It's Time for Plan B

In my last two articles about the environment, I argued that there has been some promising news in the environmental front. Indeed there has. The United States has, shockingly, reduced its emissions by about 3 percent, on track to meet our goal of a 17 percent reduction (and faster than any other developed nation), thanks largely to the expanded use of natural gas (and the fall of oil and coal in the market), a huge investment from the federal government in green tax cuts and renewable energy, and higher fuel standards (and, unfortunately, the effects of the recession). Still, the bad news keeps coming: China has increased its CO2 emissions by about 3 percent, and globally, emissions and temperatures keep going up. It's unlikely that Congress will enact any kind of cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax. Plan A--assume that the public will understand the seriousness of the problem, governments will show some spine, businesses will act more responsibly, and that treaties will actually work--has failed. We need a Plan B. Here are three possible steps to at least consider:

1. Geoengineering

When President Lyndon Johnson was first presented with a report on the global warming problem, the authors didn't even consider reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, the report called for spreading tiny particles across the ocean's surface to reflect sunlight. This is solar radiation management, an example of geoengineering. The most common example of SRM is cool roofing, painting roofs white to reflect the heat. This is vital because buildings are more than a third of American energy use. The Department of Energy has already begun implementing cools roofs to its buildings and other buildings across the country and it appears that both the Chinese and the Americans, the two worst polluters, are interested in geoengineering projects.

But to many scientists, geoengineering is at best a tool to use with carbon reduction, and at worst, a possibility of leading to unintended consequences. More controversial and less scientifically tested geoengineering projects include manipulating the Earth's environment through ocean iron fertilization, which could have enormous and devastating consequences. Consider how Matthews and Turner put it: "Given our current level of understanding of the climate system, it is likely that the result of at least some geoengineering efforts would follow previous ecological examples where increased human intervention has led to an overall increase in negative environmental consequences." That's why many proponents of the controversial measure argue that it should be used sparingly and alongside carbon emission reduction, not as a replacement of more serious action. Look at how one scientist put it: Given the total failure of the human race to tackle this problem with the urgency that the science has demanded, geoengineering seems to be inevitable.

2. Let the states lead the way

Unfortunately, our Congress is missing in action (how shocking). Instead of tackling this problem, they're making sure Meals on Wheels isn't funded. The President seems to be committed to the issue and is expected to announce even more actions, with plans to possibly include regulations of existing power plants, increase renewable energy, and improve energy efficiency. Unfortunately, he has been left at the alter by Congress. Fortunately, though, some states are taking action. The most obvious is California, which in 2006 passed a major environmental law to achieve a massive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. For those who argue that environmentalism will sink an economy, when Governor Jerry Brown (D) came into office, California had a $27 billion deficit and 12.4 percent unemployment. Thanks to his leadership, the state now has an $850 million surplus and a reduction in unemployment by three percent. While most other states don't have as nearly an aggressive approach as California does, at least other states are taking action. My state of Ohio, for example, has a law mandating that a quarter of our energy be from renewable sources by 2025. Most other states, even Texas, have these renewable portfolio standards. Hopefully the states will continue to lead, because our Congress is missing.    

(In some cases, it's the local communities who are taking the lead. My home town of Medina sorts through everything its residents throw away. The results: 60 percent of waste is recycled, as opposed to less than 10 percent for traditional curve pick-up methods.)

3. Ignore the dismissive, alarm the concerned 

We don't have an engaged public on the issue. The Yale Forestry and Environmental Studies reports that there are essentially six different types of Americans regarding opinions on climate policies: the alarmed, the concerned, the cautious, the disengaged, the doubtful, and the dismissive. I believe that the 15 percent of doubters' minds can be changed. However, the American media has given such a large audience to the 10 percent of Americans who are dismissive of the science, the folks who say ridiculous things like "it's only 70 degrees this week in June, so there can't be global warming." That portion of America is unreachable, and we should stop treating this like a classic "there's-two-sides-to-every-debate" argument. (And no, for the millionth time, there is no scientific disagreement about global warming.) While it's encouraging that the 12 percent of those who are alarmed are very much engaged in solving the problem, we need to figure out a way to alarm those who are concerned and those who are cautious, which together constitute slightly more than half of the public. Otherwise, while we may have won the argument regarding the science, we may never win the argument on aggressive action.

