Month: September 2014

So the US and Saudis Created ISIS in Iraq

The U.S. administration and it’s neo-colonial allies have been messing with Syria since the year 2005 in favor of the Sunni Gulf States. The overall intention was to break the axis Iran – Baghdad – Damascus – Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Obama White House has taken the lead to overthrow President Assad, the same as in Libya and Bush did with Saddam Hussein. The removal of Assad and inflicting pain on Iran was in close coordination with the Israeli regime of right-wingers/settlers. It’s almost pacifying Israel’s hunger to bomb Iran in 2012 that Obama agreed on this path of regime change. Obama and its allies were fully part of the coalition to support the FSA and the political outsiders lining up abroad for decades. The inability to form a political opposition was another grand failure of Hillary Clinton. The U.S. has allowed tons of arms to be shipped from Libya to Syria via NATO partner Turkey. The US have trained “moderate rebels” in Jordan and on NATO bases in Turkey. The Al Nusra Front and ISIS have expressed their deepest appreciation to the US for training their men. Arms and fighters moved from the moderates to the Al Qaeda affiliated groups. ISIS was born out of the Sunni insurgency of Anbar province started in March 2003. Listen to the excellent interview with George Mitchell and read his articles in the Boston Globe.

I have no confidence in the people of the White House to get the policy right this time.

If Obama can’t fix the Israelis to move forward on a two-state solution with the Palestinians, he won’t succeed in any other campaign to remove ISIS or Assad. Saudi Arabia has been Israel’s ally in warfare against the ayatollahs of Iran, but the national interest of the Saudis force them to back the U.S. against ISIS that was created between them. The Saudis are no partner for peace in the region, they should be our nr. one foe to stop their funding of extremeists, preaching hate and propagate Wahhabism throughout the world.

Excellent Interview George Mitchell

An extraordinary person sums up America’s peril in the Middle East. The greatest threat to U.S. security are we as a nation over-extending our influence and our intervention in regional conflicts.

○ Former Sen. George Mitchell on ISIS Threat

“… And fourth and finally, I think we have to remember that the United States was a great nation long before it became a military and economic power. What appealed to people all around the world, and what still appeals to people all around the world is OUR IDEALS. The principles that are set forth in our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence. We have to remain true to them.”

How we got here | Part 1
By George J. Mitchell | The Boston Globe | Sept. 7, 2014 |

3 Years War? Obama to Bomb Syria in fight against ISIL
By Juan Cole | Informed Comment | Sept. 10, 2014  |

Juliet Eilperin and David Nakamura at WaPo report on a Monday evening dinner at the White House attended by foreign policy experts, in which President Obama expressed confidence that he had the authority to bomb ISIL positions in Syria.

In other reports, Obama officials have leaked that they think this is a 3 years war. (Ronald Reagan began vastly increasing the aid to Afghan rebels against the then Communist government in Kabul in 1982, and US counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency in that country is still going on in 2014, 32 years later; so three years have a way of becoming multiplied by 10).

Everyone should just understand that  the social science literature finds that external interventions typically extend, not shorten, civil wars, as Marc Lynch has pointed out.

Continued below the fold …

At the same time, Obama appears to envisage arming and training the “moderates” of the Free Syrian Army, who have consistently been pushed to the margins by al-Qaeda offshoots and affiliates. Private billionaires in the Gulf will continue to support ISIL or its rival, Jabhat al-Nusra (the Succor Front, which has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda). Strengthening yet another guerrilla group will, again, likely prolong the fighting. Moreover, in the past two years, Free Syrian Army moderate groups have gone radical and joined Nusrah or ISIL at an alarming rate. Defectors or defeated groups from the FSA will take their skills and arms with them into the al-Qaeda offshoots.

Obama’s ISIL Actions are Defensive, Despite Rhetoric of going on Offense

Obama’s War on Terror (and Islam) Redux
By Richard Silverstein | Tikun Olam | Sept. 10, 2014  |

Here we go again.  No sooner did we stop Obama from making a fatal mistake in going to war against Bashar al-Assad almost a year ago today, than we have to put our bodies in the path of another war train rolling down the tracks.  This time the bogeyman is called ISIS.

