in which he was vague on second-term prescriptions, he can and will claim one for his argument that wealthy Americans like himself and his vanquished Republican rival, Mitt Romney, should pay higher income taxes. That stance was a staple of Mr. Obama’s campaign stump speeches for more than a year. And most voters, in surveys of those leaving the polls on Tuesday, agreed with him.

Specifically, Mr. Obama has called — over Republicans’ objections — for extending the Bush-era income tax cuts, which expire Dec. 31, only for households with taxable income below $250,000 a year.

“This election tells us a lot about the political wisdom of defending tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of everything else,” a senior administration official said early on Wednesday.

But Mr. Boehner, in his public remarks on Wednesday, sought to avoid a White House tax trap that would have Republicans boxed in as defenders of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Speaking for Republicans after a conference call with his Congressional colleagues, Mr. Boehner said he was ready to accept a budget deal that raised federal revenues, but not the top rates on high incomes. And the deal, he said, also would have to overhaul both the tax code and programs like Medicare and Medicaid, whose growth as the population ages is driving projections of unsustainable future debt.

Instead of allowing the top rates to go up, which Republicans say would harm the economy, Mr. Boehner said Washington should end some deductions and loopholes to raise revenues. The economic growth that would result from a significant deficit reduction compromise would bring in additional revenues as well, he said.

Mr. Boehner entered the ornate Capitol room with none of his usual bonhomie, walked to a lectern and spoke in formal tones from two Teleprompters. He then hastened out of the room, ignoring shouted questions.

Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting.

source: NYTIMES

Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin is first openly gay person elected to Senate

(CNN) -- Tammy Baldwin made history Tuesday night -- twice. She became the first openly gay politician, and first Wisconsin woman, elected to the U.S. Senate.

The seven-term Democratic congresswoman edged past former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson in a win that advocacy groups hailed as a significant stride toward bringing diversity to the Senate.

Baldwin said she ran "to make a difference" and not to make history. But she said she hopes the Senate will be more reflective of America and the "life experience" of women.

"Having a seat at the table matters and I think we will see a Senate that is more reflective of America. We're certainly not there yet, but this will be a change that moves us forward," she told CNN.

"People ... see our country and our states moving toward full equality in many respects," Baldwin said. "When you have legislative bodies that look more like America, that happens."

Baldwin was one of many successful gay and lesbian candidates in local and state races this election cycle, which also included her successor in her legislative district in Madison, state Rep. Mark Pocan. At least 118 gay and lesbian candidates won their races as of Wednesday, according to political action committee Victory Fund, which supports gay and lesbian candidates.

Political commentator Sally Kohn was ecstatic.

Baldwin elected first openly gay senator

Warren: You taught me how to win

Kaine stops speech to announce Obama win

McCaskill victorious in Senate

"This is a big day for gay women in America, and really, for all communities who aren't the typical straight, white, wealthy men elected to Congress," she said.

Share your reaction to the election

There has never been an openly gay or lesbian member of the U.S. Senate, according to several LGBT advocacy groups. Baldwin is one of four openly gay House members of the 112 U.S. Congress, along with fellow Democrats Barney Frank of Massachusetts, David Cicilline of Rhode Island and Jared Polis of Colorado.

"For the LGBT person growing up in Wisconsin or anywhere across the country, seeing an openly gay woman who is able to rise up to become a senator in the U.S. Congress is an incredible role model," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

Though Baldwin's sexual orientation makes her victory notable, it rarely came up during the campaign, unless it was called a nonissue. The race pitted Thompson's "conservative leadership" platform against Baldwin's progressive agenda. Thompson, a four-time governor and secretary of Health and Human Services under George W. Bush, said he returned to politics to make America a better place for his grandchildren.

"I wanted to so much help lead back America," he said in his concession speech. "To be the country of growth and opportunity. To build America for future generations. I certainly didn't need the job. And I guess I'm not going to get it."

What started as a long shot for Baldwin eventually narrowed to a close finish, with the born-and-raised Wisconsinite capturing 51% of the vote, according to CNN projections.

"This campaign has been run on who's the most qualified candidate and who has the best vision for the state," Griffin said. "We're eager to have her move from one side of the Capitol to another and take a seat in the chamber as the first openly gay person."

Maryland, Maine approve same-sex marriage

To those watching the race, it was no surprise that Wisconsin, a state that approved a gay marriage ban six years ago, would send the first openly gay politician to the Senate. Baldwin has made no secret of her sexual orientation as she rose through local and state politics during the last two decades. When she was elected in 1998 to represent Wisconsin's second congressional district, she was the first out candidate to be elected to the chamber, said Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, a political action committee that supported LGBT candidates including Baldwin this election.