Read More →

Man of Steel

It is puzzling. How can I like the emotion of a film so much and yet be so annoyed by its visuals? How can interesting characters surrender to gratuitous special effects? Such is the case with Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel," the newest franchise reboot, this time about, of course, Superman. This is the seventeen-hundredth film I've seen, and I wish I could have left the theater with a bit more excitement.

But it can be said happily that I did leave the theater thinking about the actors. I get the impression that these performers really insisted that they would only sign on if their characters were made more interesting than they were in previous installments, and for the most part, it works. Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent and Russell Crowe as Jor-El here are not simply cameos. (How cool would it be to have both Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe as fathers?) Superman is fatherless and yet he is not. He has answers, but many of them don't make sense. These two fathers are the moral fabric of the movie. Consider Jor-El's precious goodbye to his only son, and later guidance throughout the film. He is a scientist and a pacifist, ready to engage in a debate to win but just as ready to wield a gun. Also consider Pa Kent's fatherly supervision of young Clark, who is understandably confused (played quite well by young Dylan Sprayberry), far more so than any other teenager. Pa Kent doesn't have many answers, but he does have humility, hope and work ethic, and he tries to instill this in his young adopted son.  He's far more simple than Jor-El, but he's done the best he can. The young Clark panics and begs to keep on pretending to be Jonathan's son. "You are my son," Jonathan replies, holding Clark tightly. It's a moving scene; this is the emotion I mentioned liking so much.

Finally, there's Michael Shannon's performance as Superman's nemesis, General Zod. His multilingual ultimatum to the people of Earth is harrowing. Shannon has a talent for playing villains and morally complex men, but here I think his portrayal is just as much of the latter as it is the former. Zod sees himself as protector of Krypton, and he will fight to save it; he is utilitarianism at its worst. Fortunately, it's not only these four actors I've mentioned who are really good in their roles.  So too are Richard Schiff as a benign scientist, Christopher Meloni as a hawkish military officer, Laurence Fishburne as Daily Planet editor Perry White, and Diane Lane as Martha Kent.  And finally, Henry Cavill as Superman does a remarkable job. He brings unique qualities to the character: youth, vulnerability, pride, confusion, confidence. He deserves accolades for his performance for how well he carries it. But one disappointing aspect of the film is that charming chemistry between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder in "Superman" from 1978 is missing here.

Do I prefer "Superman" over "Man of Steel"? Definitely not. I found the first film to be dull and silly, a classic example of style over substance. Unfortunately, though, that is prevalent more often than not in "Man of Steel." I mentioned Jor-El's ability to debate. At one point, he is engaged in an argument with Zod. Zod and Jor-El are once comrades but now enemies, at odds with how to ensure the future prosperity of their home, Krypton. As Krypton is destroyed, Jor-El manages to send his son to Earth, far away from Zod, where he hopes his son will lead the people of Earth to a brighter future.  Reunited, the tables have turned. Zod has escaped from prison and is ready to destroy Earth, and he doesn't intend any reason or logic to stop him, despite Jor-El's best efforts. It's an entertaining scene, but it's ruined immediately with a cutaway to Superman being chased by some sort of arm machine.  It's unfortunate that Snyder has let visual effects practically ruin "Man of Steel." Visual effects enhanced, not hindered, his previous comic book film, "Watchmen." Here, it is not the case. The first half-hour or so features special effects that look as bad as they were in "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" more than a decade ago. The film's second half features a lot of the character-driven scenes I previously mentioned. But with about an hour left to go, the audience must sit through scene after scene of headache-inducing noise and destruction, with the vision of "Independence Day" but the amateurish performance of "Transformers." And just when you think it's over, there's more (and that ain't a good thing). Supposedly, even Superman's cape in the action scenes is CGI.

