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 --
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
#86 The Race is Tightening, As Expected, Near the End
Everyone's talking about it, so it must be so. Even the polls show it's happening. The race is tightening. And Race is one of the major reasons.
Jesse Washington's AP article in today's newspapers begins, "What's more scary: a bleak economy or a black president?" That sums it up pretty bluntly.
In Lafayette, Louisiana, Charles Palmer, a 74-year-old retired oil company manager and registered Democrat who is voting for McCain, is quoted in the article as saying about Barack Obama: "I do think he has that minority thing probably in the back of his mind, deep down. He's not going to hurt 'em, let's put it that way." Later, he adds, "It's just the attitude blacks have toward the whites in this country. It's very negative."
Maybe the way Louisiana and the Feds have treated blacks in Louisiana during and after Katrina has something to do with it, Charles? Maybe the way southern (and northern) blacks have been treated for, oh, ever has something to do with it? And maybe Charlie's view is colored by his generation's background, living through the twentieth century civil rights movement in an area of the country that, a hundred years earlier, lived through the Civil War.
But we digress. Not really. Racial issues are beginning increasingly to surface in the polls, and the polls are beginning to show a tightening in the presidential race. Such tightening has happened before. The last week of campaigning often shows the candidate behind making up some of the ground. In one of the most furious election-last-week finishes, Hubert Humphrey almost made up enough ground to defeat Richard Nixon forty years ago.
However, I believe the current shifts in poll results actually point to less of a surprise come election day this year, since the race issue is now being discussed more openly (it was always underneath the discussion; now it IS the discussion). While my own view is that a candidate's race is irrelevant compared to his policies and the people with whom he surrounds himself, I live enough in the real world to recognize that my view is not universally held. Thus, it is good to get the racial issue out in the open, where it can be examined and, one hopes, rejected by enough people that the major party candidate who will actually do the better job can be elected.
Here's how I still think next Tuesday will work out.
Obama will win New England, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE. That's a broad swath of Blue to start with. If Obama actually loses PA, then "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world" (thank you, William Butler Yeats). Obama may win Ohio, though I don't really feel confident yet that Ohioans will provide him with majority support. If he does win Ohio, the election is, for all practical purposes, over. Obama will win the northeastern part of the Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan), and the West Coast (WA, OR, CA).
I think Obama will win at least one traditionally Red southern state, probably Virginia; Colorado; New Mexico; and possibly Nevada. In other words, I'm sticking to my recent projections, despite the tightening in some of the polls. Even without OH (which Obama could win), FL (some polls show him ahead, others have him behind), MO (depends on voter turnout in St. Louis), and NC (where it's been fluctuating between Obama and McCain), Barack Obama would have enough electoral votes to become president.
I see 271 to 284 electoral votes for Obama, without OH and FL, with the possibility of more if either OH or FL swings his way. Of course, something could happen to cause upsets, especially if there's high voter turnout in Georgia, moving it into the Democratic column, for example, but I'm not counting on too many surprises.
You heard it here first. If I'm wrong, you don't remember where you heard it. The campaign has been a long, wearying process, not just for the candidates but for all of America. Let's all now put our heads down on our desks, close our eyes, and take a long enough nap that we can get through these final days until the results are known.
-- triton --
Jesse Washington's AP article in today's newspapers begins, "What's more scary: a bleak economy or a black president?" That sums it up pretty bluntly.
In Lafayette, Louisiana, Charles Palmer, a 74-year-old retired oil company manager and registered Democrat who is voting for McCain, is quoted in the article as saying about Barack Obama: "I do think he has that minority thing probably in the back of his mind, deep down. He's not going to hurt 'em, let's put it that way." Later, he adds, "It's just the attitude blacks have toward the whites in this country. It's very negative."
Maybe the way Louisiana and the Feds have treated blacks in Louisiana during and after Katrina has something to do with it, Charles? Maybe the way southern (and northern) blacks have been treated for, oh, ever has something to do with it? And maybe Charlie's view is colored by his generation's background, living through the twentieth century civil rights movement in an area of the country that, a hundred years earlier, lived through the Civil War.
But we digress. Not really. Racial issues are beginning increasingly to surface in the polls, and the polls are beginning to show a tightening in the presidential race. Such tightening has happened before. The last week of campaigning often shows the candidate behind making up some of the ground. In one of the most furious election-last-week finishes, Hubert Humphrey almost made up enough ground to defeat Richard Nixon forty years ago.
However, I believe the current shifts in poll results actually point to less of a surprise come election day this year, since the race issue is now being discussed more openly (it was always underneath the discussion; now it IS the discussion). While my own view is that a candidate's race is irrelevant compared to his policies and the people with whom he surrounds himself, I live enough in the real world to recognize that my view is not universally held. Thus, it is good to get the racial issue out in the open, where it can be examined and, one hopes, rejected by enough people that the major party candidate who will actually do the better job can be elected.
Here's how I still think next Tuesday will work out.
Obama will win New England, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE. That's a broad swath of Blue to start with. If Obama actually loses PA, then "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world" (thank you, William Butler Yeats). Obama may win Ohio, though I don't really feel confident yet that Ohioans will provide him with majority support. If he does win Ohio, the election is, for all practical purposes, over. Obama will win the northeastern part of the Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan), and the West Coast (WA, OR, CA).
I think Obama will win at least one traditionally Red southern state, probably Virginia; Colorado; New Mexico; and possibly Nevada. In other words, I'm sticking to my recent projections, despite the tightening in some of the polls. Even without OH (which Obama could win), FL (some polls show him ahead, others have him behind), MO (depends on voter turnout in St. Louis), and NC (where it's been fluctuating between Obama and McCain), Barack Obama would have enough electoral votes to become president.
I see 271 to 284 electoral votes for Obama, without OH and FL, with the possibility of more if either OH or FL swings his way. Of course, something could happen to cause upsets, especially if there's high voter turnout in Georgia, moving it into the Democratic column, for example, but I'm not counting on too many surprises.
You heard it here first. If I'm wrong, you don't remember where you heard it. The campaign has been a long, wearying process, not just for the candidates but for all of America. Let's all now put our heads down on our desks, close our eyes, and take a long enough nap that we can get through these final days until the results are known.
-- triton --
Saturday, October 25, 2008
# 85 The Electoral College Math
Yes, it's Math time again, but we're nearing the end of the campaign so I figured it's time to set out clearly what Barack Obama needs to do to win. I'm an Obama supporter (have already voted early for him) so, if you're a John McCain supporter, you can figure what McCain needs to do to win, by just not having Obama do any of the following.
In 2004, dubya won 286 electoral votes; John Kerry won 251 electoral votes. He should have won 252, but one of Minnesota's electors cast one of Kerry's votes for John Edwards. Since I believe Obama will win all of Kerry's states--even though McCain is still working hard in Pennsylvania--let's start with no defections, which means that Obama starts with 252 votes.
Any of the following combinations will win the presidency for Barack Obama:
1. The three western states that I have already put in Obama's column: NV (5), NM (5) and CO (9);
2. or the two very close southern states, one of which, VA (13), I've already put in Obama's column, and the other of which, NC (15) is currently leaning toward Obama;
3. or either one of the two really big Tossup states, OH (20) or FL (27).
Obviously, some mix-and-match combination would also win the election for Obama, and he is currently leading in most polls in six of these seven (FL seems to swing back and forth between Obama and McCain). But, on election night, if OH for example goes to Obama, the election is probably over, in keeping with my September 24 post, "It's Ohio." It doesn't have to be Ohio as the key state, however, since there are these other scenarios for his victory. As I've indicated more recently, Barack Obama could win the presidency without either Ohio or Florida.