"The electorate already knew what they needed to know about her, and they continued to elect her every step of the way," Wolfe said.

"She is a force with very deep roots in Wisconsin. She has a backbone of steel, but she's polite and compassionate, and people enjoy their interactions with her."

Born and raised in the Congressional district she has represented for the past decade, Baldwin's track record reflects a commitment to LGBT issues and diversity. As a Wisconsin representative, she was a co-founder and co-chairwoman of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, leading efforts to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and other civil rights initiatives. She also led successful efforts in the House in 2009 to pass expanded hate crimes legislation and was the lead author of legislation to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

"Tammy has been a driving force because of her ability to tackle issues without having to use double-speak," Wolfe said. "Having someone like her in the Senate changes the tone and tenor of this discussion."

Democrats keep control of Senate

Others are hopeful that more women in Congress will change the discussion of policies affecting women and families. Women in the 112th Congress made up 17% of both the Senate and the House, according to the Center for American Women and Politics.

"A lot of research has shown that more women in leadership leads to better outcomes for the community," said Tiffany Dufu, president of The White House Project, which trains women for leadership.

"We know that women in political leadership reach across the aisle more often and are inclusive when it comes to taking constituents into consideration. They care deeply not just about the outcome, but the process," she said.

"For us, the biggest thing about Tammy Baldwin is her visibility. You can't be what you can't see."

How the election unfolded

source: CNN

A Second Chance to Sideline Mitch McConnell and the Far Right?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's graceless statement regarding President Barack Obama's reelection, where he stands by the Republicans' "our way or the highway" philosophy of governance, proves that he and his fellow travelers remain as ideologically rigid as ever and have no intention of working with the president during the next four years. Despite the election results that gave a thumping to their brand of anti-government extremism, the ideologues who dominate the GOP are already circling the wagons, promising more gridlock and more obstruction.
In Mitch McConnell's universe, the election of 2012 shows that "the voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do." He also believes that the American people want President Obama to "work with" the Republicans on their biggest agenda items "to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system." These are not the words of someone who is indicating willingness to compromise. He therefore must be sidelined. And the only way to do so is to repeal the anachronistic "cloture" rule in the Senate that has allowed his minority to stop Obama's agenda in its tracks.
Ending the filibuster is within the realm of possibility, if only the Democrats had the guts to do it. At the beginning of each new Congress there's an opportunity to change the rules. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that states that the Senate must have a super-majority to pass legislation. It's an arbitrary rule from the horse-and-buggy days that has rendered that legislative body sclerotic and dysfunctional, unfit for the demands of 21st century social reality.
McConnell's statement itself is a shot across the bow reinforcing his earlier primary goal of ensuring that Obama would be a one-term president. Having failed in that endeavor, McConnell now promises the next best thing: Continue to abuse the filibuster as no Senate minority in American history has and gum up the works while demanding total capitulation on Obama's part before any bill can escape the clutches of his icy, deadening hand.
Unless he is stopped, McConnell, the reactionary who knows nothing about "reaching across the aisle," will continue his efforts to kill off the middle class and establish a right-wing ruling oligarchy. He cannot be "compromised" with and any piece of legislation with his fingerprints on it will be a disaster for the country. Any "Grand Bargain" with McConnell and his ilk we now hear Beltway villagers cheerleading for will in reality be a "Grand Betrayal" of every single principle that the American electorate wanted to reestablish when it reelected Obama.
Long before the Democrats took their "shellacking" in the 2010 midterm elections I urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other adults in the Mansfield Room to end the filibuster "and pass a lot of stuff." McConnell and the Republicans' abuse of the "cloture" rule was preventing the nation's governing institutions from functioning while the United States confronted its worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. I, like many others, watched in horror as President Obama, the Democratic Senators and the mainstream news media all blandly accept as a fait accompli that any bill in the Senate, even in a time of crisis and emergency, needed 60 votes to pass. Republican obstructionism was rebranded as a "legitimate" requirement of a super-majority to get anything done. If the tables were reversed and a Democratic minority exploited the filibuster in the way the Republicans have done, we would have heard loud shrieks from our GOP friends that it was "unconstitutional." Yet even the "progressive" politicians in Washington apparently believed that a 60-vote threshold in the Senate was a "new normal." It is nothing of the sort.
Now that Obama has handily won reelection he will be tempted to strike the "Grand Bargain" that only promises to impose an unnecessary and counterproductive austerity regimen on Americans that has already failed miserably in Europe. The massive cuts required and the refusal of the zealots to even think about raising a tax -- even rejecting a "deal" that would impose $10 of cuts for every $1 of new revenue -- is still the status quo from which we begin this new round of "negotiations."
The question now is: Will Obama's reelection and the victory of Democratic Senators, along with the thinning somewhat of the Tea Bagger ranks in the House, lead to a more forceful negotiating stance against the right-wing extremists than we've witnessed in the first term? We'll have to wait and see. Progress in this country will only come if the Mitch McConnells and the Grover Norquists of this world are brushed aside and jobs and work bills, infrastructure spending and environmental regulations passed by doing an end run around their obstructionism. There is no other choice.
As we begin Obama's second term the progressive grassroots forces are going to have to turn up the heat. The pressures he will face from the Beltway insider culture he succumbed to in his first term will be just as strong as ever. He will be tempted to placate the elites by signing a lot of shitty Republican bills that come out of a Congress still dominated by hateful right-wing extremists and deserving of nothing but our contempt.
Think how much better Democrats would have faired in the 2012 election if it weren't for the Supreme Court's odious Citizens United ruling that opened up the floodgates to the corrupting influence of corporate campaign cash.
So now, once again, like the 2009-2011 period, it's up to the progressive left, Obama's forlorn base of unionists and activists who he rediscovered in 2012, to try to hold the president's feet to the fire and make sure that any "Grand Bargain" with the likes of Mitch McConnell does not betray the values and the interests of the people who worked so hard to win him a second term.
Back in the late-1990s, President Bill Clinton signed some of the worst Republican bills of his presidency during his second term, including the ruinous Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Trading Act of 2000, which set the nation up for the financial collapse of 2008.
We mustn't allow a repeat of this dreary history during Obama's second term. The stakes are much higher now, with a severely weakened working class and an even more consolidated oligarchy of too-big-to-fail financial behemoths, and a precarious economic "recovery" that can go down the tubes very quickly with bad policy choices. Any public policy choice that has Mitch McConnell's fingerprints on it is going to be a bad public policy choice. Let's not fall for the Beltway trick where "bipartisanship" is equated with godliness even if the outcome is austerity, a watered-down version of the Paul Ryan budget (and the philosophy behind it), which voters handily rejected. Maybe with good people like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts pointing the way we can end the stultifying Senate filibuster that is being used as a cudgel to beat down the middle class. Let's bypass McConnell's and Norquist's twisted "vision" of America's future and move the country "Forward."