So now I feel as though the film has not lived up to its very high expectations.  It's a bit ironic that the previous "Superman" film, Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," which, despite a lot of money and solid reviews (much higher than "Man of Steel"), was deemed so much a failure that the studio felt they needed to reboot their reboot. Studio logic would then dictate that it's time for another reboot. But Superman the character has a great talent for picking himself up, and so I am reminded of previous comic book films. "X-Men" was fairly lame but was followed by an exceptional sequel. "Batman Begins" brought a breath of fresh air to Batman but was not nearly as terrific as Christopher Nolan's masterful "The Dark Knight."  Many fans consider "Spider-Man 2" to be superior to "Spider-Man" (I disagree). So, I have what Superman claims his "S" stands for that the next installment will be much better. This looks like a job for Superman.

Read More →

The Funniest AFI Moments

This Saturday, TNT will present the American Film Institute's Lifetime Achievement Award to Mel Brooks, a man who certainly deserves it. For more than fifty years, he has made us practically cry laughing with films like "The Producers" in 1968 (along with the Broadway version and 2005 film version), "Young Frankenstein," "Blazing Saddles," "Spaceballs," and others. Do you like the old show "Get Smart"? Brooks was a co-creator. In fact, he has won an Oscar, an Emmy, a Tony and a Grammy, making him one of the few individuals to win all four. The AFI Lifetime Achievement Award is, according to them, the highest honor an American in film can get. Fortunately, the show is often quite funny, and knowing the long list of co-workers and famous fans of Brooks, we can be sure that Saturday night's show will be good fun. For a brief history of such humor at the AFI awards, here are some of their funniest moments.    

Steve Martin, Tom Hanks, 2002

Steve Martin, perhaps the funniest man alive, opened the show expressing just a bit of faux-jealousy towards Hanks during the latter's "mid-life achievement award." Martin delivers the lines in that dry, sarcastic tone that he does best. "How did Tom come so far so quickly? Well, nepotism."    

Billy Crystal, Robert De Niro, 2003 

Billy Crystal, Robert De Niro's co-star from "Analyze This," doesn't exactly deliver a knee-slapper (but Robin Williams did during his hysterical roast that night of Martin Scorsese), but it gets the show off to a nice start. He lampoons De Niro's famous work ethic, compares his early look to that of the Monkees, and does a nice impression of De Niro's inability to make conversation (something Edward Norton and Leonardo DiCaprio also point out).  

Jim Carrey, Meryl Streep, 2004

Unfortunately, the AFI, like the rest of Hollywood, does not honor as many women as it does men, and this is inexcusable. (Only seven out of the forty honorees have been women.) But in 2004, they honored arguably the greatest artist alive, Meryl Streep, or, as Jim Carrey claimed, the three nominees in the category of Best Actress Ever. Carrey's schtick is over the top, but that's to be expected, and if you are generally amused by him, then you will love his opening, especially when he gives Streep "advice" that "less is more," then goes into imitations of De Niro and Jack Nicholson, both in attendance.
   

William Shatner, George Lucas, 2005

You'll notice a bit of puzzlement from "Star Wars" alumni Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford as William Shatner (from Lucas' rival/inspiration "Star Trek") comes forward to open the show with mock confusion. "'Star Trek' changed everything," he says. "And aren't these conventions wonderful?" What he does next with a band of Stormtroopers is so perfect, I think it's best to simply watch. 

Mike Myers, Sean Connery 2006

Mike Myers, after noting that he practically owes his career to Sir Sean Connery, is hysterical, particularly when he compares some of Connery's Bond girlfriends (like Pussy Galore) with Myers' first girlfriend, "Closedlegs Finklestein." Unfortunately, though, after the laughs from Myers speech, we have to sit through two hours of bad Connery impressions (though Eddie Izzard's is pretty good). But fortunately, it ends with Connery dancing and giving a terrific speech.    

Robin Williams, Al Pacino 2007

Any AFI show with Robin Williams is a joy, and after a terrific montage of Pacino's great work at the beginning of the show (which, as far as I can tell, is not available on Youtube), Williams, Pacino's co-star from the under-appreciated "Insomnia," notes that the AFI "could've given you this award in 1975, but that would have been a little early" and that after incorrectly claiming Pacino won an Oscar for "Raging Bull," "if you put Robert De Niro in a dryer, you get Al Pacino!" He then leads the audience in one of Pacino's most famous movie lines.   

