Round One: Santos vs. Mockus

It will be no surprise when tonight election authorities deem Juan Manuel Santos of Party of the U and Antanas Mockus of the Green Party have each taken enough votes to propel them to the runoff election on June 20. Neither will have gained a majority, as no one expects them to do so.

What will be surprising I think is the inaccuracy of polling considering Santos' resurgence in the polls since mid-May. Current polls suggest he will net 34% of the vote, though I think this underestimates the percentage by about three to ten percent. Mockus, meanwhile, polls at 32%, and this might also be a bit of a deflated percentage, especially considering the tactical voting that undoubtedly will take place, what with a field of six candidates, with only two of them polling in double-digit territory. I expect Mockus to gain somewhere between two and nine percent more than his poll numbers state.

The losers are the ones we've been expecting would lose since Mockus' stellar rise in early April. These include those from the new smaller parties, like Petro of the Alternative Democratic Pole, and Vargas of Radical Change. The traditionally dominant parties of Colombia, the Liberals and the Conservatives, will have candidates who likewise are unable to break beyond single digit percentages.

Colombia Reports states that election officials to announce the results of the vote on Sunday night.

My final predictions:
Santos 43%
Mockus 39%
Petro 6%
Sanin 5%
Vargas 4%
Pardo 3%

As Arkansas, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania go, so goes the nation?

We've had two days to mull over the results of the primaries in AR, KY, and PA. In Arkansas, Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln has nearly been beaten by lieutenant governor Halter, and now must face him in a runoff round on June 8. In Kentucky, Rand Paul, the son of libertarian Congressman Ron Paul of Texas and self-proclaimed Tea Party member, trampled establishment candidate Grayson for the Republican Senate ticket. Finally, longtime Republican-turned-Democrat (in 2009) Arlen Specter was defeated by former Navy Admiral Sestak.

We all know of the anti-incumbency movement that's been rife since the "meltdown" of September 2008 and the following bailouts.

It's coming to fruition now. And in classic American style the process has become a botched half-measure.

Let's be open about this. The Tea Party movement, whether you love it or hate it or have no opinion whatsoever, is a legitimate, and, for U.S. standards, a well-organized protest movement, in that it seems to have widespread grassroots support as well as momentum. Those who identify with the movement normally also identify as Republicans (though disgruntled they are), and certainly have a role in Paul's victory, or rather Grayson's defeat, in Kentucky.



What can we make of the coup d'etat Democratic primaries, however? Tea Partiers may have played a role in Halter's challenger campaign in Arkansas' open primary as tactical voters who want a leftist candidate who can be defeated more easily by their Republican candidate, though I think this is greatly overestimating their numbers and organizational strength. Pennsylvania has closed primaries, so it was Democrats who decided en masse that Specter's move into the Democratic camp last year wasn't sincere enough.

The anti-incumbency mood affects both parties, in this case, though the protesters have chosen, in a sense, to temporarily hijack the Democratic and Republican parties to let their angst be known. And then in the next election cycle in 2012, they will have forgotten all about what made them angry two years before. Or, if they they turn out to have some kind of staying power, maybe they'll get a favorite son candidate nominated for president in the next presidential election. Then what? It's back to business as usual.

If the parties don't feel compelled to change their ideas and actions in order to get your vote or my vote, then they simply will not change for the long term.

If only the protesters would decide the best way to shake up the false dilemma system we currently have by forming a viable third party. It seems ridiculous, though, doesn't it, suggesting the possibility of having just one more plan from which to hole-punch your ballot in the voting booth.

And that's a huge problem. Viable third parties which are able to express differing and nuanced opinions exist in almost every other single democracy on this planet. They don't work here because both major parties in the United States are corporate dependents, and with a first-past-the-post presidential electoral system, the odds are stacked entirely against other parties from entering the fray and being able to compete on even a highly unfair playing field.

The first step must be thorough, fundamental, systemic reform. It will take more than an economic recession, bailouts, and health care laws to shock the American electorate, notorious in their apathy, into positive action.

A few new faces in Washington playing for the same two teams won't change the way the ballgame is played.

The Coalition Begins

I have to admit it--I'm flat-out impressed at the degree of cohesion present in this true coalition between the Conservatives and junior partner Liberal Democrats.

The press conference today was a double act between Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Clegg and was simultaneously a novelty, an oddity, and even a little inspiring. Cameron outlined "freedom, fairness, and responsibility" as being the areas of common agreement, with "one key purpose: strong, stable, determined leadership for the longterm." Pretty vague, but okay. He went on to say that the coalition is going to be one based in reform on an fiscal level, a "green" level, and a social liberal level.

I'm excited about what the Liberal Democrats can possibly get accomplished in government, their first stint since Churchill's wartime coalition. Cameron stated that Clegg's job as Deputy is "political reform." They're outlining that to mean, thanks to an email I received today from the Lib Dem website, fixed-term, five-year parliaments, a referendum on electoral reform, a proportionally-elected House of Lords, the power of recall of MPs, and further local devolution.

Still, it's an interesting beast we have here. The Coalition is a brave new experiment, making two parties that have their origins in opposing groups since the 17th century Tories and Whigs political bedfellows for the next FIVE YEARS. This is a radical sort of commitment, especially, in my mind, from the Conservatives, who could seriously attain a majority of seats in a snap next election in the following months.

If necessity is in fact the mother of invention, the Tories went ahead with this plan out of either a deep sense of duty, beyond party lines, to the country, or out of a deep sense of fear at being the culprits in the next election for not being able to accomplish any of their set goals due to commanding only a neutered minority administration. Whichever reason held more sway, I think Cameron himself was the deciding factor. Credit must be given where credit is due, and it is certainly due to Cameron, whom I am liking better with each passing day.

Nick Clegg began by saying this concerning his recent political marriage to Cameron: "Until today, we were rivals, and now we're colleagues."

Surreal, indeed.

Just don't be surprised when the two start being referred to collectively and derisively as Davick Cleggeron, leader of the Liberative Democratories. It'll happen.

See the half-hour press conference here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCOvu2NDio