source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/sideline-mitch-mcconnell-far-right_b_2088840.html

Google's Nexus 4: To buy or not to buy?

In the world of Android, it's easy to get overwhelmed by the number of new phones we see launching every month. Let's face it: While a few of them manage to make lasting impressions, the vast majority get lost in a sea of silicone, glass, plastic, and metal.

Above any other, the Nexus 4 is not Just Another Android Phone. As Google's new flagship phone, the latest Nexus stands in a league of its own -- and will likely be as relevant in 10 months as it is today.

I've been using the device full-time for the past week, and aside from being Google's best hardware effort to date, the Nexus 4 is hands-down the best overall Android smartphone experience and value you can get your hands on right now. The phone isn't without its drawbacks, of course -- but in terms of overall user experience, it's simply unmatched.

Let's tackle a few things right off the bat. First, the LG factor: I know a lot of people have written this phone off before even touching it just because LG's the manufacturer. I can certainly understand the skepticism; there's no denying that LG has delivered some subpar Android experiences in the past. I had similar thoughts when I first heard the rumors of this device.

Having now extensively used the phone, though, I'd suggest holding off on judgment and approaching it with an open mind. First and foremost, remember that LG's past smartphone problems have revolved largely around software integration and upgrades (oh God, the upgrades). With the Nexus 4, all that stuff is handled completely by Google.

That aside, LG has actually made some pretty impressive strides lately. Its Optimus G, the phone upon which the Nexus 4 is based, is very much a standout device in terms of hardware and performance. (The software isn't half-bad, either, though it's a little over the top for my tastes and could very well present familiar upgrade delays in the future.)

With the Nexus 4, Google has taken the best parts of the Optimus G and polished them to near-perfection. As I wrote in my initial impressions, this phone is truly a melding of LG's basic hardware and Google's sense of design.