Betty White, Morgan Freeman, 2011

Betty White sings to Morgan Freeman. I don't think I need to write anything else.  

The showing will be at 9 pm (EST) on TNT with an encore showing on TCM on July 24.  Until then, it's always Springtime for Hitler.    

Okay, one more....

Read More →

Now You See Me

In college, I was assigned a story to review a magic act taking place at Kent State, the school I attended. The act featured a man named Joshua Seth, a hypnotist who showed us in the audience a video of a young girl whose phobia of dental procedures was eradicated through Seth's hypnotism. Seth, I wrote, entered the stage as if he were a rock star, then proceeded to hypnotize almost twenty students. He hypnotized them to react to changes in the room temperature only they could feel, play instruments to the William Tell Overture, and he somehow got the males to give birth while the female nurses assisted. It was all a heck of a lot of fun to watch, and I haven't even mentioned the volunteers rapping in Japanese. After the show, I interviewed two of the participants. One was a physics major (one of the more rational, logic-oriented majors out there) who told me that "it was real--no acting." When I asked the second student, a biology major, if she was skeptical at first, she replied, "Skeptical as hell--that's why I did it! "It's like tripping out," Seth told me afterwards, "but without the drugs." And the whole time I sat there wondering how he did it.

That's ultimately what's wrong with Louis Leterrier's "Now You See Me," a film about magicians who act as Robin Hoods by robbing banks. With a magic act, the majority of us have no idea how the tricks are performed. With this movie, it's simple: computer generated imagery. The latter used to be magical. We've all seen movies that have had such a, well, magical effect largely due to its visuals. Think of the first time you saw "Jurassic Park," the movie that pioneered such effects, or the "Harry Potter" movies (about magic, of course). A century ago, moviegoers supposedly ran out of theaters thinking the ocean waves were going to crash through the screen onto them or that they would be shot by cowboys. Georges Melies was the finest of these early pioneers. "The inventor of numerous illusions," as his epitaph states, Melies was literally a magician and incorporated some of these magical acts into his movies, the most famous being "A Trip to the Moon" in 1902. Filmmakers have, for the most part, abandoned Melies-esque zeal for innovative visual effects in movies. Consider one of the first scenes in "Now You See Me," where Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg) shows the audience a card trick. We're told, as we would for almost any card trick, to look at the cards and find one with our eyes. As this was happening, one could hear whispers throughout the theater of people telling each other that they all saw the same card, and I, as I was for Joshua Seth, wondered how the filmmakers did that. A second later, though, I was simply angry because the card trick was abandoned for a CGI effect, which didn't impress me. "Now You See Me" is essentially a magic movie with no magic in it.

This isn't to say that it is not fun. The actors here are generally a joy to watch. Consider the cast--Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Kelly. They've all, particularly in the past decade, made better movies and given better performances. But they're given here some fun stuff and fast, old-fashioned dialogue, and they seem to be enjoying themselves. Particularly noteworthy is Melanie Laurent, who plays the Interpol agent assigned to the case with Ruffalo's character. She's terrific in everything she's been in, including this one.  (You might recognize her from "Inglorious Basterds" and "Beginners.") Additionally, Dave Franco sometimes steals the show, and I suspect we'll see a lot more good things from him in the movies. But it's not simply our four protagonists and those chasing them who are interesting; it's virtually every character. Caine plays Arthur Tressler, a wealthy insurance company owner financing the magic act (called the Four Horsemen). In a duller script, his would basically be a glorified cameo. Instead, his character is interesting, and he's not quite who he seems to be. In fact, none of these characters are. This is a mysterious, who-stole-it caper movie, part "The Prestige," part "The Da Vinci Code," and part "The Sting."

The plot has numerous holes and requires a serious suspension of disbelief, but it is tolerable nonetheless.  Dylan Rhodes (Ruffalo) tries to piece together how these four (Eisenberg, Fisher, Harrelson, and Franco) are robbing banks during magic acts. The first one involves the Four Horsemen transporting an audience member from Las Vegas to Paris so he can help them rob a bank. Rhodes is skeptical of magic, and yet its the magicians who are having the most fun at his expense.  It gets to the point where you feel bad for him, a respectable detective being embarrassed by a magic act. But that's when the movie is at its most enjoyable, especially the second of three performances, taking place in New Orleans (with some more humorous hypnotism). Rhodes is repeatedly told how stupid he is by Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), a professional magician debunker who is perfectly capable of revealing how these magicians are committing their acts.  

