Sounds kind of Roman, doesn't it. This election, nationally at least, turned out very well. Several states still haven't been called, and the Senate is not quite set yet, but we have a new President, a new direction, and a slightly stronger Democratic majority in Congress.
We will have to see the extent to which Barack Obama can actually execute his pledge last evening to work with both parties. The Republican party has been nationally chastised for its decades-long partisanship and, frankly, greed, so its members may be willing to work with the new president for awhile.
The country is still divided in many ways, one symbol of which was pointed out last night. I haven't verified this, but one of the CNN commentators indicated that, as of the new Congress taking office in January, there will be no Republican representatives in the House of Representatives from any of the New England states. All are Democrats. On the other hand, Obama made very strong inroads into the former Red-States midwest. As Eugene McCarthy was fond of quoting, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
I was correct weeks ago in awarding VA, IA, CO, NV, and NM to Obama, but didn't have enough faith in the good people of Ohio, Indiana, and Florida to recognize that, once the newfangled voting machines got fixed, they might actually vote Democratic. The same may be said of NC if it goes Blue, and possibly of MO and MT.
We have a chance now to put the racial divide behind us. We have clearly begun that process. This election was a national catharsis, a cleansing of Reagan's trickle-down economic philosophy, and of dubya's domestic-greed philosophy and shoot-from-the-hip foreign policy. He wanted a legacy? He got it. Certainly the worst president in my lifetime, and possibly in all of American history.
Thank you for joining me as we followed election developments and projected into the future. That future has arrived. Let us hope that it fulfills our wishes.
-- triton --
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
# 92 What the Pundits Have Not Mentioned Recently
The Supreme Court. That's what. The new president will have the opportunity to appoint at least two members to replace two (or more?) who have been waiting for dubya to get out of office so that he, dubya, won't be able to appoint any more extreme, far-right, conservatives. Does that sound redundant?
If Obama is elected, even by the narrower margin that I'm expecting, he'll still have the opportunity to protect Roe v. Wade, and to open up greater opportunities for all Americans (not just the dubya-wealthy and the cheney-militaristic).
Our civil rights will be a big winner in this election, if we choose Obama. Just thought I'd mention that.
-- triton --
If Obama is elected, even by the narrower margin that I'm expecting, he'll still have the opportunity to protect Roe v. Wade, and to open up greater opportunities for all Americans (not just the dubya-wealthy and the cheney-militaristic).
Our civil rights will be a big winner in this election, if we choose Obama. Just thought I'd mention that.
-- triton --
# 91 291 to 247, 52% to 47% to 1%
Well, the title summarizes my final predictions. I actually hope I'm on the low side, but I still am having trouble--despite polls showing otherwise--believing that Ohio and Florida will go for Obama.
I think Obama will win the former Red states of Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and will hold Pennsylvania.
The final tally will be:
Obama 291, McCain 247;
Obama 52% of the vote, McCain 47% of the vote, Others (mainly Nader and Barr) 1%.
I'll likely post again once we know the results. This will turn out to be a truly historic result.
-- triton --
I think Obama will win the former Red states of Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and will hold Pennsylvania.
The final tally will be:
Obama 291, McCain 247;
Obama 52% of the vote, McCain 47% of the vote, Others (mainly Nader and Barr) 1%.
I'll likely post again once we know the results. This will turn out to be a truly historic result.
-- triton --
Monday, November 3, 2008
# 90 A Belated Halloween Scare
I don't believe the following scenario will happen, but enough other folk are writing about it that obviously a lot of people are thinking about it: Barack Obama could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.
Many of the battleground states (apparently now including Pennsylvania, though I cannot get this afternoon's polling numbers) are tightening. Tightening is normal at the end of a presidential campaign, so I don't put a lot of stock in it. Nonetheless, if Obama wins a few populous states by a large number of votes, and loses all the battleground states and Pennsylvania by a very small number of votes, John McCain could be elected president with a majority of electoral votes and not even a plurality of popular votes.
I don't believe that will happen, but it is a possibility. If the battleground states are really close--Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania(?)--and each one goes for McCain by the narrowest of margins, Obama could lose. What makes this kind of scare possible is that Obama is way ahead in several big states (CA, IL,NY), and may build up a very large popular vote cushion, while simultaneously he is ahead only very slightly in most of the battleground states. Any further slippage and he could lose by a handful of votes in those states, but still win the national popular vote.
If such an event comes to pass, expect the Democratic congress to push for "electoral college reform," since it will then have been two elections out of the last three in which such an event happened.