I bet you thought we’d retired that awful phrase, the war on terror.  That by-product of the Bush-Cheney years.  Wasn’t it Barack Obama who told us we were no longer at war? That we were replacing that spooky Cold War-like phrase with something more positive, constructive.  What happened to that guy?  Where was he tonight?  I missed him.

…
“We have all been here before” to quote Crosby Still & Nash.  Remember Iraq I?  Where did that $2-trillion go that we spent there over the past nine years?  Down the drain.  What about those hundreds of millions in sophisticated equipment we left for the Iraqi military?  The same ones who turned and ran at the first hint of Islamist trouble?  Does anyone remember the 145,000 Iraqi civilians we killed to bring democracy to the Mideast?  And the 5,000 U.S. soliders who died?

Here follows what a Reuters reporter had to say on the subject:

In Iraq, U.S. is spending millions to blow up captured American war machines

“…Islamic State’s captured an enormous amount of U.S. weaponry, originally intended for the rebuilt Iraqi Army. You know — the one that collapsed in terror in front of the Islamic State, back when they were just ISIL? The ones who dropped their uniforms, and rifles and ran away? They left behind the bigger equipment, too, including M1 Abrams tanks (about $6 million each), 52 M198 howitzer cannons ($527,337), and MRAPs (about $1 million) similar to the ones in use in Ferguson…”

“Now, U.S. warplanes are flying sorties, at a cost somewhere between $22,000 to $30,000 per hour for the F-16s, to drop bombs that cost at least $20,000 each, to destroy this captured equipment. That means if an F-16 were to take off from Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey and fly two hours to Erbil, Iraq, and successfully drop both of its bombs on one target each, it costs the United States somewhere between $84,000 to $104,000 for the sortie and destroys a minimum of $1 million and a maximum of $12 million in U.S.-made equipment.”

Imagine if we’d fought harder against Bush’s Iraq war mirage in 2003 and prevented the very nightmare we face tonight.  Imagine if we hadn’t invaded Iraq and turned the place into a seething cauldron of inter-ethnic and religious hate spiced with a heavy does of anti-Americanism?  But the damage has been done.  The question now is whether we’ll compound our earlier error and get bogged down once again in a war against the Arab Mideast.

ISISophobia or “The Mooslims Are Coming”

BooMan’s earlier optimistic note on Obama foreign policy was unrealistic as I wrote at the time. Yesterday we got more of the same from President Obama, it’s another “surge” strategy without US boots on the ground.

My diaries on this topic has been dozens in the last two years …

○ Dream On Guys!

US policy on Syria as put forward by Secretary of State Clinton on June 6, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you very much, Ahmet. And thank you and your team for the excellent preparations for this first ministerial meeting of the Global Counterterrorism Forum [GCTF is chaired by the US and Turkey]. You just heard from the minister an overview of all that we have been working on. The United States views this forum as an excellent opportunity to pursue our common goal of making the world safe from terrorism, but doing it in a way that is in keeping with human rights and the rule of law. And the announcements that Ahmet just related about continuing work that we will do evidences the approach that we are taking, and I’m very pleased that in just the few short months of its existence, the Global Counterterrorism ForumGlobal Counterterrorism Forum has already helped generate smart and achievable strategies for combating terrorism, and the United States looks forward to continuing our work.

Opening Remarks at the Global Counterterrorism Forum

“The core of al-Qaida that carried out the 9/11 attacks and other attacks in countries represented here today may be on the path to defeat, but the threat has spread, becoming more geographically diverse as groups associated with al-Qaida expand their operations. Terrorists now hold territory in Mali, Somalia, and Yemen. They are carrying out frequent and destabilizing attacks in Nigeria and the Maghreb. Here in Turkey, the PKK continues its long campaign of terror and violence, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives. The United States stands strongly with Turkey in its fight against the PKK.”
[As of this month, the PKK has joined the coalition to fight ISIS – Oui]