So ultimately this is a movie with mixed reactions. I enjoyed the actors, and the story kept my attention, despite its plot holes. But then there's the final five minutes or so. Movies like this seem like they're entitled to twist the story for one final surprise, but this ending contains probably the worst twist ending I have ever seen. I want to repeat that: it's probably the worst twist I have ever seen. It's so unbelievably stupid, so insulting to the rest of the movie. It's not even deus ex machina; it's more like the deus just said, "To hell with it--I give up." So what rating should it be given? A very, very marginal approval. It's a fun movie, if you can tolerate some stupid things (and the lack of authentic magic).           



film, movie, movies, cinema, now you see me, morgan freeman, michael caine, jesse eisenberg, franco, rufffalo, magic

Read More →

Blaming Superman: Our Gun Problem Is Caused by Guns, Not Movies

"AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes."
-"Jackie Brown"

Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained" is undoubtedly controversial, mostly because of its repeated use of the N-word (don't discuss it with Samuel L. Jackson). But the film is also controversial because of its violence. Consider the classical Greek-style violence of his earlier movies like "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction," where much of the violence is off-camera and relatively mild compared to a lot of the action films of the time. Compare this to Tarantino's more recent ones like "Kill Bill" and "Inglorious Basterds." Tarantino would argue that these recent films are homages to the gratuitous violence of the movies he's paying tribute to, particularly those from Italy and Japan. Regardless, Tarantino has come to the point where he has decided to stop defending violence in his movies.

If a boy jumps out of a window thinking he is Superman, do we blame Superman? As many of you know, "Taxi Driver" is about a borderline-insane cab driver, played by Robert De Niro, who befriends a young prostitute and who, at one point, tries to assassinate a candidate for president. A man named John Hinckley was apparently under the impression that he could impress the young star of "Taxi Driver," Jodi Foster (who played the prostitute), by assassinating President Ronald Reagan, and so he tried. In 1981, after the attempted assassination of President Reagan, there was as much controversy about violence in movies as there is today. But are movies to blame for our gun violence epidemic? (Incidentally, a picture is making its rounds on the internet, pointing out the various officials with weapons meant to protect the president on that day in 1981. The point is directed to those who say that "good guys with guns" can stop "bad guys with guns." Sometimes it doesn't work.)

Upon reading the Second Amendment (in my copy from the Heritage Foundation, no less), I am astounded by how vague it is. All arms for every citizen? Well-regulated militia? If our ancestors found it appropriate to amend the Constitution throughout history, would it not be appropriate to amend this part of it? Second Amendment or not, we have a serious problem on our hands. In 2010, over 31,000 Americans were killed by guns. Since 1968, more Americans have died from guns than the number of Americans killed in our entire country's war history. Americans are not more violent than their counterparts around the world (our levels of car left, robbery, and assault are similar to other high-income nations), but American children are 13 times more likely to die from guns than their counterparts around the world. The remedy for this is gun control, simply because it works; according to conservative estimates, Australia's relatively recent gun control policies have saved at least 200 people a year, and instead of having 13 gun massacres in 18 years before their gun control law, Australians have had 0 since. Great Britain went through a similar decrease in gun violence. After the government introduced new gun control measures, gun violence fell. It's true that England and Wales faced a rise in gun crime immediately after the ban was introduced, but since 2004, the total number of firearm offenses has fallen every year (Lau 2012). Likewise, Scotland has seen a reduction every year (except 1998), and gun crime in Scotland is a third of what it was in 1996, after the Dunblane Shootings. Last year, Great Britain had only 32 gun homicides (North 2013). Because of this, Britain and Australia have been able to largely avoid an "American-style" gun culture of violence. It's time the American people also demand we end this "American-style" gun culture.

(Here's the links for Part 2 and Part 3.)

