(Translated from the Swahili version)
DC: Today I am here with our friend, Kevin Warnke. Kevin has been helping me by translating my words frequently here on KASSFM. He was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Kenya. He lived on the coast, close to Malindi, and met a beautiful girl there who is today his wife. They live together here in DC. Kevin works in Congress, advising a Member on various issues. Welcome to the show Kevin.
KW: Thanks Duncan. I'm happy to be here with you.
DC: Not long ago, we were discussing here on KASSFM the death of a politician here in America, Senator Kennedy, and how he was a leading politician here. Before his death, Kennedy asked politicians to change how they would choose his successor. How is this normally done?
KW: To understand how this is normally done, we have to remember how Congress was originally created. Here in America, we have an "upper house", which is known as the Senate, and a "lower House", which is called the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives, the method is simple: an election. This is the same method used in Kenya: "by-elections".
DC: Right. But for the Senate, they do something different, right?
KW: That's right Duncan. Even Americans get confused by the rules, culture and traditions of the Senate. Instead of requiring an election, our Constitution says that each state decides how its Senators will be chosen. In Kennedy's state, called Massachusetts, the law says that if there is a vacant Senate seat, there is an election after three months. Before his death, Kennedy asked the state government to change the law to let the Governor select a temporary representative until the election is done.
DC: If an election would be held after three months, why did Kennedy think it was important to get another representative for this short period of time?
KW: Because of one very important number in the Senate: Sixty. If Senators want to do anything at all in the Senate, they need to have 60 Senators who agree. Altogether, there are 100 Senators--two for each state. If 41 Senators don't want a bill to move forward, they can stop it. When Kennedy was alive, there were 60 Democrats. When he died, there were only 59 Democrats, which made it difficult for Democrats to do what they wanted in the Senate.
DC: And if the Senate can't do its work, President Obama would fail to pass bills and change America's laws, right?
KW: Exactly. As you know, change laws here in America requires both the Senate and the House of Representatives to pass one identical bill and for the President to approve it as is.
DC: I read something about Kenya's history and I was surprised to see that even Kenya had a Senate and a House of Representatives for a few years. And in the Bomas Constitutional draft of five years ago, some again recommended that there be a Senate. Maybe you can advise us a little about the positives and negatives of this house of Congress.
KW: First, let's remember the reason why we have the system we do here in America. During colonial times, America was not one colony, but 13 colonies. These colonies joined together during the war against British rule. After becoming free, the leaders of the colonies thought they needed to work together. Like the Swahili say, "One finger doesn't kill a louse." During those times, our "louse" was Great Britain. But coming together to form a national government brought up some sensitive issues about how the people should be represented at a national level. Before uniting, each colony had its own government.
DC: And the leaders of states with fewer people wanted each state to be represented equally. Leaders of states with many people wanted to be represented according to the number of people who lived in each state. After some back-and-forth between the states, they agreed that there should be one 'house' that would protect the interests of the states, which is known as the Senate, and another 'house' to protect the interests of the people themselves, which is the House of Representatives.
KW: That's right. And if we look at the writing of those who came to this agreement, the Senate was to make sure that the bills passed by the House of Representatives were appropriate. It is said that our first president, George Washington, said that the work of the Senate was "to cool" legislation, just like a saucer is used to cool hot tea.
DC: Is this true? Does the Senate "cool" legislation?
KW: Without a doubt. The House of Representatives works very differently from the Senate. This 'house' is led by a party leadership. Passing a bill requires the support of just over 50 percent of Representatives. This is the same way that Kenya's Parliament works. When bills pass the House of Representatives, they often go to sit for a long time over at the Senate. Some say that this is a good thing. It prevents bad bills from passing without being carefully considered and requires a lot of people to say that the bills are appropriate.
DC: But others say that it's bad because Senators who represent sparsely populated states can obstruct a president and his party, even if they are really liked by the American people.