On a few other issues, I want to thank the minister for the meeting that he hosted last night, the ad hoc meeting on Syria intended to intensify our efforts to support the Syrian people, given the urgency of the situation. The regime-sponsored violence that we witnessed again in Hama yesterday is simply unconscionable. Assad has doubled down on his brutality and duplicity, and Syria will not, cannot be peaceful, stable, or certainly democratic until Assad goes. So even as we intensify the sanctions pressure, because as we were meeting in Istanbul, the sanctions working committee of the Friends of the Syrian People was meeting in Washington, the time has come for the international community to unite around a plan for post-Assad Syria. And last night we discussed a number of the steps that we intend to take together.

I will just mention a few of the key elements and principles that are focusing our work. First, the Syrian Government must implement all six points of the Annan initiative, including a real ceasefire agreed to and observed by all parties. Second, Assad must transfer power and depart Syria. Third, an interim representative government must be established through negotiation. And we are firm in our core principles, and we believe we have to keep faith and do justice to the aspirations of the Syrian people. The transition phase must lead to a democratic, representative, and inclusive government. There must be civilian control of the military and security forces and respect for the rule of law and equality before the law for all Syrians regardless of background.

We know that many still cling to the Assad regime because they fear change more. And we have consistently made clear that we support a positive, inclusive democratic transition roadmap. And we have to bring people to that vision and, in effect, move them away from the Assad regime so that they can’t imagine a better future for themselves and Syria.

And secondly, we have to unite the international community behind a plan that is achievable and keeps faith with those inside Syria who are protesting and demonstrating, suffering, and dying for their universal human rights.

We said last night we are prepared to work with any country, including all members of the UN Security Council, and we will do so so long as any such gathering starts from the basic premise that Assad and his regime must give way to a new democratic Syria, and we have to continue to put more pressure and we urge all nations to impose and implement sanctions and close loopholes in existing measures.

Obama Administration Backed Muslim Brotherhood

○ Qatar Fail in Arab Spring and Loss to Saudi Diplomacy – July 2013

This afternoon I spent an hour and fifteen minutes on a conference call with three “senior administration officials” who gave me a preview of Obama’s speech and strategy. I spent most of the time on the call pulling my hair out.

I am very concerned about the decision to escalate and in particular to get involved in Syria. Very concerned.

But, first, let me give you the good news. The good news is that this policy has been set by some very, very smart well-intentioned people who are not bullshitting to deceive the country into supporting their plan. They have been deliberate and methodical, and the steps they have taken so far have made a lot of sense and have saved a lot of lives.

Here’s what they are getting right. First, they couldn’t do shit in Iraq until Prime Minister Maliki was gone because they would have been perceived as the Shia’s air force. They forced him out and they did it in consultation and with the consent of both Sunni powers and Iran. There are important Sunnis in Iraq, like the governor of Anbar Province, who are eager to work with us and with the new government in Baghdad. As a result of vigorous efforts in recent weeks, for the first time in a long time the regional powers are coming together rather than plotting to destroy each other. The people they are sending to Iraq and the strikes they are carrying out are being done at the request and with the blessing of the Iraqi government and with the consent of the regional powers. And their involvement in Syria is calibrated in a way that it has at least the potential to destroy ISIS without simultaneously helping the Assad regime gain ground or cause the Sunni powers to turn against the effort.

Now, the bad news. It may be difficult to get the Iraqi army and the Kurds’ peshmerga to become an effective fighting force even with American air power. We saw how effective this kind of arrangement can be when the Northern Alliance routed the Taliban, so don’t totally discount it, but the Northern Alliance was a more united armed force that was able to hold things together for a time after victory. The Iraqi and Kurdish forces are as likely to fight each other as ISIS.

Next there is the problem with Assad. The civil war will not end until Assad is gone. The administration doesn’t want to talk about a post-Assad Syria. They don’t have a plan for what to do with Syria anymore than Bush had a plan for what to do with Iraq.