I've always applauded the concept behind the electoral college: by combining the number of senators from a given state (two) with the number of representatives (currently varies from one to fifty-three), our founding fathers gave the smaller states a very slight mathematical advantage in determining the presidency.
In addition, modern political practicality indicates that, because smaller states have a slightly disproportionate influence in electing the president, there's more of a chance that candidates will actually visit some of the backwater areas to solicit small town and rural votes in a state that has few metropolitan areas.
In theory that's a wonderful idea. This year, in practice, I don't think it worked: I actually don't remember any of the President or VP candidates visiting Idaho this year. Now, it may be that everyone knew in advance that Idaho is the reddest of the Red states, and there's no need to jump out of a plane between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Seattle to visit us, so we went without a candidate in the state.
We won't have long to wait to find out how this election finally plays out. If Obama sweeps the northeast AND wins Pennsylvania, I think it's all over but receiving the official results from the midwest and the west. Remember that the Pacific coast will provide Obama with 73 Pacific Standard Time votes almost guaranteed, plus whatever he can pick up in the Mountain Standard Time Zone (e.g., CO, NV, and NM).
On the other hand, we may find out that there still is a Bradley effect, and that the polls are still not accurate. We have one day.
-- triton --
Postscript at 5:59 p.m.: I just saw today's Pennsylvania polls. Obama is still up, now by 7 points. But there's still the question whether the polls are overstating Obama's support, as they clearly did in the Democratic primary.
Many of the battleground states (apparently now including Pennsylvania, though I cannot get this afternoon's polling numbers) are tightening. Tightening is normal at the end of a presidential campaign, so I don't put a lot of stock in it. Nonetheless, if Obama wins a few populous states by a large number of votes, and loses all the battleground states and Pennsylvania by a very small number of votes, John McCain could be elected president with a majority of electoral votes and not even a plurality of popular votes.
I don't believe that will happen, but it is a possibility. If the battleground states are really close--Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania(?)--and each one goes for McCain by the narrowest of margins, Obama could lose. What makes this kind of scare possible is that Obama is way ahead in several big states (CA, IL,NY), and may build up a very large popular vote cushion, while simultaneously he is ahead only very slightly in most of the battleground states. Any further slippage and he could lose by a handful of votes in those states, but still win the national popular vote.
If such an event comes to pass, expect the Democratic congress to push for "electoral college reform," since it will then have been two elections out of the last three in which such an event happened.
I've always applauded the concept behind the electoral college: by combining the number of senators from a given state (two) with the number of representatives (currently varies from one to fifty-three), our founding fathers gave the smaller states a very slight mathematical advantage in determining the presidency.
In addition, modern political practicality indicates that, because smaller states have a slightly disproportionate influence in electing the president, there's more of a chance that candidates will actually visit some of the backwater areas to solicit small town and rural votes in a state that has few metropolitan areas.
In theory that's a wonderful idea. This year, in practice, I don't think it worked: I actually don't remember any of the President or VP candidates visiting Idaho this year. Now, it may be that everyone knew in advance that Idaho is the reddest of the Red states, and there's no need to jump out of a plane between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Seattle to visit us, so we went without a candidate in the state.
We won't have long to wait to find out how this election finally plays out. If Obama sweeps the northeast AND wins Pennsylvania, I think it's all over but receiving the official results from the midwest and the west. Remember that the Pacific coast will provide Obama with 73 Pacific Standard Time votes almost guaranteed, plus whatever he can pick up in the Mountain Standard Time Zone (e.g., CO, NV, and NM).
On the other hand, we may find out that there still is a Bradley effect, and that the polls are still not accurate. We have one day.
-- triton --
Postscript at 5:59 p.m.: I just saw today's Pennsylvania polls. Obama is still up, now by 7 points. But there's still the question whether the polls are overstating Obama's support, as they clearly did in the Democratic primary.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
# 89 Aberration and Education
Aberration:
Yesterday I posted about John Zogby's most recent poll indicating that John McCain was ahead by one percent. My point was that Zogby's result was likely an aberration. Guess what? Today, Zogby has Barack Obama ahead by ten percent nationally.
Not only that, but Obama is currently tied or ahead--sometimes by double digits, sometimes by one or two percent--in many states that four years ago voted for dubya but have become battleground states this election: Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico (all five of which I already put into Obama's column a few weeks ago); North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Indiana(!), Missouri. Even North Dakota is apparently only weakly supporting McCain. If all the states in which Obama currently leads or is tied go for him, he could receive 380 electoral votes. They probably won't, but I find it an exciting prospect that he might more than double McCain's electoral total. More likely, Obama will receive in the high 200s, or low 300s. Unless the polls are way off, Obama should win. Certainly, if he wins Pennsylvania and Ohio, the race is all but over.