I'm assuming no electoral defections and no split votes in Maine or Nebraska. The freak event in Minnesota four years ago is not likely to be repeated this year, unless Obama is so far ahead in electoral votes that a defection of a vote or two somewhere becomes irrelevant.
Obviously, given my previous posts' awarding of four of these states to Obama, I believe he will be elected. But with ten days remaining before election day, anything could still happen.
As always, I welcome your thoughts either as comment on this post or by email.
-- triton --
In 2004, dubya won 286 electoral votes; John Kerry won 251 electoral votes. He should have won 252, but one of Minnesota's electors cast one of Kerry's votes for John Edwards. Since I believe Obama will win all of Kerry's states--even though McCain is still working hard in Pennsylvania--let's start with no defections, which means that Obama starts with 252 votes.
Any of the following combinations will win the presidency for Barack Obama:
1. The three western states that I have already put in Obama's column: NV (5), NM (5) and CO (9);
2. or the two very close southern states, one of which, VA (13), I've already put in Obama's column, and the other of which, NC (15) is currently leaning toward Obama;
3. or either one of the two really big Tossup states, OH (20) or FL (27).
Obviously, some mix-and-match combination would also win the election for Obama, and he is currently leading in most polls in six of these seven (FL seems to swing back and forth between Obama and McCain). But, on election night, if OH for example goes to Obama, the election is probably over, in keeping with my September 24 post, "It's Ohio." It doesn't have to be Ohio as the key state, however, since there are these other scenarios for his victory. As I've indicated more recently, Barack Obama could win the presidency without either Ohio or Florida.
I'm assuming no electoral defections and no split votes in Maine or Nebraska. The freak event in Minnesota four years ago is not likely to be repeated this year, unless Obama is so far ahead in electoral votes that a defection of a vote or two somewhere becomes irrelevant.
Obviously, given my previous posts' awarding of four of these states to Obama, I believe he will be elected. But with ten days remaining before election day, anything could still happen.
As always, I welcome your thoughts either as comment on this post or by email.
-- triton --
Friday, October 24, 2008
# 84 Ohio has WHAT poll results?
Yes, that's the question. Right now the Ohio polling shows Obama ahead(!) by anywhere from 4 to 14 points. How can that be, he asks himself. Remember that I also raised questions when the polls showed West Virginia going for Obama by eight points shortly after they had shown McCain ahead by eight, and I did not move WV from my McCain electoral votes column. WV has corrected itself (or the pollsters have corrected themselves), and McCain has a comfortable lead in that state.
But Ohio? Senator Sherrod Brown (one of the several people I had suggested to be considered for VP on Obama's ticket) was on Rachel Maddow's show last evening, and indicated his belief that Ohio was moving toward Obama. He didn't phrase it quite like this, but what he implicitly said was that it takes Ohioans a little longer to get the point. And the point right now is that McCain's economic policies will continue the disasters of the dubya administration. Maybe Brown is right, and perhaps my original thought that Ohio would vote for Obama was also correct, before I saw that the trend in the state a couple of months ago was favoring McCain. That trend seems to have peaked, and to have reversed.
For now, I'm keeping Ohio as a Tossup state, but if it does go for Obama, the fat lady will have sung. And I'm NOT talking about any individual Ohioan. Remember: I'm a Buckeye too, and lived a great eight years there!
-- triton --
But Ohio? Senator Sherrod Brown (one of the several people I had suggested to be considered for VP on Obama's ticket) was on Rachel Maddow's show last evening, and indicated his belief that Ohio was moving toward Obama. He didn't phrase it quite like this, but what he implicitly said was that it takes Ohioans a little longer to get the point. And the point right now is that McCain's economic policies will continue the disasters of the dubya administration. Maybe Brown is right, and perhaps my original thought that Ohio would vote for Obama was also correct, before I saw that the trend in the state a couple of months ago was favoring McCain. That trend seems to have peaked, and to have reversed.
For now, I'm keeping Ohio as a Tossup state, but if it does go for Obama, the fat lady will have sung. And I'm NOT talking about any individual Ohioan. Remember: I'm a Buckeye too, and lived a great eight years there!
-- triton --
Thursday, October 23, 2008
# 83 Ahead of the Curve
So, three hours ago I posted my concern about potential intimidation--direct and subtle--of black voters. Twenty minutes ago, AP posted an article by Charles Babington on the same subject. Writes Babington:
"In past elections, Democrats say GOP operatives have used disinformation and scare tactics to try to suppress voting in heavily Democratic precincts, including predominantly black neighborhoods. Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio said Republicans are trying to frighten newly registered voters in his state by filing numerous lawsuits that question their eligibility. GOP officials say they simply want to avert voter fraud."
And just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water (the Florida water, not Amity water), there's this non-reassurance in Babington's article:
"In Florida, thousands of new voters may be unable to cast ballots because of discrepancies between their registration forms and government records like driver's licenses. And in August in Florida's Palm Beach County, which was using new voting equipment required by the state, officials lost 3,500 ballots in a close judicial race. They eventually found them, but it took three recounts to declare a winner a month later."
As much as I've enjoyed posting on this blog, and your emails about it, I'm ready to elect a president and other officials. It's time to put the nonsense away and get the country back on its feet. Anthropomorphically speaking, of course.
-- triton --
"In past elections, Democrats say GOP operatives have used disinformation and scare tactics to try to suppress voting in heavily Democratic precincts, including predominantly black neighborhoods. Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio said Republicans are trying to frighten newly registered voters in his state by filing numerous lawsuits that question their eligibility. GOP officials say they simply want to avert voter fraud."
And just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water (the Florida water, not Amity water), there's this non-reassurance in Babington's article:
"In Florida, thousands of new voters may be unable to cast ballots because of discrepancies between their registration forms and government records like driver's licenses. And in August in Florida's Palm Beach County, which was using new voting equipment required by the state, officials lost 3,500 ballots in a close judicial race. They eventually found them, but it took three recounts to declare a winner a month later."
As much as I've enjoyed posting on this blog, and your emails about it, I'm ready to elect a president and other officials. It's time to put the nonsense away and get the country back on its feet. Anthropomorphically speaking, of course.
-- triton --
#82 Intimidation
Today, from Reuters:
"Black Americans could vote in record numbers for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, potentially giving him an edge in some states that are tightly contested with Republican rival John McCain. Blacks make up around 12 percent of the voting population and are the Democratic Party's most reliable ethnic constituency, although historically they have voted in lower numbers than other groups. This year, opinion polls show that more than 90 percent of blacks who vote could cast a ballot for Obama, in part because of racial solidarity with a candidate who would be the first black president in U.S. history."
We know that, in past elections, black voters in particular have been the victims of voter intimidation, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly.
The overt intimidation has taken the form of threats and outright beatings, physically and emotionally preventing black voters from going to the polls. In the past, however, such actions have occurred primarily in local and statewide elections. This year, however, is the first time a national election has featured an African-American running for the most powerful position on the planet. Excuse me: as Senator Jim Webb would prefer us all to recognize, "the thirteenth Scotch-Irish to run for president."
The subtle form of intimidation has been practiced more recently, more often in the South but not entirely there. It occurs when black Americans go to the polls, only to be told that they're in the wrong polling place and have to go, instead, to...somewhere else. They are then sent on a wild-goose chase. Or, more accurately, on a missing-poll chase. The hope of the folk practicing this more subtle form of intimidation is that people will tire of running from one place to another and will just give up.
This year, the subtle intimidation has so far taken at least two other forms. In one, local Republican officials have developed lists of foreclosed homes, in order to challenge voter registrations: if your home has been foreclosed, you don't live there anymore, and hence are not eligible to use that address as your place of residence. This form of intimidation is definitely NOT limited to any one region of the country. It is terribly ironic that the very politicians whose deregulation policies have contributed to loss of homes, to the horror of homelessness, may actually profit from their malfeasance.