We can train and equip so-called moderate opponents of Assad, but we’re going to run into problems with our relations with both Russia and Iran if we try to send them into Damascus. The administration doesn’t want to talk about that. What they did assure me is that they’ve spent the last two years working with so-called moderates and now they have a comfort level and the intelligence to feel like they know who they’re dealing with. They think they have opened the pipelines into Syria to where they can get the weapons into the correct hands. I’m glad they didn’t spend the last two years arming ISIS, but the fall of Mosul shows what can happen even with the best vetting in the world.

Here’s my problem. This plan is not bad by any means. It’s close to as good as I could come up with on my own. But it’s a very difficult plan to execute that relies on the American people being very patient. And I don’t believe that the American people are going to be patient. I worry that they will not get the time they need to make this work. I am not even sure any plan can work.

On the upside, the coalition they are putting together has the potential to end the sectarian warfare and improve relations between nations, and it could ultimately save many lives. I am really torn about this. I’m definitely feeling like Hamlet tonight.

The debate in Scotland has shifted towards YES perhaps because there is the realization that institutions and assets which they had always been told were British, are in fact English controlled.

Thus the Pound Sterling belongs to England (the central bank name: Bank of England should have been a giveaway).  The military bases and manufacturing facilities in Scotland will be moved south – proving that the military and associated industries belong to England not all of Britain.  And the general sense that the Scots will have to develop all institutions and skills of Governance from scratch – as if Scots have had no hand act or part of the Departments of State in Whitehall.

In other words the implied blackmail of taking all these things away has only confirmed that Scotland was being ruled not just from, but by England in the first place.  Parties to a divorce normally split their joint assets and one party cannot claim virtually all the house and contents as their own: and yet this is partly what the No campaign have been claiming.

Suddenly, with the release of just two polls showing a “too close to call” result, an establishment panic has set in as this approach has been rumbled and has backfired. All the (archetypically English) party leaders are suddenly rushing up north with offers of enhanced devolution which Salmond had requested be on the ballot as a third option in the first place.  They therefore lack all credibility: just as all the promises made before the 1979 devolution referendum were promptly shelved afterwards.

If the much maligned (particularly by the English) Gordon Brown were still the PM, none of this might have been such a big deal today.  But the fact is the Scots now feel as if they have been taken for fools, and don’t like the way the English have been putting them down –  more or less implying they are incapable of running a government or a monetary system.

Contra Luis de Sousa, I don’t see Scotland being allowed to remain within the EU as being much of an issue – as a successor state – just as East Germany joining the the EU as part of Germany never became much of an issue.  With England possibly leaving, the EU will be more than anxious to ensure Scotland stays – and thus make it much more difficult for England to leave as leaving would then have much greater effects on their very substantial cross-border trade with Scotland than Scottish independence ever did. The Scots would also be much less disruptive of EU business than the UK has been, and will, I think be welcomed with open arms – Spanish and Belgian qualms notwithstanding.

Of course publicly, at least, the EU has to be fully supportive of an intact UK as a member state right up to and including the referendum. But suddenly, if the referendum is passed, all that will change dramatically and previously mooted legal difficulties will become mere technicalities that can be resolved sooner rather than later, with the declaration that Scotland is a unique and once off situation, and not a precedent for any other situation… As the entry of Romania and Bulgaria showed, EU membership is ultimately a political and not a legal decision.  The membership criteria applied depend on the exigencies of the day.

The price may be, at some point in the future, that Scotland has to join the Euro.  The EU would certainly not be happy to see another new currency joining the Union.  That would be very unpopular if mooted right now, but might become the next best option if England were tempted to play silly buggers in negotiations around the Pound, just as they have played silly buggers with the concept of “Britishness” and all the institutions of state that were supposed to belong to Scotland as well, but which have now been claimed by England.

As for N. Ireland, the Unionists are all in a dither with Orangemen marching against independence in the Streets of Scotland: Just what the YES campaign needed to prove that “the Union” is a partisan and sectarian arrangement – Anglicanism being the State religion of England whereas the Church of Scotland is not established and mainly Presbyterian. Many N. Ireland Unionists would, ideally, like their own independent state, but know that just about no one else will agree to that. Geographically, emotionally and historically they are much closer to Scotland than to England, and yet following Scottish independence, it us to England that they will continue to be tied.