KW: That's right. When Bush was president, Republicans complained about Democratic Senators. Similarly, today Democrats complain about Republican Senators. So, the bad thing is that if the president and his party, even if they represent areas with many people, even if the majority of Americans agree with them and their policies, even if all of this is true, if 41 Senators disagree (many of them from sparsely populated states), that's it. It won't be done.
DC: Doesn't this make it difficult to pass legislation.
KW: Yes. The good thing about it is that, for example, if a state isn't liked, it represents a small area, and the philosophy of its people is different than most of the country, its representatives have the power to defend their interests.
DC: Kevin, Thank you for explaining all of this to us.
KW: Thank you. I'm happy to be with you all.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Mazungumzo ya 10-20-2009
DC: Leo niko hapa na rafiki yetu, Kevin Warnke. Kevin amekuwa akinisaidia kutafsiri maneno yangu mara nyingi hapa kwa KASSFM. Pia, alikuwa volunteer wa Peace Corps huko Kenya. Aliishi pwani, karibu na Malindi, na alikutana huko na msichana mrembo ambaye ni bibi yake leo. Wanaishi pamoja hapa DC. Kevin anafanya kazi kwa bunge kwa kumshauri mbunge mmoja kuhusu sera mbalimbali. Karibu Kevin.
KW: Asante Duncan. Nafurahi kuwa nanyi.
DC: Si kitambo, tulikuwa tunazungumza hapa kwa KASSFM kuhusu kifo cha mbunge mmoja hapa Amerika, Senata Kennedy, na jinsi alivyokuwa katika mstari wa mbele kwa wanasiasa hapa. Kabla ya kifo chake, Kennedy aliomba wanasiasa wabadilishe utaratibu wa kuchagua atakayemfuata. Je, huu utaratibu ukoje?
KW: Kuelewa utaratibu wenyewe, tunahitaji kukumbuka jinsi mfumo wa bunge letu ulivyoundwa. Hapa Amerika, tuko na bunge la juu, linalojulikana kama Senate, na bunge la chini, linaloitwa House of Representatives. Kwa House of Representatives, utaratibu ni wazi: kuna uchaguzi. Ni huo utaratibu unaotumika Kenya pia, kama "by-elections".
DC: Ndio. Lakini kwa viti vya Senate, wanafanya kivingine, si ndio?
KW: Kweli Duncan. Sharti, mila, na desturi za Senate zinachanganyisha hata Waamerika! Badala ya kulazimisha kuwe na uchaguzi, katiba yetu inasema kila jimbo litaamua jinsi ya kuchagua MaSenata wake. Katika jimbo lake Kennedy, linaloitwa Massachusetts, sheria inasema kama kuna nafasi wazi kwa viti vya MaSenata wake, kutakuwa na uchaguzi baada ya miezi mitatu. Kabla ya kifo chake, Kennedy aliomba serikali ya Massachusetts ibadilishe sheria kwa kumruhusu Governor kuteua mwakilishi wa muda kufanya kazi mpaka uchaguzi utafanyika.
DC: Kama kungekuwa na uchaguzi baada ya miezi mitatu, mbona Kennedy aliona ilikuwa muhimu kupata mwakilishi mwingine kwa huo muda mfupi?
KW:Kwa sababu ya namba moja yenye umuhimu mwingi katika Senate: Sitini. Kama MaSenata wanataka kufanya cho chote kwa Senate, inabidii kuwe na MaSenata sitini wanaokubali. Kuna MaSenata mia moja kwa ujumla--wawili kwa kila jimbo. Kama MaSenata arobaini na moja wanataka mswada fulani usiendelee, wanaweza kuusimamisha. Kennedy alipokuwa hai, WaDemokrat walikuwa sitini. Alipokufa, kukawa WaDemokrat hamsini na tisa tu, na ikawa vigumu kwa WaDemokrat kufanya wanavyotaka katika Senate.