The second form of subtle intimidation this year is the challenge to voter registration drives conducted, for example, by ACORN. Some of the folk registered by ACORN have listed false names. By law, the good people conducting the registration drives are required to turn over all names, but what they do is identify and separate into different groups those names they could verify, those names about whom there may be some small concern (typographical errors, for example), and those names that are clearly questionable. "Mickey Mouse" may be an American icon, but he/she/it may not actually be a person's name...although one minor party candidate for president or the senate has legally changed his name to "Pro Life." [I hope his VP running mate (if he's running for president) is named "Anti-Choice."]
So far, at least the Ohio state supreme court has sided with Governor Ted Strickland that the governor's office does not have to provide support for the Republican challenge to voter registrations in that state.
If blacks are able to vote in this election, they may indeed move the "swing" states to Obama. As my electoral projections indicate, Colorado or Virginia should be enough (if indeed I'm correct that Pennsylvania is not really in play) to elect President Obama.
Voter intimidation is a violation of a fundamental American right and duty. I find it ironic that the party that claims to be the party of patriotism is so active behind this most unAmerican action.
-- triton --
"Black Americans could vote in record numbers for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, potentially giving him an edge in some states that are tightly contested with Republican rival John McCain. Blacks make up around 12 percent of the voting population and are the Democratic Party's most reliable ethnic constituency, although historically they have voted in lower numbers than other groups. This year, opinion polls show that more than 90 percent of blacks who vote could cast a ballot for Obama, in part because of racial solidarity with a candidate who would be the first black president in U.S. history."
We know that, in past elections, black voters in particular have been the victims of voter intimidation, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly.
The overt intimidation has taken the form of threats and outright beatings, physically and emotionally preventing black voters from going to the polls. In the past, however, such actions have occurred primarily in local and statewide elections. This year, however, is the first time a national election has featured an African-American running for the most powerful position on the planet. Excuse me: as Senator Jim Webb would prefer us all to recognize, "the thirteenth Scotch-Irish to run for president."
The subtle form of intimidation has been practiced more recently, more often in the South but not entirely there. It occurs when black Americans go to the polls, only to be told that they're in the wrong polling place and have to go, instead, to...somewhere else. They are then sent on a wild-goose chase. Or, more accurately, on a missing-poll chase. The hope of the folk practicing this more subtle form of intimidation is that people will tire of running from one place to another and will just give up.
This year, the subtle intimidation has so far taken at least two other forms. In one, local Republican officials have developed lists of foreclosed homes, in order to challenge voter registrations: if your home has been foreclosed, you don't live there anymore, and hence are not eligible to use that address as your place of residence. This form of intimidation is definitely NOT limited to any one region of the country. It is terribly ironic that the very politicians whose deregulation policies have contributed to loss of homes, to the horror of homelessness, may actually profit from their malfeasance.
The second form of subtle intimidation this year is the challenge to voter registration drives conducted, for example, by ACORN. Some of the folk registered by ACORN have listed false names. By law, the good people conducting the registration drives are required to turn over all names, but what they do is identify and separate into different groups those names they could verify, those names about whom there may be some small concern (typographical errors, for example), and those names that are clearly questionable. "Mickey Mouse" may be an American icon, but he/she/it may not actually be a person's name...although one minor party candidate for president or the senate has legally changed his name to "Pro Life." [I hope his VP running mate (if he's running for president) is named "Anti-Choice."]
So far, at least the Ohio state supreme court has sided with Governor Ted Strickland that the governor's office does not have to provide support for the Republican challenge to voter registrations in that state.
If blacks are able to vote in this election, they may indeed move the "swing" states to Obama. As my electoral projections indicate, Colorado or Virginia should be enough (if indeed I'm correct that Pennsylvania is not really in play) to elect President Obama.
Voter intimidation is a violation of a fundamental American right and duty. I find it ironic that the party that claims to be the party of patriotism is so active behind this most unAmerican action.
-- triton --
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
# 81 But Pennsylvania is Not in Play
It appears that, days and weeks after I had listed Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia in Obama's electoral vote total, John King and his Magic Board on CNN have done the same. I almost couldn't believe my eyes when I saw his board last night, Blue islands in parts of what for dubya had been a Red sea. I'm not surprised, of course, since Obama is running increasingly ahead in those states--as indeed he is in national polls as well, by his largest margin yet, 52 to 42--and McCain is now trying to make headway in Pennsylvania to compensate for the potential loss of five states that went Red four years ago. But Obama is still running a double-digit lead in PA, and shows no signs of losing it. He and Joe and Biden have been making occasional stops there, just to remind the voters that there's still an election coming up.
FL, OH, MO and NC remain tossups, though at this point Obama doesn't actually need any of those to win the election. However, it would be meaningful if he (a) indeed were to be elected president, and (b) were to garner more than 300 electoral votes. The larger the win, the more bargaining power he has with a congress that will likely have more Democrats anyway.
Once again, my familiar caveat: all bets are off if the polls don't reflect latent racism that occasionally bubbles to the surface.
One footnote: 55% of people polled by CNN/USA say that Sarah Palin is "Unqualified" for the Vice Presidency and to be President. The negative campaigning imposed on Palin by her handlers has backfired big time.
-- triton --
FL, OH, MO and NC remain tossups, though at this point Obama doesn't actually need any of those to win the election. However, it would be meaningful if he (a) indeed were to be elected president, and (b) were to garner more than 300 electoral votes. The larger the win, the more bargaining power he has with a congress that will likely have more Democrats anyway.
Once again, my familiar caveat: all bets are off if the polls don't reflect latent racism that occasionally bubbles to the surface.
One footnote: 55% of people polled by CNN/USA say that Sarah Palin is "Unqualified" for the Vice Presidency and to be President. The negative campaigning imposed on Palin by her handlers has backfired big time.
-- triton --
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
# 80 Are We Looking at 306 to 232?
Well, as I indicated last time, WV has shifted back to McCain, and now is even more strongly in the Red column. I'm not surprised. I am surprised that Ohio polling has Obama ahead by nine points(!), 51% to 42%. Frankly, I don't believe it.
Florida polling has McCain slightly ahead and, despite Obama's allegedly near-double-digit lead in Ohio, I'm still planning my electoral vote count with McCain winning both of those states. Nothing against Ohioans, "my friends," but I can't imagine the Ohioans who lived there when I was a graduate student at Ohio State (forty years ago, to be sure) voting for a black man. Well, yes, I guess I do feel something against Ohioans, at least those who in one poll last week tacitly admitted they were racist.
I still feel comfortable with my having placed CO, NV, and VA in Obama's column a few days ago. He maintains at least a 4% lead, and actually it's been fluctuating to as high as 10%, in those states.
So with two weeks to go, I still have Obama over 270 electoral votes. The surprise is his strength in what I have considered to be the two other Tossup states, MO and NC. Today's published poll has Obama ahead 49 to 44 in Missouri, and that's Rasmussen, reporting for Fox News, which is usually skewed in favor of McCain. In North Carolina, Obama's ahead 51 to 48. That doesn't leave a lot of Undecideds in that state.
I'm not willing to award either state to Obama, however. They're both within the potential Bradley (or Wilder) Effect, which is as high as 6%. Of course, Obama drew upwards of 100,000 people last week in St. Louis, and McCain drew downward of 2,000 soon thereafter in the same area.
Palin's the one who's drawing for the Republicans, but I'm not sure it's entirely due to her popularity. I think it's more like the crowds that gather around a train wreck, looking to see what damage has been done and what more might be done. In other words, I still think the negativity that has been imposed on Palin's speeches by her handlers has adversely affected the Republican ticket's support.