You have an awesome display -- quite possibly the best available on any phone at the moment -- along with absurdly fast performance, a great camera, and a distinctive and cool-looking design that's Nexus through and through. Then, of course, what really makes the Nexus 4 a Nexus: its pure Google Android 4.2 software, with guaranteed fast and frequent updates directly from Google in the future.

Here's the real kicker: You get all of that for $300 to $350, unlocked and off-contract. That kind of pricing is unheard of for this caliber of device; we're talking barely more than what you'd pay for a carrier-subsidized phone that'd tie you down to inflated rates and insane restrictions for a full two years. The Nexus 4 is 100-percent your property from the day you buy it; you can use it with whatever company you want and even take it to a prepaid provider for 30 to 50 bucks a month, commitment-free. This is market-shifting stuff we're talking about here, folks.

So what about that whole "no LTE" thing some people have been getting hung up on? If you ask me, it's being blown way out of proportion. I willfully dropped LTE when I ditched the Verizon Galaxy Nexus and moved to an unlocked HSPA+ phone with T-Mobile prepaid service some months back, and I haven't looked back once. Maximum HSPA+ speeds in the States -- via T-Mobile's or AT&T's network -- run from 21 Mbps to 42 Mbps, depending on your connection. With the Nexus 4, I'm regularly hitting speeds around the 18 Mbps mark.

In real-world smartphone usage, it's tough to tell much noticeable difference between that and LTE; in fact, even the mid-level HSPA+ speeds I see are faster than what a lot of people get with LTE. As far as I'm concerned, the benefits of the non-LTE configuration -- getting an actual Google Nexus experience with untouched Android software, instant upgrades, and no carrier meddling; enjoying better battery life; and being able to pay a fraction of what the big carriers charge for the same basic service -- far outweigh the loss of theoretically higher data speeds.

Like I said, though, the Nexus 4 does have some drawbacks. The biggest is probably its limited on-board storage: The phone comes only with 8 or 16GB of internal space and offers no SD slot for external expansion. For some people, that may be a deal-breaker.

For me, even with its limiting factors, the phone's outstanding hardware and first-class Android experience make it the optimal handset to own right now. If I were to make a generalized recommendation to any of my own friends or family members, the Nexus 4 would definitely be it.

So is it the right device for you? Ultimately, that's a decision only you can make -- but I can help. Read over my in-depth review to get a complete picture of the Nexus 4-using experience. By the time you're done, I suspect you'll know your answer.



source: http://blogs.computerworld.com/android/21287/google-nexus-4-buy-or-not-buy

Why the Stock Market Is Bummed About the Election

On Election Day, stocks seemed upbeat about American democracy and the economy's future prospects. Even though polls showed the two presidential candidates in a dead heat, the stock market rose by nearly a full percentage point.
[PHOTOS: America Watches as Obama Wins Re-Election]
That honeymoon ended abruptly. The news that President Barack Obama won a second term has sent the market into a deep funk, with stocks down by more than two percent on Election Day +1. Manic investors are now giving the election results a big, fat raspberry.
Embittered Republicans might be tempted to attribute the plunge to poor confidence in Obama's ability to strengthen a weak economy. But that's probably not the case. While Obama is not personally popular on Wall Street, his policies have generally been good for the stock market and for big companies in general. In fact, many analysts have expressed relief that the easy-money policies of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are likely to stay in place, with fewer worries about a policy shift that might lead to higher interest rates, which might have been the case under Mitt Romney.
Instead, there seem to be three things going on as investors ponder the consequences of the election results. First, there were apparently some aggressive bets on Election Day that Romney would prevail, with sharp rallies in the stocks of companies likely to benefit under his policies. Analyst David Urani of Wall Street Strategies, for instance, pointed out that certain coal, defense and health care stocks rose sharply on Tuesday, probably bid up by investors hoping to cash in on favorable policy changes. Since they guessed wrong, the markets are now reversing those types of trades.
[RELATED: How Bernanke Helped Obama Win]
Second, investors who were obsessed with the election are now once again paying attention to important developments elsewhere, such as Europe. And surprise! Greece is once again teetering on the edge of withdrawal from the euro zone and a catastrophic default on its debt. That bogeyman is back.
But the biggest concern is the looming "fiscal cliff" that Congress must address by the end of the year, with about $800 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts due to go into effect if Congress doesn't act to prevent those measures from happening all at once. If Congress does nothing, all that austerity could shave GDP by about 4 percent, easily enough to trigger a fresh recession.
Many analysts believed that a Republican sweep on Election Day would have been the best outcome for swerving away from the cliff, since a government united under GOP leadership would be inclined to delay or cancel the scheduled tax hikes, which account for more than 80 percent of the hit to GDP. That may have been true, but it was also wishful thinking, since the GOP gained virtually nothing on Election Day. So investors must continue to grapple with bitterly divided government and all its ugly implications.
[READ: The Fiscal Cliff Just Got Steeper]
Many analysts still expect a compromise that spares the economy and perhaps even boosts the recovery. "The most important near-term question is still the fiscal cliff," says Russell Price, senior economist at Ameriprise Financial. "With all the rhetoric of the campaign now over, I think we'll see a deal come into focus rather quickly."
That would be ideal, but many skeptical investors recall the appalling spectacle in the summer of 2011, when it would have been simple to hash out a compromise to extend the nation's borrowing limit. Instead, politicians threatened to default on U.S. debt, regardless of the consequences. They finally did reach a last-second deal, but the theatrics were so alarming that Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time ever, and stocks fell by seven percent.
Perhaps the 2012 election has changed the tragicomic dynamic in Washington, but the gut reaction of investors is to prepare for the worst. That's what they're doing now, by selling.
Rick Newman is the author of Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