DC: Na kama Senate inashindwa kufanya kazi yake, Rais Obama atashindwa kupitisha miswada na kubadilisha sharia za Amerika, si ndio?
KW: Ndio, ndio. Kama unavyojua, kubadilisha sheria hapa Amerika inabidii Senate na House of Representatives zote zipitishe mswada moja bila mabadiliko yoyote, na kwa Rais kuukubali hivyo hivyo.
DC: Nilisoma historia ya Kenya kidogo na nilishangaa kuona hata Kenya ilikuwa na Senate na House of Representatives kwa miaka michache. Na hata katika Katiba Bomas ya miaka mitano iliyopita, wengine walipendekeza kuwe na Senate tena. Pengine unaweza kutushauri na uzuri na ubaya wa bunge hilo.
KW: Kwanza, tukumbuke sababu ya kuwa na mfumo wetu hapa Amerika. Wakati wa ukoloni, Amerika haikuwa koloni moja, ila makoloni kumi na tatu. Makoloni haya yaliungana wakati wa vita kupigania uhuru kutoka kwa utawala wa Uingereza. Baada ya kupata uhuru, viongozi wa makoloni haya waliona bora waungane. Kama WaSwahili wasemavyo, "Kidole kimoja hakivunji chawa". Wakati ule, chawa yetu ilikuwa Uingereza. Lakini kuungana na kuanzisha serikali ya taifa ilileta swala nyeti kuhusu jinsi ya kuwakilisha wananchi. Kabla ya kuungana kila koloni lilikuwa na serikali yake.
DC: Na viongozi wa majimbo yenye watu wachache walitaka kila jimbo liwakilishwe kwa usawa. Viongozi wa majimbo yenye watu wengi walitaka kuwakilishwa kulingana na namba ya wananchi wanaoishi kwa jimbo lenyewe. Baada ya mvutano baina ya majimbo, waliafikiana kwamba kutakuwa na bunge moja kutetea maoni ya majimbo, ambalo ni Senate, na bunge moja kutetea maoni ya watu wenyewe, ambalo ni House of Representatives.
KW: Ndio. Na tukiangalia maandishi ya wale ambao waliafikiana hivyo, kazi ya Senate ilikuwa kuhakikisha miswada ya House of Representatives ilikuwa mizuri. Inasemakana Rais wetu wa kwanza, George Washington, alisema kazi ya Senate ilikuwa "kupoza" miswada kama kisahani kinavyotumika kupoza chai moto.
DC: Unaona hii ni kweli? Senate "hupoza" miswada?
KW: Bila shaka. House of Representatives hufanya kazi yake kivingine kabisa. Bunge hili linaongozwa na uongozi wa chama kimoja. Kupitisha mswada kunahitaji zaidi ya asilimia hamsini ya wabunge wake. Hii ni sawa na bunge ya Kenya. Miswada ikipita House of Representatives, huenda na kukaa kwa muda mrefu kwa Senate. Wengine wanasema ndio vizuri. Inazuia miswada mibaya isipite bila kuangaliwa sana na kuwe na watu wengi wanaoona inafaa.
DC: Lakini wengine wanasema ni vibaya kwa sababu MaSenata wanaowakilisha majimbo yenye watu wachache wanaweza kuzuia Rais na chama chake, hata ikiwa wanapendwa sana na wananchi.
KW: Kweli. Wakati Bush alikuwa Rais, WaRepublican walilalamikia MaSenata WaDemokrat kwa kuwazuia. Vile vile, leo WaDemokrat wanalalimikia MaSenata WaRepublican. Kwa hiyo, ubaya wake ni kwamba kama Rais na chama chake, hata kama wanawakilisha maeneo yenye watu wengi sana, hata kama wananchi wengi wanawakubali na kukubali na mapendekezo au miswada yao, hata kama haya yote ni kweli, kama MaSenata arobaini na mmoja hawataki (wengi wao kutoka majimbo yenye watu wachache), ni bas. Haitafanyika.