Right now, then, I still see it as Obama 291 and McCain 174. If I'm correct about OH and FL, and if even MO and NC go Red, it will be Obama 291, McCain 247. More likely, NC may go Blue and MO go Red: Obama 306, McCain 232.
In any case, my standard caveat is still in effect: there's no real way to determine how race will play out in this election. As fewer folk are listed as Undecided, my electoral numbers are based on what I hope is minimal racist influence. But, as they sing in "Porgy and Bess": "It Ain't Necessarily So."
-- triton --
Florida polling has McCain slightly ahead and, despite Obama's allegedly near-double-digit lead in Ohio, I'm still planning my electoral vote count with McCain winning both of those states. Nothing against Ohioans, "my friends," but I can't imagine the Ohioans who lived there when I was a graduate student at Ohio State (forty years ago, to be sure) voting for a black man. Well, yes, I guess I do feel something against Ohioans, at least those who in one poll last week tacitly admitted they were racist.
I still feel comfortable with my having placed CO, NV, and VA in Obama's column a few days ago. He maintains at least a 4% lead, and actually it's been fluctuating to as high as 10%, in those states.
So with two weeks to go, I still have Obama over 270 electoral votes. The surprise is his strength in what I have considered to be the two other Tossup states, MO and NC. Today's published poll has Obama ahead 49 to 44 in Missouri, and that's Rasmussen, reporting for Fox News, which is usually skewed in favor of McCain. In North Carolina, Obama's ahead 51 to 48. That doesn't leave a lot of Undecideds in that state.
I'm not willing to award either state to Obama, however. They're both within the potential Bradley (or Wilder) Effect, which is as high as 6%. Of course, Obama drew upwards of 100,000 people last week in St. Louis, and McCain drew downward of 2,000 soon thereafter in the same area.
Palin's the one who's drawing for the Republicans, but I'm not sure it's entirely due to her popularity. I think it's more like the crowds that gather around a train wreck, looking to see what damage has been done and what more might be done. In other words, I still think the negativity that has been imposed on Palin's speeches by her handlers has adversely affected the Republican ticket's support.
Right now, then, I still see it as Obama 291 and McCain 174. If I'm correct about OH and FL, and if even MO and NC go Red, it will be Obama 291, McCain 247. More likely, NC may go Blue and MO go Red: Obama 306, McCain 232.
In any case, my standard caveat is still in effect: there's no real way to determine how race will play out in this election. As fewer folk are listed as Undecided, my electoral numbers are based on what I hope is minimal racist influence. But, as they sing in "Porgy and Bess": "It Ain't Necessarily So."
-- triton --
Saturday, October 18, 2008
#79 Updated Electoral Vote Guesstimates: 291-174 (73 Tossups)
With the debates over, with John McCain still shifting the tactics of his campaign, and based on today's poll numbers and the momentum that seems to be continuing, today I'm moving Colorado (9), Nevada (5), and Virginia (13) to Barack Obama's column. That's a big move, since all three states went for dubya four years ago and eight years ago. Obama currently leads in the polls by 7 points in Colorado, 5 points in Nevada, and 10 points in Virginia. He has been maintaining these leads pretty consistently recently.
These three states add 27 votes to Obama's previous total of 264, giving him 291 votes -- and the Presidency.
I have added no states to McCain's column; he remains with 22 states and 174 electoral votes.
Obviously the election is not over. These guesstimates are a snapshot in time--today--but I believe that, if the election were held today, Barack Obama would be elected.
West Virginia (5), which had shifted from eight points ahead for McCain in late September to eight points ahead for Obama in mid-October, has shifted back to McCain by two points. North Dakota (3) is now in play, but I suspect it will retreat to McCain by election day. Ohio (20) and Florida (27) are still Tossups and could go either way; for now, however, I'm assuming they'll go Red in November, though I haven't moved them yet into the McCain column. I feel the same way about Missouri (11) and North Carolina (15) going Red, but I'm leaving them in Tossup as well. They still have some slight possibility of going for Obama by November 4. Obviously, if two of more of these states go to Obama, he'll be well over 300 electoral votes and could be approaching landslide proportions.
Even without West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina, Obama can win with either Colorado or Virginia. Both plus Nevada provides a cushion. And we still have more than two weeks to go.
A major international disruption, a major national gaffe by either side, or a host of any other events could alter the calculus.
Here are my current guesstimated totals. Remember -- You read it here first; if I'm wrong, you don't remember where you read it:
McCAIN
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
North Dakota 3 – MIGHT BE IN PLAY?
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
West Virginia 5 – MIGHT BE IN PLAY?
Wyoming 3
Currently 22 states with 174 electoral votes for McCain
-- -----
OBAMA
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Iowa 7
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
New Jersey 15
New York 31
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 11
Wisconsin 10
Currently 24 states + DC with 291 electoral votes for Obama
----- -----
TOSSUP
Florida 27 THOUGH OBAMA OCCASIONALLY AHEAD, I THINK WILL BE RED
Missouri 11 A SMALL CHANCE TO BE OBAMA’S THOUGH I DON’T THINK SO
North Carolina 15 REALLY A TOSSUP, PROBABLY McCAIN
Ohio 20 REALLY A TOSSUP, BUT I THINK WILL BE McCAIN
Currently 4 states with 73 electoral votes are Tossups.
-- triton --
These three states add 27 votes to Obama's previous total of 264, giving him 291 votes -- and the Presidency.
I have added no states to McCain's column; he remains with 22 states and 174 electoral votes.
Obviously the election is not over. These guesstimates are a snapshot in time--today--but I believe that, if the election were held today, Barack Obama would be elected.
West Virginia (5), which had shifted from eight points ahead for McCain in late September to eight points ahead for Obama in mid-October, has shifted back to McCain by two points. North Dakota (3) is now in play, but I suspect it will retreat to McCain by election day. Ohio (20) and Florida (27) are still Tossups and could go either way; for now, however, I'm assuming they'll go Red in November, though I haven't moved them yet into the McCain column. I feel the same way about Missouri (11) and North Carolina (15) going Red, but I'm leaving them in Tossup as well. They still have some slight possibility of going for Obama by November 4. Obviously, if two of more of these states go to Obama, he'll be well over 300 electoral votes and could be approaching landslide proportions.
Even without West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina, Obama can win with either Colorado or Virginia. Both plus Nevada provides a cushion. And we still have more than two weeks to go.
A major international disruption, a major national gaffe by either side, or a host of any other events could alter the calculus.
Here are my current guesstimated totals. Remember -- You read it here first; if I'm wrong, you don't remember where you read it:
McCAIN
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
North Dakota 3 – MIGHT BE IN PLAY?
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
West Virginia 5 – MIGHT BE IN PLAY?
Wyoming 3
Currently 22 states with 174 electoral votes for McCain
-- -----
OBAMA
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Iowa 7
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
New Jersey 15
New York 31
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 11
Wisconsin 10
Currently 24 states + DC with 291 electoral votes for Obama
----- -----
TOSSUP
Florida 27 THOUGH OBAMA OCCASIONALLY AHEAD, I THINK WILL BE RED
Missouri 11 A SMALL CHANCE TO BE OBAMA’S THOUGH I DON’T THINK SO
North Carolina 15 REALLY A TOSSUP, PROBABLY McCAIN
Ohio 20 REALLY A TOSSUP, BUT I THINK WILL BE McCAIN
Currently 4 states with 73 electoral votes are Tossups.
-- triton --
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
#78 Comedy at Hofstra: Logic 101
John McCain created the most comedic moment of the four debates tonight, unintentionally so. My quotations below are probably not exact, but they're more than close enough to make the point.