Education:
Surveys taken by the pollsters indicate very clearly that the people forming one large bloc of McCain/Palin supporters are less educated than the largest bloc of Obama supporters; are lower- to lower-middle class economically; and yet are among the most fearful of tax increases (despite the fact that their incomes aren't sufficiently high to have to pay much of a tax).
There is a terrible irony in this information. I know and have worked with people who barely can afford food and shelter, who have a high school education and maybe a few college credits, but who consider and identify themselves as Republicans. Yet these people, with less education than is likely needed now to succeed economically, are not stupid. In fact, some very smart people are handicapped from thriving economically by being under-educated. They haven't had the opportunity to season their current life views and ideas with the greater exposure to diverse ideas that increased education provides.
So why are they Republicans? Certainly, dubya's administrations have not been kind to public education, though private and parochial education seems to have thrived during his eight years. From my discussions with some of these folk I conclude that they have accepted the concept of the American dream: if they work hard and start their own small business, they too can become wealthy. It doesn't happen for them, but I guess this has to be the dream they have to hold on to, in order to keep going.
So they toil, sometimes a little successfully, often unsuccessfully, at starting their own businesses, and keep the dream in sight. In the meantime, riches pass them by, but they keep voting Republican. The fear of tax increases continues to impose itself on their psyches, and they keep voting Republican.
I wonder, today aloud in writing, if there is a way to provide enough education to help these economically and educationally deprived individuals to understand that, currently at least, they're concerned about matters that truly don't affect them, and that their actions based on those concerns (voting Republican to avoid increased taxes, for example) actually perpetuate their economic and educational subsistence.
To me it seems logical that the economically deprived would want a change, would want a president who will try to even the playing field and, yes, "redistribute" the wealth by reducing tax breaks for those who don't need the tax breaks, and increasing tax breaks for those who need the extra money to live on.
Perhaps on Tuesday we'll see if some of this logic prevails, or if we continue to go along with the same-ol', same-ol'.
-- triton --
Yesterday I posted about John Zogby's most recent poll indicating that John McCain was ahead by one percent. My point was that Zogby's result was likely an aberration. Guess what? Today, Zogby has Barack Obama ahead by ten percent nationally.
Not only that, but Obama is currently tied or ahead--sometimes by double digits, sometimes by one or two percent--in many states that four years ago voted for dubya but have become battleground states this election: Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico (all five of which I already put into Obama's column a few weeks ago); North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Indiana(!), Missouri. Even North Dakota is apparently only weakly supporting McCain. If all the states in which Obama currently leads or is tied go for him, he could receive 380 electoral votes. They probably won't, but I find it an exciting prospect that he might more than double McCain's electoral total. More likely, Obama will receive in the high 200s, or low 300s. Unless the polls are way off, Obama should win. Certainly, if he wins Pennsylvania and Ohio, the race is all but over.
Education:
Surveys taken by the pollsters indicate very clearly that the people forming one large bloc of McCain/Palin supporters are less educated than the largest bloc of Obama supporters; are lower- to lower-middle class economically; and yet are among the most fearful of tax increases (despite the fact that their incomes aren't sufficiently high to have to pay much of a tax).
There is a terrible irony in this information. I know and have worked with people who barely can afford food and shelter, who have a high school education and maybe a few college credits, but who consider and identify themselves as Republicans. Yet these people, with less education than is likely needed now to succeed economically, are not stupid. In fact, some very smart people are handicapped from thriving economically by being under-educated. They haven't had the opportunity to season their current life views and ideas with the greater exposure to diverse ideas that increased education provides.
So why are they Republicans? Certainly, dubya's administrations have not been kind to public education, though private and parochial education seems to have thrived during his eight years. From my discussions with some of these folk I conclude that they have accepted the concept of the American dream: if they work hard and start their own small business, they too can become wealthy. It doesn't happen for them, but I guess this has to be the dream they have to hold on to, in order to keep going.
So they toil, sometimes a little successfully, often unsuccessfully, at starting their own businesses, and keep the dream in sight. In the meantime, riches pass them by, but they keep voting Republican. The fear of tax increases continues to impose itself on their psyches, and they keep voting Republican.
I wonder, today aloud in writing, if there is a way to provide enough education to help these economically and educationally deprived individuals to understand that, currently at least, they're concerned about matters that truly don't affect them, and that their actions based on those concerns (voting Republican to avoid increased taxes, for example) actually perpetuate their economic and educational subsistence.