But instead of realizing these facts, we hear from the other side that doing something "infringes" on our rights. But currently under federal law, background checks are not required for sales from private sellers. This provides prohibited batterers with easy access to guns (Zeoli, Frattaroli 2013). Passing universal background checks could help prevent the wrong people from getting guns, but according to conservative logic, this is unconstitutional. (Additionally, 90% of Americans support background checks including 74% of NRA members.) Do conservatives and libertarians believe that everyone is entitled to possess a gun? Does everyone include those with substance abuse, those who have committed violence against intimate partners, and illegal aliens? The Constitution does not provide guidance on this, yet we have decided as a society that these individuals should not be allowed to possess guns. Under current federal law, those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors are prohibited from purchasing or possessing guns for life. Does this infringe on these citizens' constitutional rights? Several studies (Vigdor and Mercy 2003, 2006; Zeoli and Webster 2010) show that state domestic violence restraining order laws significantly reduced intimate partner homicides (guns are the weapon of choice among IPH perpetrators, according to Zeoli and Frattaroli), which is another example of the efficacy of gun control. Drug abusers are prevented from possessing guns, so why can't we extend that prohibition to those with alcohol abuse, which is just as strongly associated with violence and suicide as drug abuse is?  

Fortunately, times are changing. Despite conservative rhetoric, national gun ownership is decreasing; according to data collected from the General Social Survey, gun ownership has fallen even in the South and Western regions of the U.S. Then there's the falling approval ratings of Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire after her anti-common sense votes on the expanded background checks and her pathetic response to the daughter of the principal killed in Newtown.  Also consider the recent change-of-heart of Senator Joe Machin, the conservative Democratic senator of West Virginia. As Alec MacGillis' article in The New Republic points out, "What's remarkable [about Machin's switch] is not just that he sponsored the background-check bill, but that when it failed, he kept on campaigning."

So when guns aren't to blame, movies are. There are essentially two opinions on our epidemic: one is that guns cause violence and one is that violent media causes violence. As I stated before, I am not an expert on the Constitution, on psychology, on sociology (come to think of it, I'm not an expert in anything.) But I am a lover of the movies, and I feel compelled to explain my thoughts on whether it is right or wrong to regulate movies instead of regulating guns. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns have put forth a proposal of seven recommendations, including required background checks for all gun sales, limiting the availability of military-style weapons (as General Stanley McCrystal recently advocated for), and installing a Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives director, which hasn't had a director for six years. None of the proposals focus on violence in films. Additionally, we should pass federal legislation to pass child protection prevention to reduce gun violence among children; follow the 2013 recommendations of Vitter, Webster and Vernick to raise the federal minimum age requirement for firearm possession; and prohibit alcohol abusers from possessing firearms. This problem we have is not caused by the film industry but instead the fact that a "considerable fraction of people who commit violent crimes are legally entitled to guns" (Cook and Blose 1981).

But for now, regarding our gun violence epidemic, whom should we blame?  Our lack of common sense gun control or Superman?

Read More →

All These Scandals Means...Another Four More Years?

Republicans must be really excited these days. The Obama administration is engulfed in three "scandals" (none of which can be directly linked to the President himself). Regardless, they see blood and they are thirsty. 2016 is bound to return the White House to Republican hands. For one, as mentioned, President Obama is engulfed in "scandals." Second, history is our guide--can you name many times when one of the two parties held onto the White House for more than eight years? The last time that happened was twenty years ago. (Although, technically, with Al Gore's popular vote victory in 2000, it actually wasn't too long ago.) So it's just about guaranteed that Republicans will win in 2016, no matter what. Right?

Well, maybe not. Unfortunately for them, as of now, things aren't looking too good.



1. Demographics are seriously against them.  

In a little-noticed article from Nate Silver, he presented an interactive electoral map of the U.S. from 2016 to 2048. Readers can adjust the levels of new voters, assuming an immigration reform amnesty bill were to be passed. As you can see, if you start off at 50-50 (50% of unauthorized immigrants who become citizens and 50% who vote), then the map is identical to President Obama's 2012 victory.



But let's say you're a pessimist and assume no bill will pass and the roughly 12 million undocumented workers will remain that way. Surely the Republicans are projected to do better, right?