When asked if/how their views on Roe v. Wade would affect nominating justices to the Supreme Court, McCain replied:
"I won't have a litmus test. The overall judgment that the justices show is what I would consider for me to nominate them."
Sounds clear enough. Except that a minute and a half later in the same set of comments, he said: "I believe Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision. I believe it should not have been made. I would have to question the judgment of any judge who supports that decision."
Sooooo -- McCain will not let Roe v. Wade disqualify any justice from being considered for nomination to the Supreme Court; it's their judgment that matters. But he doesn't trust the judgment of any justice who supports Roe v. Wade. [Ergo, I conclude, he won't nominate a justice who supports Roe v. Wade. But it's not a litmus test for nomination.]
While my head was spinning on that reply, I noticed that Barack Obama had this HUGE smile on his face as McCain came full circle with his logic. Obama understood exactly what John McCain had done to himself, but was gentle enough not to say anything. Perhaps he thought one of the post-debate commentators would have mentioned it. If any did, I missed that part.
Interesting poll taken after the debate:
Question: Who used more negative campaign ads?
Poll Result: Obama 7%, McCain 80%
That was, by the bye, the only poll John McCain won tonight.
-- triton --
When asked if/how their views on Roe v. Wade would affect nominating justices to the Supreme Court, McCain replied:
"I won't have a litmus test. The overall judgment that the justices show is what I would consider for me to nominate them."
Sounds clear enough. Except that a minute and a half later in the same set of comments, he said: "I believe Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision. I believe it should not have been made. I would have to question the judgment of any judge who supports that decision."
Sooooo -- McCain will not let Roe v. Wade disqualify any justice from being considered for nomination to the Supreme Court; it's their judgment that matters. But he doesn't trust the judgment of any justice who supports Roe v. Wade. [Ergo, I conclude, he won't nominate a justice who supports Roe v. Wade. But it's not a litmus test for nomination.]
While my head was spinning on that reply, I noticed that Barack Obama had this HUGE smile on his face as McCain came full circle with his logic. Obama understood exactly what John McCain had done to himself, but was gentle enough not to say anything. Perhaps he thought one of the post-debate commentators would have mentioned it. If any did, I missed that part.
Interesting poll taken after the debate:
Question: Who used more negative campaign ads?
Poll Result: Obama 7%, McCain 80%
That was, by the bye, the only poll John McCain won tonight.
-- triton --
# 77 The RNC, the Polls, and the Final Debate
Today's headline from the AP on Yahoo! News:
"RNC out of Wisconsin, Maine; focuses on red states
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer"
The Republican National Committee is not actually pulling ALL of its funding out of Wisconsin quite yet: it's still buying air time until October 26. But, as with Michigan, it is a major concession that John McCain doesn't have a realistic chance of winning these states, and doesn't have a realistic chance of gaining even one of Maine's four electoral votes (which possibility I had discussed in a previous post).
It is putting the displaced funding into Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, all states that voted for dubya four and eight years ago. Right now, Obama leads the polls in four of these states (CO, MO surprisingly enough, VA, and FL incredibly enough!), is tied with McCain in North Carolina, and is behind in Indiana. If Obama holds on to all the states that John Kerry won in 2004, adds Iowa and New Mexico (as I have quite awhile ago predicted he will) and wins either CO, MO, VA, or FL, he'll be the next president.
However, all of these thoughts are based on current polls. Here is the heart of the problem with polling in general, and with polling this year in particular: what are their samples, are they of adequate size, and are they representative of the folk who will actually cast ballots? This year, we need to add one question (which is virtually unanswerable until after November 4 when the pollsters hit the fan): to what extent does latent racism, or its opposite--fear of exposure that one is actually voting for a part-African American--not show up in the polls?
Is part of the undecideds--or part of the alleged Obama voters--actually folk who don't want others to know that they can't vote for a black person solely on racial grounds? or are some of them folk who, in the sanctity of the voting booth, will vote for Obama but claim to vote for McCain, because in their social circle they would be ostracized for doing otherwise?
Aside from these considerations, and based on the movement in the polls, Obama could be expected to garner more than 300 electoral votes and probably 52 to 53% of the popular vote. But this year, even more than in the last two elections, the polls just may not be very meaningful.
And tonight's debate will probably have little effect: unless Obama messes up mightily (and so far, at least, he seems too much in control of his emotions and abilities to do so) and McCain exceeds any politicking savvy he has shown thus far (and so far, at least, he seems too little in control of his emotions and abilities to do so), we should not expect much movement in favor of McCain as a result of this final debate.
-- triton --
"RNC out of Wisconsin, Maine; focuses on red states
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer"
The Republican National Committee is not actually pulling ALL of its funding out of Wisconsin quite yet: it's still buying air time until October 26. But, as with Michigan, it is a major concession that John McCain doesn't have a realistic chance of winning these states, and doesn't have a realistic chance of gaining even one of Maine's four electoral votes (which possibility I had discussed in a previous post).
It is putting the displaced funding into Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, all states that voted for dubya four and eight years ago. Right now, Obama leads the polls in four of these states (CO, MO surprisingly enough, VA, and FL incredibly enough!), is tied with McCain in North Carolina, and is behind in Indiana. If Obama holds on to all the states that John Kerry won in 2004, adds Iowa and New Mexico (as I have quite awhile ago predicted he will) and wins either CO, MO, VA, or FL, he'll be the next president.
However, all of these thoughts are based on current polls. Here is the heart of the problem with polling in general, and with polling this year in particular: what are their samples, are they of adequate size, and are they representative of the folk who will actually cast ballots? This year, we need to add one question (which is virtually unanswerable until after November 4 when the pollsters hit the fan): to what extent does latent racism, or its opposite--fear of exposure that one is actually voting for a part-African American--not show up in the polls?
Is part of the undecideds--or part of the alleged Obama voters--actually folk who don't want others to know that they can't vote for a black person solely on racial grounds? or are some of them folk who, in the sanctity of the voting booth, will vote for Obama but claim to vote for McCain, because in their social circle they would be ostracized for doing otherwise?
Aside from these considerations, and based on the movement in the polls, Obama could be expected to garner more than 300 electoral votes and probably 52 to 53% of the popular vote. But this year, even more than in the last two elections, the polls just may not be very meaningful.
And tonight's debate will probably have little effect: unless Obama messes up mightily (and so far, at least, he seems too much in control of his emotions and abilities to do so) and McCain exceeds any politicking savvy he has shown thus far (and so far, at least, he seems too little in control of his emotions and abilities to do so), we should not expect much movement in favor of McCain as a result of this final debate.
-- triton --
Sunday, October 12, 2008
#76 Some New Numbers
The new poll numbers are appearing. Right now on average Obama is ahead in states with 313 electoral votes. There are, of course, reasons why those totals can change, with unacknowledged racial bias being the primary one. There's no way we can determine the extent unless folk actually say so, as they've done in Pennsylvania and Ohio recently. McCain is listed as having 135 electoral votes.
Other items--such as an October surprise (international or national crisis in addition to the financial crisis, Cindy McCain personally contributing her fortune to eliminate the credit crisis, and stuff we can't even begin to imagine)--could change the polls quickly, so I'm not assuming anything. But if the election were held right now, we likely would have a new party in the White House.
According to these most recent polls, Ohio is still a tossup (in the polls I've seen, Obama is ahead more often than behind), but even Florida gives Obama a 5 point lead. Nonetheless, right now at least, I expect Florida and Ohio to go Republican.