DC: Si hii inafanya iwe vigumu kupitisha miswada?
KW: Ndio. Uzuri wake ni kwamba hata kama, kwa mfano, jimbo moja halipendwi, eneo lake ni dogo, na falsafa ya watu wake ni tofauti, wakilishi wake watakuwa na nguvu kutetea matakwa yao.
DC: Kevin, Asante kwa kuja kutuelezea hayo yote.
KW: Asante. Nimefurahi kuzungumza nanyi.
KW: Asante Duncan. Nafurahi kuwa nanyi.
DC: Si kitambo, tulikuwa tunazungumza hapa kwa KASSFM kuhusu kifo cha mbunge mmoja hapa Amerika, Senata Kennedy, na jinsi alivyokuwa katika mstari wa mbele kwa wanasiasa hapa. Kabla ya kifo chake, Kennedy aliomba wanasiasa wabadilishe utaratibu wa kuchagua atakayemfuata. Je, huu utaratibu ukoje?
KW: Kuelewa utaratibu wenyewe, tunahitaji kukumbuka jinsi mfumo wa bunge letu ulivyoundwa. Hapa Amerika, tuko na bunge la juu, linalojulikana kama Senate, na bunge la chini, linaloitwa House of Representatives. Kwa House of Representatives, utaratibu ni wazi: kuna uchaguzi. Ni huo utaratibu unaotumika Kenya pia, kama "by-elections".
DC: Ndio. Lakini kwa viti vya Senate, wanafanya kivingine, si ndio?
KW: Kweli Duncan. Sharti, mila, na desturi za Senate zinachanganyisha hata Waamerika! Badala ya kulazimisha kuwe na uchaguzi, katiba yetu inasema kila jimbo litaamua jinsi ya kuchagua MaSenata wake. Katika jimbo lake Kennedy, linaloitwa Massachusetts, sheria inasema kama kuna nafasi wazi kwa viti vya MaSenata wake, kutakuwa na uchaguzi baada ya miezi mitatu. Kabla ya kifo chake, Kennedy aliomba serikali ya Massachusetts ibadilishe sheria kwa kumruhusu Governor kuteua mwakilishi wa muda kufanya kazi mpaka uchaguzi utafanyika.
DC: Kama kungekuwa na uchaguzi baada ya miezi mitatu, mbona Kennedy aliona ilikuwa muhimu kupata mwakilishi mwingine kwa huo muda mfupi?
KW:Kwa sababu ya namba moja yenye umuhimu mwingi katika Senate: Sitini. Kama MaSenata wanataka kufanya cho chote kwa Senate, inabidii kuwe na MaSenata sitini wanaokubali. Kuna MaSenata mia moja kwa ujumla--wawili kwa kila jimbo. Kama MaSenata arobaini na moja wanataka mswada fulani usiendelee, wanaweza kuusimamisha. Kennedy alipokuwa hai, WaDemokrat walikuwa sitini. Alipokufa, kukawa WaDemokrat hamsini na tisa tu, na ikawa vigumu kwa WaDemokrat kufanya wanavyotaka katika Senate.
DC: Na kama Senate inashindwa kufanya kazi yake, Rais Obama atashindwa kupitisha miswada na kubadilisha sharia za Amerika, si ndio?
KW: Ndio, ndio. Kama unavyojua, kubadilisha sheria hapa Amerika inabidii Senate na House of Representatives zote zipitishe mswada moja bila mabadiliko yoyote, na kwa Rais kuukubali hivyo hivyo.
DC: Nilisoma historia ya Kenya kidogo na nilishangaa kuona hata Kenya ilikuwa na Senate na House of Representatives kwa miaka michache. Na hata katika Katiba Bomas ya miaka mitano iliyopita, wengine walipendekeza kuwe na Senate tena. Pengine unaweza kutushauri na uzuri na ubaya wa bunge hilo.