I think that the worry that England will have a permanent Conservative majority is overdone.  Scotland, with less than 10% of the total population was always little more than a makeweight in Westminster politics. Besides, the UKIP may well split the Conservative vote which is fatal in a primitive first past the post system. The Conservatives, having “lost” Scotland, may well become unelectable for many years to come, especially as they are split on the perennial EU question.

UKIP is the classic little Englander, petit bourgeois, Thatcherite English Nationalist party and could displace the Tories as the lead right wing party as it has a clear (and  relatively popular) position in opposition to the EU. Labour have a relatively clear pro-EU policy and could benefit from the split on the right, if they had the courage to actually offer a left alternative. My view is that Scottish independence could actually lead to a Labour led Government (possibly in coalition with the Lib Dems)  making it more likely, not less, that the rump UK will remain in the EU. But then political prediction, either way, can be a mugs game. My point is though, that the typical left objection to Scottish independence may be wrong, and in any case, it is not Scotland’s job to save the English from themselves.

So overall I don’t see all the negatives establishment and other commentators have associated with Scottish Independence.  It could be a long and difficult road.  Establishing the traditions and institutions of full statehood is not a trivial exercise, even if it can be a liberating and enervating one. My sense, having traveled through Scotland quite a lot in recent years was that it is a very staid and somewhat defeatist place, lacking the confidence to take it’s own place amongst the nations of this earth. My sense now is that that may be about to change.

The people want Net Neutrality, you morons.

It couldn’t have been happening to a more deserved nation, after PM Cameron threatened to quit the European Union, the Scots placed an attack on the Union Jack. Queen Elisabeth II has made it clear she won’t interfere, busy as she is with her grandchildren and her son heir to the throne at age 65. The havoc wrought by the British Empire and its dissolution is felt today in it’s former colonies extending from Hong Kong through South Asia into the Middle East. I would be glad to have the UK pull out of Europe. Out of Germany I hear positive news, the polls indicate the regency of the U.S. over Germany should end soon.

Scottish independence: Don’t rip Union apart – PM

DAVID Cameron pleaded with Scotland not to rip apart the Union as he issued a warning that independence is a “leap into the dark” from which there is no going back.

The Prime Minister told voters “we desperately want you to stay” as he prepared to travel north to hit the campaign trail today with Labour leader Ed Miliband and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

* Get the latest referendum news, opinion and analysis from across Scotland and beyond on our new Scottish Independence website

In an article for the Daily Mail, the premier set out some of the United Kingdom’s greatest achievements – including the Scottish enlightenment, the abolition of slavery and defeating fascism – to highlight “what is at stake” on September 18.

The rest of the world “looks on with awe and envy” at the modern British achievements such as the National Health Service and state pension system, Mr Cameron added.

He wrote: “The United Kingdom is a precious and special country. That is what is at stake. So let no-one in Scotland be in any doubt: we desperately want you to stay; we do not want this family of nations to be ripped apart.

David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are to travel north in a last ditch bid to save the UK

Last night, Alex Salmond branded the visit, which comes as Scotland’s future sits on a knife-edge, as a sign of “total and utter panic”. The First Minister said the No campaign was “falling apart” with just eight days to go before the historic referendum.

Mr Salmond also dismissed a timetable for delivering more powers which was set out by the No parties yesterday, insisting these have already been “rejected by Scots”. Backbench Tory MPs also voiced concerns last night over the “vague” promises of more Holyrood powers and indicated Mr Cameron may be forced to quit in the event of a Yes vote.

UK EU Referendum: David Cameron Promises In-Out Vote In 2015
By Andrew Osborn and Peter Griffiths | Reuters | Wed Jan 23, 2013 |

LONDON –  Prime Minister David Cameron promised to give Britons a referendum choice on whether to stay in the European Union or leave if he wins an election in 2015, placing a question mark over Britain’s membership for years.