Obama's ahead in New Hampshire (10 points), West Virginia(by 8 points!?), Nevada (4 points so I haven't even included NV in Obama's total), Colorado (more than 5 points), Minnesota (6 points), Wisconsin (more than 8 points), Virginia (more than 8 points! -- can that be?), Pennsylvania (14 points -- that's Biden's work), and Florida (5 points).
I've already put New Mexico (only 4+ points ahead) and Iowa (13 points ahead) into the Democratic columns.
I'll keep looking but not yet every day.
-- triton --
Other items--such as an October surprise (international or national crisis in addition to the financial crisis, Cindy McCain personally contributing her fortune to eliminate the credit crisis, and stuff we can't even begin to imagine)--could change the polls quickly, so I'm not assuming anything. But if the election were held right now, we likely would have a new party in the White House.
According to these most recent polls, Ohio is still a tossup (in the polls I've seen, Obama is ahead more often than behind), but even Florida gives Obama a 5 point lead. Nonetheless, right now at least, I expect Florida and Ohio to go Republican.
Obama's ahead in New Hampshire (10 points), West Virginia(by 8 points!?), Nevada (4 points so I haven't even included NV in Obama's total), Colorado (more than 5 points), Minnesota (6 points), Wisconsin (more than 8 points), Virginia (more than 8 points! -- can that be?), Pennsylvania (14 points -- that's Biden's work), and Florida (5 points).
I've already put New Mexico (only 4+ points ahead) and Iowa (13 points ahead) into the Democratic columns.
I'll keep looking but not yet every day.
-- triton --
Thursday, October 9, 2008
#75 Why Isn't Anyone Talking About West Virginia?
On June 6 and September 24, John McCain led Barack Obama in West Virginia by 8 points in the Rasmussen Reports polls. In the polls between those two, the spread was smaller but McCain always led. Today (Oct 9), the Rasmussen Reports poll--which in state after state has consistently given McCain the highest poll numbers of all the poll takers--has Obama ahead by 8 points, 50 to 42. Maybe it's an error on the posting, and maybe McCain is actually still ahead by 8 points.
If it isn't an error, then Obama has gained 16 points on McCain in fifteen days. That doesn't sound possible. But if it's correct, it can only be the economy. West Virginia's miners and other hard-working citizens must be feeling the economic slowdown more than the other states, several of whose citizens have also gravitated toward Obama recently. Indiana, on the other hand, which had been a tossup, seems to be crawling back toward McCain, and the Idahos and Utahs of this country, and Texas and most of the deep south states, also seem to be solidly for McCain.
Florida, however, has a slug of new voter registrations, especially on college campuses, and those new voters are expected to favor Obama strongly. I suspect the same thing is happening in North Carolina, one of the few southern states where Obama is now expected to do very well, maybe even carry it in November. Virginia is another southern state that has been solidly Republican but that Obama could possibly carry, or at least do well in. He and McCain are both pouring money into all three of these states.
If Obama carries Florida or Ohio, by the way, I think the election is over. That is, as long as racism does not cause the 6 point drop between the polls and the voting that the recent Stanford study has indicated is historically the case.
These current poll numbers are all available at http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ which, however, lists only ten states as pro-Obama. In my post #74 I listed 21 states as being for Obama. They list 18 states as favoring McCain; I list 22 states for McCain. So either I'm too optimistic, or I've jumped the gun on some of these states, or the website is behind the times.
If the October 9 polling numbers are correct in West Virginia, then that website needs to update its assigning of states. The website still lists West Virginia as in McCain's column.
It will be fun (perhaps in a sick sort of way) to see what other changes occur over the next 25 days.
-- triton --
If it isn't an error, then Obama has gained 16 points on McCain in fifteen days. That doesn't sound possible. But if it's correct, it can only be the economy. West Virginia's miners and other hard-working citizens must be feeling the economic slowdown more than the other states, several of whose citizens have also gravitated toward Obama recently. Indiana, on the other hand, which had been a tossup, seems to be crawling back toward McCain, and the Idahos and Utahs of this country, and Texas and most of the deep south states, also seem to be solidly for McCain.
Florida, however, has a slug of new voter registrations, especially on college campuses, and those new voters are expected to favor Obama strongly. I suspect the same thing is happening in North Carolina, one of the few southern states where Obama is now expected to do very well, maybe even carry it in November. Virginia is another southern state that has been solidly Republican but that Obama could possibly carry, or at least do well in. He and McCain are both pouring money into all three of these states.
If Obama carries Florida or Ohio, by the way, I think the election is over. That is, as long as racism does not cause the 6 point drop between the polls and the voting that the recent Stanford study has indicated is historically the case.
These current poll numbers are all available at http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ which, however, lists only ten states as pro-Obama. In my post #74 I listed 21 states as being for Obama. They list 18 states as favoring McCain; I list 22 states for McCain. So either I'm too optimistic, or I've jumped the gun on some of these states, or the website is behind the times.
If the October 9 polling numbers are correct in West Virginia, then that website needs to update its assigning of states. The website still lists West Virginia as in McCain's column.
It will be fun (perhaps in a sick sort of way) to see what other changes occur over the next 25 days.
-- triton --
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
##74 The Electoral Math, If Racism Doesn't Exist...Much
Liz Sidoti (AP), CNN and triton seem to be on the same wave length. Here's Sidoti on October 4:
"McCain can't prevail without holding onto most of the states that Bush won, and he's now virtually tied or trailing in public polls in at least 10 of them — Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia — as he tries to fend off Obama's well-funded advertising onslaught and grass-roots efforts.The GOP nominee also is only playing in five states that Democrat John Kerry won in 2004 — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and, now, Maine — and he's running behind."
CNN and triton are saying almost the same thing, though I admit surprise that Obama is currently LEADING in several states that were Red for dubya: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. I'm not yet ready to put any of these in Obama's column, since we still have nearly four weeks until the election, and the polls are fluid. Still, I believe Obama will win at least some of them.
Today I'm putting Iowa and Connecticut into Obama's column. The Lieberman Effect, which caused me to classify CT as a Tossup, seems to be absent. Weeks ago I put New Mexico in Obama's column, and he's solidified his lead since then. Indiana is going for McCain, so that's off the table as well.
The only state I've moved from my Tossup list to McCain is Arkansas. The Clintons have all but disappeared from this election: no news, no appearances, no interviews.
The five blue states where McCain is putting his money--Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota--will go for Obama, though McCain could get one vote from Maine, depending on the voting pattern in the state’s four electoral districts. Maine and Nebraska are the only states that allow their electoral votes to be split. And that could, under one particular circumstance (keep reading), be an important single vote. Obama, by the way, will get no electoral votes from Nebraska.
That leaves Ohio, which I have called the key state to this election. Perhaps no longer: so many Red states are now in play that Obama may actually not need to win Ohio to win the election. Ohio is still pretty much a dead heat, though Obama is leading there in four polls and McCain in two.
If Obama wins the states I've listed as his, and wins even only one Tossup state except Nevada, he'll be our next President with more than 270 electoral votes. Nevada's 5 electoral votes will give him 269 votes, and a tie with McCain. In that case, the House of Representatives decides who becomes President, and there's an excellent chance the House will still have a Democratic majority, even more strongly than now.
However, if Obama wins all of the states that I've listed in his column, plus only Nevada from the Tossups, but McCain wins one of Maine's four votes, then Obama will have 268 votes and McCain will have 270 votes. And John McCain will be President.
If, however, Obama wins any one of the other Tossup states instead of Nevada, Barack Obama will be our next President. Right now, late at night, looking at the polls' statistics, I think Obama will win more than one Tossup state, could even win most of them.
Two words of caution: (1) the polls can change radically in 26 days, as they have changed in the last month; (2) I don't know how or even if racism will play a significant role. But if racism does enter significantly, silently or not, Sarah Palin may be too close to the presidency for comfort.