KW: Kwanza, tukumbuke sababu ya kuwa na mfumo wetu hapa Amerika. Wakati wa ukoloni, Amerika haikuwa koloni moja, ila makoloni kumi na tatu. Makoloni haya yaliungana wakati wa vita kupigania uhuru kutoka kwa utawala wa Uingereza. Baada ya kupata uhuru, viongozi wa makoloni haya waliona bora waungane. Kama WaSwahili wasemavyo, "Kidole kimoja hakivunji chawa". Wakati ule, chawa yetu ilikuwa Uingereza. Lakini kuungana na kuanzisha serikali ya taifa ilileta swala nyeti kuhusu jinsi ya kuwakilisha wananchi. Kabla ya kuungana kila koloni lilikuwa na serikali yake.
DC: Na viongozi wa majimbo yenye watu wachache walitaka kila jimbo liwakilishwe kwa usawa. Viongozi wa majimbo yenye watu wengi walitaka kuwakilishwa kulingana na namba ya wananchi wanaoishi kwa jimbo lenyewe. Baada ya mvutano baina ya majimbo, waliafikiana kwamba kutakuwa na bunge moja kutetea maoni ya majimbo, ambalo ni Senate, na bunge moja kutetea maoni ya watu wenyewe, ambalo ni House of Representatives.
KW: Ndio. Na tukiangalia maandishi ya wale ambao waliafikiana hivyo, kazi ya Senate ilikuwa kuhakikisha miswada ya House of Representatives ilikuwa mizuri. Inasemakana Rais wetu wa kwanza, George Washington, alisema kazi ya Senate ilikuwa "kupoza" miswada kama kisahani kinavyotumika kupoza chai moto.
DC: Unaona hii ni kweli? Senate "hupoza" miswada?
KW: Bila shaka. House of Representatives hufanya kazi yake kivingine kabisa. Bunge hili linaongozwa na uongozi wa chama kimoja. Kupitisha mswada kunahitaji zaidi ya asilimia hamsini ya wabunge wake. Hii ni sawa na bunge ya Kenya. Miswada ikipita House of Representatives, huenda na kukaa kwa muda mrefu kwa Senate. Wengine wanasema ndio vizuri. Inazuia miswada mibaya isipite bila kuangaliwa sana na kuwe na watu wengi wanaoona inafaa.
DC: Lakini wengine wanasema ni vibaya kwa sababu MaSenata wanaowakilisha majimbo yenye watu wachache wanaweza kuzuia Rais na chama chake, hata ikiwa wanapendwa sana na wananchi.
KW: Kweli. Wakati Bush alikuwa Rais, WaRepublican walilalamikia MaSenata WaDemokrat kwa kuwazuia. Vile vile, leo WaDemokrat wanalalimikia MaSenata WaRepublican. Kwa hiyo, ubaya wake ni kwamba kama Rais na chama chake, hata kama wanawakilisha maeneo yenye watu wengi sana, hata kama wananchi wengi wanawakubali na kukubali na mapendekezo au miswada yao, hata kama haya yote ni kweli, kama MaSenata arobaini na mmoja hawataki (wengi wao kutoka majimbo yenye watu wachache), ni bas. Haitafanyika.
DC: Si hii inafanya iwe vigumu kupitisha miswada?
KW: Ndio. Uzuri wake ni kwamba hata kama, kwa mfano, jimbo moja halipendwi, eneo lake ni dogo, na falsafa ya watu wake ni tofauti, wakilishi wake watakuwa na nguvu kutetea matakwa yao.
DC: Kevin, Asante kwa kuja kutuelezea hayo yote.