Cameron ended months of speculation by announcing in a speech the plan for a vote sometime between 2015 and the end of 2017, shrugging off warnings that this could imperil Britain’s economic prospects and alienate its biggest trading partner.

He said the island nation, which joined the EU’s precursor European Economic Community 40 years ago, did not want to retreat from the world, but public disillusionment with the EU was at “an all-time high”.

“It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time for us to settle this question about Britain and Europe,” Cameron said. His Conservative party will campaign for the 2015 election promising to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership.

“When we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice to stay in the European Union on these new terms; or come out altogether. It will be an in-out referendum.”

Tory MPs: We’ll vote to leave EU | Sept. 2014 |

An extraordinary person sums up America’s peril in the Middle East. The greatest threat to U.S. security are we as a nation over-extending our influence and our intervention in regional conflicts.

○ Former Sen. George Mitchell on ISIS Threat

“… And fourth and finally, I think we have to remember that the United States was a great nation long before it became a military and economic power. What appealed to people all around the world, and what still appeals to people all around the world is OUR IDEALS. The principles that are set forth in our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence. We have to remain true to them.”

How we got here | Part 1
By George J. Mitchell | The Boston Globe | Sept. 7, 2014 |

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians continues against a backdrop of resurgent violence elsewhere in the Middle East. Americans reacted with anger and horror to the recent grisly spectacle of the beheadings of two American journalists by the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group that seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate in Syria and Iraq.  

There also was confusion. ISIS got its start in opposition to the Syrian government of Bashar Assad, a government that the United States also opposes.

In trying to comprehend an area where rulers and boundaries for a long time came from elsewhere — and where religious, tribal, and family loyalties often trump national identity — confusion and anger are understandable.

Weary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, many Americans want to turn away from what seems to be an intractable and unsolvable mess. Others want to do just the opposite — to unleash more American military power in an effort to quell the seeming chaos.

Conflicts in the Middle East are many and overlapping: Arabs and Jews; Israelis and Palestinians; Persians and Arabs; Sunni and Shiite Muslims; fundamentalists and moderates; Sunni-led governments and Sunni opposition groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. In this highly complex and volatile region, what should the United States do? What can we do?

Peace Is Needed Now | Part 2 and  America’s Role | Part 3

“You cannot kill an idea with a gun, you can
 only stop them if you have a better idea.
 And we have a better idea … You must teach
 people that law is always better than war.”  
  – Benjamin Ferencz

○ How ISIS Got Oxygen In Syria and Matured in Iraq

○ Don’t Call Them Al Qaeda, Terror Coming from ISIS (aka AQI, IS)

I don’t think Mark Sumner is convincing at all. He declares that “ISIS represents no threat to the United States. None.” That’s a hard sell to the parents of American hostages still held by ISIS. I think what Sumner means is that ISIS doesn’t pose the kind of threat that al-Qaeda posed prior to 9/11. Even that is just argumentative. You can believe it; you can assert it. That doesn’t necessarily make it true.

If you oppose getting more involved in the region and particularly in Syria, you need to talk about the complexity of the issues, not just call everyone hyperventilating cowards. When it comes to closing Gitmo, people are hyperventilating cowards. When it comes to ISIS taking over Erbil and Baghdad and wiping out whole communities of people, that’s a pretty big disaster from a variety of points of view.

The best argument against action is the difficulty of achieving success. Trying to say that there isn’t a pretty big, fairly urgent problem here is totally unconvincing and won’t be taken very seriously by too many people.

I’m struggling to write about the situation in Iraq and Syria in part because I want to hear what the president has to say. One thing I believe already, however, is that Congress ought to debate and authorize the action the president takes, and that it ought to draw circles to hem in what they’re authorizing. There should be a time limit, for example. Congress should have to come back and reapprove military action in six months or a year. We’ve had too much open-ended conflict.

I say that they should authorize his action as opposed to not voting at all. Perhaps they shouldn’t authorize his action and should actually bar him from using military force. But that decision can only be made once we hear the plan.