And now the states as I see them lining up:
McCAIN
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
North Dakota 3
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
West Virginia 5
Wyoming 3
Currently 22 states with 174 electoral votes for McCain
----- ----- -----
OBAMA
California 55
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Iowa 7
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
New Jersey 15
New York 31
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Washington 11
Wisconsin 10
Currently 21 states + DC with 264 electoral votes for Obama
----- ----- -----
TOSSUP
Colorado 9
Florida 27
Missouri 11
Nevada 5
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Virginia 13
Currently 7 states with 100 electoral votes are Tossups, most of them with Obama holding a small lead on October 7, 2008.
-- triton --
"McCain can't prevail without holding onto most of the states that Bush won, and he's now virtually tied or trailing in public polls in at least 10 of them — Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia — as he tries to fend off Obama's well-funded advertising onslaught and grass-roots efforts.The GOP nominee also is only playing in five states that Democrat John Kerry won in 2004 — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and, now, Maine — and he's running behind."
CNN and triton are saying almost the same thing, though I admit surprise that Obama is currently LEADING in several states that were Red for dubya: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. I'm not yet ready to put any of these in Obama's column, since we still have nearly four weeks until the election, and the polls are fluid. Still, I believe Obama will win at least some of them.
Today I'm putting Iowa and Connecticut into Obama's column. The Lieberman Effect, which caused me to classify CT as a Tossup, seems to be absent. Weeks ago I put New Mexico in Obama's column, and he's solidified his lead since then. Indiana is going for McCain, so that's off the table as well.
The only state I've moved from my Tossup list to McCain is Arkansas. The Clintons have all but disappeared from this election: no news, no appearances, no interviews.
The five blue states where McCain is putting his money--Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota--will go for Obama, though McCain could get one vote from Maine, depending on the voting pattern in the state’s four electoral districts. Maine and Nebraska are the only states that allow their electoral votes to be split. And that could, under one particular circumstance (keep reading), be an important single vote. Obama, by the way, will get no electoral votes from Nebraska.
That leaves Ohio, which I have called the key state to this election. Perhaps no longer: so many Red states are now in play that Obama may actually not need to win Ohio to win the election. Ohio is still pretty much a dead heat, though Obama is leading there in four polls and McCain in two.
If Obama wins the states I've listed as his, and wins even only one Tossup state except Nevada, he'll be our next President with more than 270 electoral votes. Nevada's 5 electoral votes will give him 269 votes, and a tie with McCain. In that case, the House of Representatives decides who becomes President, and there's an excellent chance the House will still have a Democratic majority, even more strongly than now.
However, if Obama wins all of the states that I've listed in his column, plus only Nevada from the Tossups, but McCain wins one of Maine's four votes, then Obama will have 268 votes and McCain will have 270 votes. And John McCain will be President.
If, however, Obama wins any one of the other Tossup states instead of Nevada, Barack Obama will be our next President. Right now, late at night, looking at the polls' statistics, I think Obama will win more than one Tossup state, could even win most of them.
Two words of caution: (1) the polls can change radically in 26 days, as they have changed in the last month; (2) I don't know how or even if racism will play a significant role. But if racism does enter significantly, silently or not, Sarah Palin may be too close to the presidency for comfort.
And now the states as I see them lining up:
McCAIN
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
North Dakota 3
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
West Virginia 5
Wyoming 3
Currently 22 states with 174 electoral votes for McCain
----- ----- -----
OBAMA
California 55
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Iowa 7
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
New Jersey 15
New York 31
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Washington 11
Wisconsin 10
Currently 21 states + DC with 264 electoral votes for Obama
----- ----- -----
TOSSUP
Colorado 9
Florida 27
Missouri 11
Nevada 5
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Virginia 13
Currently 7 states with 100 electoral votes are Tossups, most of them with Obama holding a small lead on October 7, 2008.
-- triton --
#73 The Secret Service
After tonight's debate, and all the poll and approval numbers were aired, I realized that the Secret Service may have its collective hands full for the rest of the campaign and then, depending on the results of the election, for four or eight years thereafer.
The polling about the debate showed that Obama clearly won, and is increasingly the favorite to win the election. In my next post, I'll list where I think the states are going to fall, and, yes, on that basis Obama will apparently win. There's still plenty of time for fluidity in the electoral count, however, so I'm not saying the election is over. Especially in light of the following:
As David Gergen (my favorite commentator on political affairs, even ahead of James Carville) said tonight on CNN, when asked what could now change Obama's momentum in this campaign: "Well, for one thing, he's black."
That sums it up. I've been writing periodically on this blog about latent racism. I have two concerns.
(1) As Gergen also expressed it, the polls may not be accurate. A recent Stanford study indicated that racism could shift the election's popular vote by as much as 6%. With Obama currently ahead nationally by 5%, that could enable McCain to overcome seemingly long odds and be elected. David Gergen looked really kind of ill when he made these remarks, as if he was implicitly and extremely concerned about...(#2, next)
(2) Even before the election (and obviously also after the election, if Obama wins), some crazy out there with a gun or some fertilizer, and stoked up on a derivative of pseudoephedrine or some other drug of choice, may try to make his/her "vote" count more than everyone else's. The Secret Service has to be particularly vigilant, and our government's intelligence resources have to be employed to eliminate any potential threats before they can be acted upon.
Now, more than ever during this campaign, I am truly concerned about racists acting out their delusions.
-- triton --
The polling about the debate showed that Obama clearly won, and is increasingly the favorite to win the election. In my next post, I'll list where I think the states are going to fall, and, yes, on that basis Obama will apparently win. There's still plenty of time for fluidity in the electoral count, however, so I'm not saying the election is over. Especially in light of the following:
As David Gergen (my favorite commentator on political affairs, even ahead of James Carville) said tonight on CNN, when asked what could now change Obama's momentum in this campaign: "Well, for one thing, he's black."
That sums it up. I've been writing periodically on this blog about latent racism. I have two concerns.
(1) As Gergen also expressed it, the polls may not be accurate. A recent Stanford study indicated that racism could shift the election's popular vote by as much as 6%. With Obama currently ahead nationally by 5%, that could enable McCain to overcome seemingly long odds and be elected. David Gergen looked really kind of ill when he made these remarks, as if he was implicitly and extremely concerned about...(#2, next)
(2) Even before the election (and obviously also after the election, if Obama wins), some crazy out there with a gun or some fertilizer, and stoked up on a derivative of pseudoephedrine or some other drug of choice, may try to make his/her "vote" count more than everyone else's. The Secret Service has to be particularly vigilant, and our government's intelligence resources have to be employed to eliminate any potential threats before they can be acted upon.
Now, more than ever during this campaign, I am truly concerned about racists acting out their delusions.
-- triton --
Sunday, October 5, 2008
#72 Strategy vs. Tactics
Sarah Painful mentioned, and almost discussed, "the difference between 'strategy' and 'tactics' " during her part of the debate this past week. Of course, as with so many other topics (that, however, Gwen Ifill was actually asking about), Painful did not discuss even this one that she had brought up herself.
But we've been getting practical examples during this past week of the Republicans' distinction between "strategy" and "tactics."
Republican strategy: to withdraw most of its campaign support from Michigan, because Obama has opened up close to a double-digit lead in the polls there.
Republican strategy: to keep putting money into five states that Kerry carried in 2004 (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and, now, Maine).
Republican Strategy: to put more money into Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, ten states that dubya carried four years ago.
Unfortunately for McCain, he's trailing Obama in the polls in the first group, the states that went Blue for Kerry, and he's trailing, tied, or at best only slightly ahead in the polls in the ten states listed above that went Red in 2004.