KW: Asante. Nimefurahi kuzungumza nanyi.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Tracking Congress
The best way to figure out what Congress is considering on the House floor is to consult The Weekly Leader. There you find information on bills to be considered as "suspensions", which are basically bills expected to pass with a 2/3s majority, as well as a couple bills that aren't expected to pass by a wide majority and are subject to different rules. These other bills will be the focal point of controversy on C-Span.
If you're interested in digging down and finding specific information on the bills that are being considered, it often requires going to the committees' websites and trying to figure out what information if any is available there. Some have videos of hearings on the bill (complete with full statements from witnesses), markups, committee reports, etc.
For example, to get substantive information on the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, you need to go to the Energy and Commerce Committee's website and look to see if information is available about it there. Since this bill was marked up and considered by the committee, you can get a section-by-section analysis of the bill here.
The hub for citizens to access what their government is doing is Thomas at the Library of Congress, named for Thomas Jefferson, whose book collection formed the core of the Library of Congress. You can click on Public Laws and get a list of all of the bills that have been signed into law this year.
If you're interested in digging down and finding specific information on the bills that are being considered, it often requires going to the committees' websites and trying to figure out what information if any is available there. Some have videos of hearings on the bill (complete with full statements from witnesses), markups, committee reports, etc.
For example, to get substantive information on the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, you need to go to the Energy and Commerce Committee's website and look to see if information is available about it there. Since this bill was marked up and considered by the committee, you can get a section-by-section analysis of the bill here.
The hub for citizens to access what their government is doing is Thomas at the Library of Congress, named for Thomas Jefferson, whose book collection formed the core of the Library of Congress. You can click on Public Laws and get a list of all of the bills that have been signed into law this year.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Thinking Ahead, 2010
So, it's more than a year and a half until the next Congressional elections. I thought it would be interesting to speculate where we're going to be, politically, in two years.
1) Battle for the Senate
It'll be an uphill battle for Democrats. Republicans successfully framed '60' as a scary number. But FiveThirtyEight argues pretty convincingly that the six most competitive Senate seats are currently held by Republicans. It seems likely that the Dems could pick up at least a couple seats in New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
But, depending on how things go for the next couple years, Dems may have to play significant defense in Nevada, Connecticut, Delaware, and maybe even Illinois (if Burris can split the opposition and win the primary).
The loss of any one of these seats will be seen as a serious blow for Dems: Reid (NV) is the Senate majority leader and Dodd (CT) was a presidential candidate, is chair of the Senate Finance Committee and a long-time incumbent, while Delaware and Illinois are solidly blue.
If Dems hold their own and pick up a couple, it'll be interpreted as wind behind Obama's back. As of this writing, this seems rather likely.
If Dems hold their own and fail to pick up seats, it'll be interpreted as a significant loss. With strong pick-up opportunities, it'll be interpreted that the Republican message has gained traction and will be seen as Obama losing his footing.
If Dems lose Nevada or Connecticut, they have to run the table to avoid being seen as election losers. That means they would have to pick up three or four seats.
If Dems lose more, it'll be interpreted as voter dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democratic agenda.
2) House Ebbs
Both 2006 and 2008 were considered "wave" years for House Democrats. No one wanted to be a Republican these years and Democrats were able to chalk up major gains. But the tide ebbs and flows. No one seriously thinks a third wave is coming. Congressional elections between presidential terms normally swing against the President.
The best case scenario is probably for Dems to hold onto their own numbers: ~255. (It's hard to imagine a world in which Dems can add any more than 10 seats in 2010.)
The most likely scenario, Dems lose seats. Maybe a dozen? This is not a line-by-line analysis of competitive seats. Just what is considered on the Hill as conventional wisdom.
3)Whither POTUS?
The third factor here is Presidential approval ratings. Much has been said about how Obama has sky-high approval ratings, though in a historical sense, they aren't really all that high.
Can Obama stay popular? I'm bullish on Obama and very optimistic about 2012. I doubt he'll get the turnout he got in 2008, or that he could possibly improve on his margin of victory, but I have a tough time finding a Republican who can seriously square off against him and come out ahead.
