Wickersham's Conscience

Update for results through November 11:

Murkowski continues to hold an unchallenged 89.78% of the write-in votes, as statistics would predict, with a little less half of the total write-in votes counted. Today’s percentage is actually slightly higher, which translates into a handful of additional votes.

WC will say it again: despite ridiculously lousy excuses for challenges to write-in ballots and sudden, unsupported claims of voter fraud, Miller has lost.

And, gentle readers, when a candidate starts touting talk radio hosts as authority for anything, the candidate knows he has lost. Call it Wickersham’s Law.

The unofficial election results as of November 10 have “Write-In” getting 92,979 votes to Joe Miller’s 82,180. Absentee ballots are still coming in.

As of 6:30 PM on Wednesday, the Division of Elections had counted about 20% of those write-in ballots. Assuming the ballots counted so far are  statistically random selection, Miller has lost the election. Here’s why:

About 89% of the ballots are in favor of Lisa Murkowski and are not challenged by Joe Miller’s election watchers.

89% x 92,979 = 82,751 uncontested votes

Even if Joe Miller were to win every single disputed ballot – including the ones he is challenging because they say “Murkowski, Lisa” instead of “Lisa Murkowski” – he still loses by more than 500 votes, a landslide in Alaska’s infamously close election contests.

And Miller’s not going to win on many of his contested write-in ballots. Voter intent is the key, not a twisted, absolutist view of the law. The view is particularly reprehensible in a state where Alaska Native voters have limited English skills, triggering, on the one hand, federal laws designed to protect those votes, and, on the other, a certain racist tinge to Miller’s tactics. Miller, after all, knows those Alaska Native votes are heavily weighted against him.

Miller’s options are either to object to more ballots for even flimsier reasons (“That “i” isn’t crossed.”), lie to himself about the unlikely chance that the first 20% isn’t statistically random, or go home and figure out how to pay his $100,000 in credit card bills. We already know Joe Miller will lie to his colleagues; it’s even easier for him to lie to himself.

WC will update this post for daily results as they come in.

Caribou Barbie is sharing her ignorance of economics via Facebook. (It’s really sad that she can’t manage a blog, but Alaskans’ expectations of the Quitter are about at the level of Facebook anyway.)  Because Palin is involved, it’s a muddle, but WC will strive to tease out the details for his readers. And offer a moral to the story. And advice to Wall Street Journal reporter Sudeep Reddy.

The Queen of Darkness gave a speech – for a given definition of  ”speech” – to a trade-association convention in Phoenix, in which she criticized Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s plans for the Fed’s purchase of US Treasury bonds. The speech was long on tirade and short on economics, butt Palin argued that the Fed’s efforts are inflationary:

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.

[Digression #1: The comments to this National Review piece are much better than Palin's speech. Consider this observation: "It is a sad day for conservatives when the National Review, whose pages were once graced with the editorial pen of a towering intellect, William F Buckley, accepts Sara[sic] Palin as an commentator on anything, much less the subject of economics where she is woefully out of her depth.”]

Wall Street Journal reporter Sudeep Reddy responded, noting,

Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact. The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record (since theLabor Department started keeping this measure in 1968). Even if you pick a single snapshot — say, September’s year-over-year increase in prices — that was just 1.4%, far better than the 6% annual increase for food prices recorded in September 2008.

The overall consumer price index was up 1.1% in September from a year earlier. Apart from September 2009 (when prices were down 1.3%), that was the slowest annual inflation rate for September since the early 1960s. That’s not strong evidence to argue about rising prices today.

The Queen of Darkness couldn’t let that go by, of course. She responded on Facebook,

That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”

The article noted that “an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants…Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”

Now I realize I’m just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I’m surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn’t.

[Digression #2: WC had to wash his ears out with strong soap after that "humble folks like me" line. But WC's readers should read a sampling of the comments to the Facebook post to get an idea what Palin's supporters are thinking - for a given definition of "thinking."]

Reporter Reddy demonstrated that while she may subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, the Quitter doesn’t read it very carefully. He pointed out the article said,

A broad measure of food prices from the Labor Department shows prices rose at an average annual rate of less than 0.6% in the first nine months of the year. September’s increase in food prices — 1.4% for food and beverages at an annual rate — was low by historical standards.(In fact, the lowest average annual inflation rate on record was 1.4%, in 1992.) Commerce Department inflation data show a similarly slow year-over-year increase for food prices, 1.3%.

There may be some price pressure at the wholesale level, but in a time of weak demand, that doesn’t translate to higher prices. And, in any event, we’re talking abut retail prices now, not in the future. Palin was simply wrong.

As of this date, the ex-Governor has not attempted a riposte.

So what have WC and his readers learned from this little exchange?

1. Caribou Barbie’s in the shallow end of the Econ 101 pool.

2. It doesn’t matter how silly Palin’s claims may be, her followers will lap it up.

3. Sudeep Reddy needs to follow Jack Coghill‘s advice to WC 20 years ago: “Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk.”