In making a decision to enter Syria’s civil war the president needs a coherent and realistic plan for ending the war. As far as I know, no one has such a plan. But, an absolute prerequisite is to get the regional players, Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Arabs and Kurds, to agree that they have to give up their dreams of domination. Both Syria and Iraq were once ecumenical societies with a lot of intermarriage and tolerance. If they’re ever going to be anything like that again, the powers that be have to want it. They have to decide that they’d rather have stability than armed sectarian militias. The focus of any plan must start with creating a coalition with that goal.

Without consensus on that goal, our policy will be an odd one where we kill in the name of humanitarianism and there is no end to it in sight.

So, the policy has to be convincing on this score.

My confidence level on holding the Senate is beginning to get just a little wobbly, so I am pleased to see Sam Wang explain his model. I have a lot of confidence in his abilities to predict election outcomes. I also have a lot of confidence in Nate Silver. The difference between their models is in how they treat so-called “fundamentals,” which are non-polling factors like the historic behavior of a state, the prior political experience of candidates, the state of the economy, as well polling factors unrelated to a specific race, like right track/wrong track, Congressional ballot preference, and presidential job approval.

When you factor in these tangential metrics, it causes election estimates to move more favorably in the Republicans’ direction. Sam Wang estimates that it is giving the GOP a two point bump in Silver’s model, which is enough to flip his prediction of control from blue to red. Wang doesn’t use fundamentals because he thinks they are too unpredictable to be helpful.

I have already written about the real skewed polls. This is an affect of the likely voter screens that pollsters use to try to make their polls more accurate. In 2012, all the likely voter screens were too optimistic, and the most accurate poll was a Ipsos/Reuters poll of registered voters. There are different ways to construct likely voter screens. You can ask respondents how likely they are to vote, how enthusiastic they are, or you can model which responses you use to mirror the expected demographic makeup of the electorate. If you screw this up, as every polling outfit did in 2012, then you miss the mark. Miss your mark badly enough and you’ll make the wrong call, as Gallup did in predicting that Romney would win the popular vote.

In an election in which even Wang predicts the most likely outcome as a 50-50 split, the more assumptions you make, the worse you’re likely to do. This is because the more factors you have, the more likely you are to miss badly on one of them.

And, in this election, nearly all of these extra factors work in the same direction, to improve the Republicans’ chances in the models. Yet, the actual poll numbers despite the likely voter screens have persistently showed the Democrats over-performing expectations.

So, my confidence level has gone down somewhat over the last several weeks, and I think we’re in toss-up territory at this point. When I get the chance, I will sit down and go over the field of play, race by race. In the meantime, Professor Wang is keeping me sane.

Here are some preliminary numbers on the results from the Cuomo/Teachout showdown:

The Five Boroughs

Brooklyn: Cuomo 67% Teachout 30%
Manhattan: Cuomo 55% Teachout 43%
Queens: Cuomo 74% Teachout 22%
Staten Island: Cuomo 66% Teachout 30%
The Bronx: Cuomo 81% Teachout 14%

Meanwhile, Teachout won big in many Upstate counties. This is telling for a couple of reasons. Common wisdom is that the Big City is much more liberal than Upstate, but that doesn’t seem to hold for the Democratic primary voter. That’s curious until you look at the how the boroughs voted and you realize that Cuomo did much better in The Bronx (37% black) and Brooklyn (34% black) than he did in Manhattan (16% black). Manhattan is also the home of a lot of Wall Street workers who actually like Cuomo’s brand of centrism. That Cuomo got 81% of the vote in the Bronx (28% white) and only 66% of the vote in Staten Island (11% black) is the giveaway. White progressives who backed the Teachout/Wu ticket did not make any inroads with the black community.

It’s not obvious why Cuomo is so popular in the black (and I have to add, Latino) community, but he clearly is. And that demonstrates a certain lack of communication between the white and non-white progressive coalitions.

It’s something that needs to be fixed. Progressive candidates need messages and platforms that reach and resonate with progressive citizens. If they can’t even accomplish that, then there’s really no hope for progressivism in this country.