To me it seems logical that the economically deprived would want a change, would want a president who will try to even the playing field and, yes, "redistribute" the wealth by reducing tax breaks for those who don't need the tax breaks, and increasing tax breaks for those who need the extra money to live on.
Perhaps on Tuesday we'll see if some of this logic prevails, or if we continue to go along with the same-ol', same-ol'.
-- triton --
Saturday, November 1, 2008
# 88 New Song: "It Was Aberration, I Know"
Here's what John Zogby has to say about his poll today:
1. No evidence that Obama benefited from the infomercial.
2. Obama's support dropped 1.1%, McCain's gained 0.8%.
3. The last day of polling had McCain winning 48% to 47%. Zogby cautions us to wait until the weekend to see if McCain really has traction.
Says Zogby: "Is McCain making a move? The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama today [Friday], 48% to 47%. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all.
"Obama's lead among women declined, and it looks like it is occurring because McCain is solidifying the support of conservative women, which is something we saw last time McCain picked up in the polls. If McCain has a good day tomorrow [Saturday], we will eliminate Obama's good day three days ago, and we could really see some tightening in this rolling average. But for now, hold on."
Ignore the other polls, I guess is Zogby's point, which show Obama with a 4% to 11% lead nationally, and ahead in battleground states CO, FL, IA, NM, NV, OH, and VA, and tied with McCain in NC, IN, and MO. Heck, Indiana shouldn't even be a battleground state.
What Obama needs to do is solidify his support in all the states that Kerry carried in 2004 (including, I guess particularly including, PA), and then solidify his support in the 2004 Red states that I've already listed in Obama's column: CO, IA, NM, NV, ad VA. That will easily put him over the 270 needed. Joe Biden should spend even more time in PA and OH and anywhere else his blue-collar background can help the ticket.
Given the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters, and the depression of McCain's supporters, I cannot believe (barring really latent racism) that McCain can come back. Frankly, I don't believe the Zogby poll. But we'll know by Tuesday evening. And yes, I don't believe this election will drag on for days or weeks past Tuesday.
With any luck at all, Joe-the-plumber, whose real name is Sam and who isn't a plumber, will be laid to rest.
-- triton --
1. No evidence that Obama benefited from the infomercial.
2. Obama's support dropped 1.1%, McCain's gained 0.8%.
3. The last day of polling had McCain winning 48% to 47%. Zogby cautions us to wait until the weekend to see if McCain really has traction.
Says Zogby: "Is McCain making a move? The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama today [Friday], 48% to 47%. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all.
"Obama's lead among women declined, and it looks like it is occurring because McCain is solidifying the support of conservative women, which is something we saw last time McCain picked up in the polls. If McCain has a good day tomorrow [Saturday], we will eliminate Obama's good day three days ago, and we could really see some tightening in this rolling average. But for now, hold on."
Ignore the other polls, I guess is Zogby's point, which show Obama with a 4% to 11% lead nationally, and ahead in battleground states CO, FL, IA, NM, NV, OH, and VA, and tied with McCain in NC, IN, and MO. Heck, Indiana shouldn't even be a battleground state.
What Obama needs to do is solidify his support in all the states that Kerry carried in 2004 (including, I guess particularly including, PA), and then solidify his support in the 2004 Red states that I've already listed in Obama's column: CO, IA, NM, NV, ad VA. That will easily put him over the 270 needed. Joe Biden should spend even more time in PA and OH and anywhere else his blue-collar background can help the ticket.
Given the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters, and the depression of McCain's supporters, I cannot believe (barring really latent racism) that McCain can come back. Frankly, I don't believe the Zogby poll. But we'll know by Tuesday evening. And yes, I don't believe this election will drag on for days or weeks past Tuesday.
With any luck at all, Joe-the-plumber, whose real name is Sam and who isn't a plumber, will be laid to rest.
-- triton --
Friday, October 31, 2008
# 87 Blazing Saddles, and It Shouldn't Be This Close
One recent survey indicated that up to 14% of the registered electorate who have not yet voted are still "Persuadeables," i.e., haven't really made up their minds. What in the Blazing Saddles are they waiting for? The election is on Tuesday, and it shouldn't be this close.
The survey also pointed out that 40% of the "Persuadeables," or Undecideds, are leaning toward Obama, 40% are leaning toward McCain, and 20% couldn't find their @$$#$ with both hands and a plunger. The survey did say that. Really. Well, almost.
One Undecided person who was quoted said that neither candidate "knows what it's like to be poor," to have to struggle. EXCUSE ME! Let's see -- which one of the candidates didn't have a father at home while he was growing up, had a mother die of cancer early in his life, was raised by a grandmother who gave up things she needed so that he could go to school?