So what will be the final outcome of the 2010 elections? I imagine it's likely that it won't be seen as a strong vote in favor of Obama's agenda. At best, it'll be seen as mixed results. The most likely scenario I see is that Dems lose House seats and pick up some Senate seats.
How does that translate? Currently, the President sets the agenda, the House approves a liberal version and the Senate compromises on the liberal version to placate the moderates it needs to pass. What would be the effect of more Senate Dems and fewer House Dems?
Ironically, it might be easier to pass liberal legislation, even as the media narrative could shift to a notion that the country is turning away from supporting Obama and the Democratic agenda...
1) Battle for the Senate
It'll be an uphill battle for Democrats. Republicans successfully framed '60' as a scary number. But FiveThirtyEight argues pretty convincingly that the six most competitive Senate seats are currently held by Republicans. It seems likely that the Dems could pick up at least a couple seats in New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
But, depending on how things go for the next couple years, Dems may have to play significant defense in Nevada, Connecticut, Delaware, and maybe even Illinois (if Burris can split the opposition and win the primary).
The loss of any one of these seats will be seen as a serious blow for Dems: Reid (NV) is the Senate majority leader and Dodd (CT) was a presidential candidate, is chair of the Senate Finance Committee and a long-time incumbent, while Delaware and Illinois are solidly blue.
If Dems hold their own and pick up a couple, it'll be interpreted as wind behind Obama's back. As of this writing, this seems rather likely.
If Dems hold their own and fail to pick up seats, it'll be interpreted as a significant loss. With strong pick-up opportunities, it'll be interpreted that the Republican message has gained traction and will be seen as Obama losing his footing.
If Dems lose Nevada or Connecticut, they have to run the table to avoid being seen as election losers. That means they would have to pick up three or four seats.
If Dems lose more, it'll be interpreted as voter dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democratic agenda.
2) House Ebbs
Both 2006 and 2008 were considered "wave" years for House Democrats. No one wanted to be a Republican these years and Democrats were able to chalk up major gains. But the tide ebbs and flows. No one seriously thinks a third wave is coming. Congressional elections between presidential terms normally swing against the President.
The best case scenario is probably for Dems to hold onto their own numbers: ~255. (It's hard to imagine a world in which Dems can add any more than 10 seats in 2010.)
The most likely scenario, Dems lose seats. Maybe a dozen? This is not a line-by-line analysis of competitive seats. Just what is considered on the Hill as conventional wisdom.
3)Whither POTUS?
The third factor here is Presidential approval ratings. Much has been said about how Obama has sky-high approval ratings, though in a historical sense, they aren't really all that high.
Can Obama stay popular? I'm bullish on Obama and very optimistic about 2012. I doubt he'll get the turnout he got in 2008, or that he could possibly improve on his margin of victory, but I have a tough time finding a Republican who can seriously square off against him and come out ahead.
So what will be the final outcome of the 2010 elections? I imagine it's likely that it won't be seen as a strong vote in favor of Obama's agenda. At best, it'll be seen as mixed results. The most likely scenario I see is that Dems lose House seats and pick up some Senate seats.
How does that translate? Currently, the President sets the agenda, the House approves a liberal version and the Senate compromises on the liberal version to placate the moderates it needs to pass. What would be the effect of more Senate Dems and fewer House Dems?
Ironically, it might be easier to pass liberal legislation, even as the media narrative could shift to a notion that the country is turning away from supporting Obama and the Democratic agenda...
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
"Change" in Swahili
A friend recently emailed me and asked how I would translate the word "Change" into Swahili. I assumed she meant it in the same sense that was frequently attached to President Obama. Here's the email that I sent in response (with minor changes):
Translations are funny. Is "change" a noun or a verb? Is it passive or active? Is it the result or is it the process?