Nope. As you can see, even if it's 0-0, the map is the same. Republicans may be concerned about their electoral chances with or without an immigration bill, but even if there is none, assuming demographic behavior stays constant, the Republicans are in a huge amount of long-term trouble.

How about 2048? Even if no immigration reform bill is passed, Democrats are projected to increase their electoral victories by more than forty votes! Now the blue spreads to North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. And what if some sort of immigration reform is passed?

Wow. Texas--Texas--is blue.   

As you can see, demographics are changing. The Republican base (older white voters) is decreasing while the Democratic base (minorities) is increasing. Beyond that, there was a damning report this week about the GOP's perception among younger voters, who overwhelmingly voted for President Obama in both elections and are still not impressed by the Republicans. How do young Americans view the GOP?  "Close-minded," "old-fashioned," "racist," and Latino voters believe that the Republicans "couldn't care less about them." On the economy: "We've become the party that will pat you on the back when you make it, but won't offer you a hand to help you get there."

Republicans need to change--asap--if they want to start winning presidential elections again.     

2. Even without demographics, they might be in trouble.

The best book about presidential history and campaigns is Allan Lichtman's The Keys to the White House. It details a model he developed with a Russian earthquake science to predict which party would win the White House based on an analysis of every presidential election from 1860 to 1980. Their track record? From 1984 to 2012, the model accurately predicted the winner every single time. The way it works is there are thirteen statements (or "keys") regarding the economy, foreign policy, incumbent/opponent charisma, etc. None of the keys have anything to do with debates, commercials, or anything like that. If the statement is false, the key goes against the incumbent party. Six false keys means the incumbent party loses. For example, look at the 2012 race. Key 2 states that "there is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination." For 2012, this was obviously true, so it worked in President Obama's favor. For 2008, most keys worked against the incumbent Republicans.  

For 2016, as of now, I predict five false keys will be against the Democrats--1, 3, 7, 11, and 12--one short of the Republicans winning. That being said, if I'm correct that those five will be false, then all it takes is one tiny key to turn false for a Republican win, according to Lichtman's model. It's true that there could be a serious battle between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, but I doubt they will challenge each other. It's obvious that with Democrats, Biden is liked but Hillary is loved, and therefore, most Democrats are keeping their fingers crossed that she is the nominee. (Regardless, Key 12 regarding incumbent charisma will likely go against them; they're both fairly likable and great campaigners, but they don't have the charisma of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, or Barack Obama.)

3. For yet a third cycle, Republicans have mediocre candidates. 

Other than Marco Rubio, I can't see any of the possible Republican nominees being formidable. Because Chris Christie did the oh-so-un-Republican thing of being respectful to President Obama, he certainly won't be the nominee. (His recent moves regarding a replacement for the late Frank Lautenberg have done him no favors.) Bobby Jindal? He still hasn't recovered from national missteps. Rand Paul is still too extreme for the country and even for the Republican nomination. The Democrats should only fear Rubio, the Republican Obama.    

4. The economy is improving.

Facts are facts. At the beginning of President Obama's term, when he and his team hadn't even located the light switches yet, jobs were hemorrhaging by a horrifying 800,000 a month. For the past two years, however, the economy has been adding jobs. Additionally, our deficits are shrinking, and in April, the U.S. government ran a $113 billion surplus. (Obama's immediate predecessor, by the way, inherited a $5 trillion surplus and turned it into an $8 trillion deficit.) The problem with our shrinking deficits is that while we may be celebrating now, we are actually doing deficit reduction entirely the wrong way. While deficits are decreasing now, causing a drag on our economy, they are projected to increase again by the end of the decade. Essentially, we've found ways to do short-term fixes (sequestration, letting all the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest) but not long-term (health care costs, letting the Bush tax cuts expire). This may or may not help the Republicans in 2016.  
  

For the record, if I were forced to bet today about who would win in 2016, I would bet that it would be the Republicans. As everyone knows, it's very rare for a party to hold onto the White House for more than eight years. That being said, instead of numerous variables working in their favor, only some of them are. If they do want to win, they better step it up as well as hope President Obama's second term is less successful than his first term. Republicans have lost the past five out of six presidential elections. At this rate, they may lose the next eight.

Read More →