Where in the Blazing Saddles has the schmuck who made that comment been for the last, oh, twenty-one months? Pardon me: is my impatience at what has to be intentional stupidity showing?
In fact, the surveys conducted do show that, on average, the current Undecideds (or Persuadeables) have less education and are less politically inquisitive than the rest of us. And, the surveys add, they are also less likely to vote, since (a) they are less interested in politics, and (b) they don't know what in the Blazing Saddles they're doing and are less likely to find the polls anyway. Even with both hands and a plunger.
All the polls I can find show Obama ahead in Pennsylvania beyond the margin of error, yet apparently TV stations are calling that state "a dead heat." How in the Blazing Saddles can that be? It shouldn't even be as close in Pennsylvania as Mason-Dixon's poll's four point difference; CNN has it still at twelve points. Either CNN hasn't updated its poll in two days, or I don't know why some networks are calling it "too close to call." Two polls show Obama ahead by seven and four points respectively in Ohio, by four and six points respectively in North Carolina, and by four points each in Viriginia. None of these results is within the margin of error, so where's the tightening coming from?
Frankly, it shouldn't even be close. If you will allow me to use some technical political jargon to explain why: the current administration's policies in economics, education, energy, environment, and foreign policy suck; everyone's retirement and other investments currently suck; John McCain is a petulant, angry, erratic, forgetful candidate whose characteristics and judgments in his first major decision--choosing a vice presidential running mate--suck.
That "giant sucking sound" you hear this election does not come from NAFTA, as Ross Perot was wont to say twelve years ago. This year, it's the Republican party's policies, and there is no Blazing Saddles reason they should still be in this presidential race. Even the issue of Race itself shouldn't be an issue any more: people have begun to discuss it more openly, and to express it during polling. So the polls (one would hope) probably do take the issue of Race increasingly into account. And maybe that's why there appears to be some narrowing of margins in individual states.
Well, we have another four days before we find out the results. I'm ready for this to be over. But only if Obama wins.
-- triton --
The survey also pointed out that 40% of the "Persuadeables," or Undecideds, are leaning toward Obama, 40% are leaning toward McCain, and 20% couldn't find their @$$#$ with both hands and a plunger. The survey did say that. Really. Well, almost.
One Undecided person who was quoted said that neither candidate "knows what it's like to be poor," to have to struggle. EXCUSE ME! Let's see -- which one of the candidates didn't have a father at home while he was growing up, had a mother die of cancer early in his life, was raised by a grandmother who gave up things she needed so that he could go to school?
Where in the Blazing Saddles has the schmuck who made that comment been for the last, oh, twenty-one months? Pardon me: is my impatience at what has to be intentional stupidity showing?
In fact, the surveys conducted do show that, on average, the current Undecideds (or Persuadeables) have less education and are less politically inquisitive than the rest of us. And, the surveys add, they are also less likely to vote, since (a) they are less interested in politics, and (b) they don't know what in the Blazing Saddles they're doing and are less likely to find the polls anyway. Even with both hands and a plunger.
All the polls I can find show Obama ahead in Pennsylvania beyond the margin of error, yet apparently TV stations are calling that state "a dead heat." How in the Blazing Saddles can that be? It shouldn't even be as close in Pennsylvania as Mason-Dixon's poll's four point difference; CNN has it still at twelve points. Either CNN hasn't updated its poll in two days, or I don't know why some networks are calling it "too close to call." Two polls show Obama ahead by seven and four points respectively in Ohio, by four and six points respectively in North Carolina, and by four points each in Viriginia. None of these results is within the margin of error, so where's the tightening coming from?
Frankly, it shouldn't even be close. If you will allow me to use some technical political jargon to explain why: the current administration's policies in economics, education, energy, environment, and foreign policy suck; everyone's retirement and other investments currently suck; John McCain is a petulant, angry, erratic, forgetful candidate whose characteristics and judgments in his first major decision--choosing a vice presidential running mate--suck.
That "giant sucking sound" you hear this election does not come from NAFTA, as Ross Perot was wont to say twelve years ago. This year, it's the Republican party's policies, and there is no Blazing Saddles reason they should still be in this presidential race. Even the issue of Race itself shouldn't be an issue any more: people have begun to discuss it more openly, and to express it during polling. So the polls (one would hope) probably do take the issue of Race increasingly into account. And maybe that's why there appears to be some narrowing of margins in individual states.
Well, we have another four days before we find out the results. I'm ready for this to be over. But only if Obama wins.
-- triton --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)