Kenyans tend to use the verb "kubadilisha" as "to change" something. To change clothes, to change your mind, to replace something. "Kubadilika" is to have been changed. "Kugeuza" is more like transforming, turning, or altering. "Kugeuka" means to have been transformed, altered. Though the words' meanings ("kugeuza" vs "kubadilisha"; "kugeuka" vs. "kubadilika") frequently overlap.
But those are verbs.
For nouns, we have "badilisho" and "mabadilisho", which mean "a change" and "changes", respectively. The emphasis being on the process. "badiliko" and "mabadilko" which mean the same thing, but emphasizing the results.
There's also "mageuzo" and "mageuko", which is more like "revolution"--the first one being more about the process and the second, more like the result. The word itself again has the ma- pluralizer, but, to me, it seems to suggest something larger than "mabadiliko" or "mabadilisho".
During the campaign, commentators and critics loved to point out that the word "change" was very generic. I don't know if they thought about it this much, but from a linguistic point of view, it really is.
But, let's put it in the context of a frequently repeated slogan, "Change we can believe in". Well, that makes it a noun, not a verb. I'm not a big fan of using "badilisho"/"badiliko" here because that seems to be too "small" for what that statement implies. It is not about "a change" or even "changes". It suggests systemic change. So I'm inclined toward "mageuzo" and "mageuko".
During the campaign it felt more like "mageuko" (i.e. the immediate result of the act of voting), and now it's more like "mageuzo" (i.e. an ongoing process).
Neither of these words are frequently used in the Kenyan (Nairobi) dialect of Swahili, but it's easily understood. The familiar words ("badilisho"/"badiliko" and their plural forms) don't seem to cut it.
Translations are funny. Is "change" a noun or a verb? Is it passive or active? Is it the result or is it the process?
Kenyans tend to use the verb "kubadilisha" as "to change" something. To change clothes, to change your mind, to replace something. "Kubadilika" is to have been changed. "Kugeuza" is more like transforming, turning, or altering. "Kugeuka" means to have been transformed, altered. Though the words' meanings ("kugeuza" vs "kubadilisha"; "kugeuka" vs. "kubadilika") frequently overlap.
But those are verbs.
For nouns, we have "badilisho" and "mabadilisho", which mean "a change" and "changes", respectively. The emphasis being on the process. "badiliko" and "mabadilko" which mean the same thing, but emphasizing the results.
There's also "mageuzo" and "mageuko", which is more like "revolution"--the first one being more about the process and the second, more like the result. The word itself again has the ma- pluralizer, but, to me, it seems to suggest something larger than "mabadiliko" or "mabadilisho".
During the campaign, commentators and critics loved to point out that the word "change" was very generic. I don't know if they thought about it this much, but from a linguistic point of view, it really is.
But, let's put it in the context of a frequently repeated slogan, "Change we can believe in". Well, that makes it a noun, not a verb. I'm not a big fan of using "badilisho"/"badiliko" here because that seems to be too "small" for what that statement implies. It is not about "a change" or even "changes". It suggests systemic change. So I'm inclined toward "mageuzo" and "mageuko".
During the campaign it felt more like "mageuko" (i.e. the immediate result of the act of voting), and now it's more like "mageuzo" (i.e. an ongoing process).
Neither of these words are frequently used in the Kenyan (Nairobi) dialect of Swahili, but it's easily understood. The familiar words ("badilisho"/"badiliko" and their plural forms) don't seem to cut it.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Nashville Post: Obama Encouraged Pelosi Revolt
Fascinating story about Obama's relationship with House Democratic leadership.
It's inside baseball for most of America, but it may be one of the most important pieces of news in the past few weeks.
Update: Jim Cooper misunderstood Rahmbo. Making this not the most important story of the week....
It's inside baseball for most of America, but it may be one of the most important pieces of news in the past few weeks.
Update: Jim Cooper misunderstood Rahmbo. Making this not the most important story of the week....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