source: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/11/07/why-the-stock-market-is-bummed-about-the-election

Nate Silver's book sales skyrocket 2013?

Nate Silver nailed it last night, and it's paying off.
The New York Times' political statistician recently released a book, and in the last 24 hours sales have skyrocketed by 850% on Amazon.com, CNNMoney reports. "It is now the second best selling book on the site, behind only popular children's book, 'The Third Wheel, Diary of a Wimpy Kid Book 7.'"
Prior to the election, Silver's methodology was called into question by pundits skeptical of his reliance on polling data, including MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and David Brooks of the New York Times. (Silver's model is based on what Ezra Klein described as "little more than a sophisticated form of poll aggregation." If Silver had been wrong, the polling would have been wrong.) Yet Silver's model correctly forecast the winner in all 50 states. Florida, which he gave Obama a 50.3% chance of winning, is still up in the air -- but the 50.3% forecast more or less accounts for that.
Silver has been a huge asset to the Times since his model correctly forecast the outcome in 49 of 50 states during the 2008 election. In the days and hours prior to the election, roughly one out of every five visitors to NYTimes.com visited his blog, FiveThirtyEight.
Late last month, Silver acknowledged that his reputation was on the line in this election. “I'm sure that I have a lot riding on the outcome," he said. "I'm also sure I'll get too much credit if the prediction is right and too much blame if it is wrong."
Whether Silver's reputation should be determined by the accuracy of his forecasts -- it is an open and feverish debate -- the fact of the matter is that 2012 earned Silver more web traffic, money, and fame than he has ever had before. He won re-election with one hell of a mandate.
Silver did not respond to requests for an interview.
Read more about: Nate Silver

WASHINGTON—

— Nate Silver was right. The Gallup Poll was wrong.
Silver, 34, a University of Chicago graduate and the computer expert who gave Obama a 90 percent chance of winning re-election, predicted on his blog, FiveThirtyEight (for the number of votes in the Electoral College), that the president would get 51 percent of the popular vote as he predicted each of the 50 states, including all nine battlegrounds.
"Nate Silver, right," said Bill Burton, who moved from the White House to the pro-Obama super political action committee Priorities USA Action.
Gallup's daily national tracking poll put Republican nominee Mitt Romney ahead by 5 percentage points until it was suspended because of superstorm Sandy, and a final national survey released Monday gave the Republican a 1-point advantage.
"These polls are designed only to measure what is happening at the time of that poll in terms of the national popular vote" and are not "designed to be predictive," Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport said.
With the count in Florida still to be finished, Obama was leading Romney nationwide by 2 percentage points, 50 percent to 48 percent, and won a decisive Electoral College victory.
Two university-based pollsters joined Silver in correctly predicting Obama's win, and one of them will be dead-on about the electoral vote tally.
Drew Linzer, an assistant professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta and a former pollster based in California, predicted Tuesday morning on votamatic.org that Obama would end the race with 332 electoral votes and Romney 206.
Sam Wang, a Princeton University professor of neuroscience, posted his final prediction — that Obama would likely get 303 electoral votes to Romney's 235 — on the school's election blog at 2 p.m. Tuesday. He revised Obama's total downward from 332 based on late polls Tuesday.
Florida, with its 29 electoral votes, hasn't been called by The Associated Press. Its outcome will determine which of those professors' final forecasts was accurate.
— Bloomberg

Copyright © 2012, Chicago Tribune