Now I have to repeat that I'm not sure we can particularly trust the polls this year, given the accuracy of polls in previous elections with Black vs. White nominees running for other offices. But if we practice "the willing suspension of disbelief" (thank you Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who was NOT talking about politics when he used that phrase), then the electoral college could play out very differently this election than last time around.
Republican Tactics: more money in the ten Red states listed above is the Republican admission of desperation. Desperate times call for desperate measures (gee, I wish I had coined that expression). And so, the Republican shift in "tactics": from normal-dirty to REALLY-dirty.
That's right. So far, they've attacked Obama's qualifications, they've attacked what has been said or done by people he knows, and now they're going after his character, his integrity, directly. Sarah Painful was on the news yesterday, indicating that Barack Obama has consorted with terrorists. I don't think she used the word "consorted" (it does have three syllables, after all) but, whatever word she did use, that's what she meant. She was referring to a 1960s era terrorist against whom the government had brought up charges...and then dropped the charges. The man is now a University of Chicago professor, and we all know of the surveys listing university professors as among the most highly respected profession (I'm not making that up). The truth is, Obama had worked with him to help a non-profit organization in Illinois in the 1990s, thirty years after the charges were filed and more than twenty years after the charges were dropped.
Never mind, by the bye, that Painful had chided Joe Biden this past week during the debate, "There you go again, Joe, looking to the past!" when Biden tried to tie John McCain to the bush administration's failed policies.
I think attacking Obama's character will fail: it will create a strong, indignant backlash against Republicans nationally, and may actually drag down Republicans who are further down the ticket rather than just affecting John McCain at the top. Such ad hominem attacks are indeed a sign of desperation. As tactics, they will also be futile.
-- triton --
But we've been getting practical examples during this past week of the Republicans' distinction between "strategy" and "tactics."
Republican strategy: to withdraw most of its campaign support from Michigan, because Obama has opened up close to a double-digit lead in the polls there.
Republican strategy: to keep putting money into five states that Kerry carried in 2004 (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and, now, Maine).
Republican Strategy: to put more money into Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, ten states that dubya carried four years ago.
Unfortunately for McCain, he's trailing Obama in the polls in the first group, the states that went Blue for Kerry, and he's trailing, tied, or at best only slightly ahead in the polls in the ten states listed above that went Red in 2004.
Now I have to repeat that I'm not sure we can particularly trust the polls this year, given the accuracy of polls in previous elections with Black vs. White nominees running for other offices. But if we practice "the willing suspension of disbelief" (thank you Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who was NOT talking about politics when he used that phrase), then the electoral college could play out very differently this election than last time around.
Republican Tactics: more money in the ten Red states listed above is the Republican admission of desperation. Desperate times call for desperate measures (gee, I wish I had coined that expression). And so, the Republican shift in "tactics": from normal-dirty to REALLY-dirty.
That's right. So far, they've attacked Obama's qualifications, they've attacked what has been said or done by people he knows, and now they're going after his character, his integrity, directly. Sarah Painful was on the news yesterday, indicating that Barack Obama has consorted with terrorists. I don't think she used the word "consorted" (it does have three syllables, after all) but, whatever word she did use, that's what she meant. She was referring to a 1960s era terrorist against whom the government had brought up charges...and then dropped the charges. The man is now a University of Chicago professor, and we all know of the surveys listing university professors as among the most highly respected profession (I'm not making that up). The truth is, Obama had worked with him to help a non-profit organization in Illinois in the 1990s, thirty years after the charges were filed and more than twenty years after the charges were dropped.
Never mind, by the bye, that Painful had chided Joe Biden this past week during the debate, "There you go again, Joe, looking to the past!" when Biden tried to tie John McCain to the bush administration's failed policies.
I think attacking Obama's character will fail: it will create a strong, indignant backlash against Republicans nationally, and may actually drag down Republicans who are further down the ticket rather than just affecting John McCain at the top. Such ad hominem attacks are indeed a sign of desperation. As tactics, they will also be futile.
-- triton --
Saturday, October 4, 2008
#71 Not-So-Latent Local Racism
Yesterday we put up several Democratic candidate signs in our front yard. This morning all but one were still up. The Obama-Biden sign was missing. So I drove around our neighborhood and saw that, during the night, all Obama signs had been removed in the six square block area--from Blaine to Hayes, from Sixth to Third. The other Democratic candidate signs, for local and statewide offices, were still standing in the light rain that fell this morning.
I can reach only one conclusion: some not-so-latent racists were busy in the dark. It's annoying of course, and violates our freedom of speech.
But it also reinforces my concern that the polls this year may be particularly inaccurate. If racists do their dirty work in the dark, might they also be concealing their true vote preferences?
On September 27, Sam Wang published online a discussion of a large-scale empirical study by Harvard political scientist Dan Hopkins. Wang cites Hopkins' findings that, since the mid-1990s, the Bradley effect [named after former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley] has disappeared. The "Bradley effect" occurred when a non-white candidate falls short of the result projected by opinion polls on Election Day when he/she runs against a white candidate.
Wang explains: "Tom Bradley, a black man, lost the 1982 governor’s race despite the fact that in opinion polls taken before the election he led George Deukmejian, a white man. Sometimes it is also called the Wilder effect, after Gov. Doug Wilder of Virginia, who had a comfortable lead by nearly 10 percentage points in his 1990 campaign, but only won by a whisker."
Hopkins' study indicates that "Polls did show a significant Bradley/Wilder effect through the early 1990s, which includes the period when Bradley and Wilder were running for office. However, Hopkins notes that the effect then went away in races from 1996 onward. To quote the study: 'Before 1996, the median gap for black candidates was 3.1 percentage points, while for subsequent years it was -0.3 percentage points.' "
Of course, people can change their minds at the last moment about whom they wish to vote for. Still, I'm concerned by the possibility of people masking their intentions when they take part in this year's polls. And many people choose not to participate in the polls at all. Hence, I don't know how applicable to this year's election Hopkins' study truly is, and specifically how accurate the polls will turn out to be. Our neighborhood's disappearing Obama signs give additional cause to raise that question.
-- triton --
I can reach only one conclusion: some not-so-latent racists were busy in the dark. It's annoying of course, and violates our freedom of speech.
But it also reinforces my concern that the polls this year may be particularly inaccurate. If racists do their dirty work in the dark, might they also be concealing their true vote preferences?
On September 27, Sam Wang published online a discussion of a large-scale empirical study by Harvard political scientist Dan Hopkins. Wang cites Hopkins' findings that, since the mid-1990s, the Bradley effect [named after former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley] has disappeared. The "Bradley effect" occurred when a non-white candidate falls short of the result projected by opinion polls on Election Day when he/she runs against a white candidate.
Wang explains: "Tom Bradley, a black man, lost the 1982 governor’s race despite the fact that in opinion polls taken before the election he led George Deukmejian, a white man. Sometimes it is also called the Wilder effect, after Gov. Doug Wilder of Virginia, who had a comfortable lead by nearly 10 percentage points in his 1990 campaign, but only won by a whisker."
Hopkins' study indicates that "Polls did show a significant Bradley/Wilder effect through the early 1990s, which includes the period when Bradley and Wilder were running for office. However, Hopkins notes that the effect then went away in races from 1996 onward. To quote the study: 'Before 1996, the median gap for black candidates was 3.1 percentage points, while for subsequent years it was -0.3 percentage points.' "
Of course, people can change their minds at the last moment about whom they wish to vote for. Still, I'm concerned by the possibility of people masking their intentions when they take part in this year's polls. And many people choose not to participate in the polls at all. Hence, I don't know how applicable to this year's election Hopkins' study truly is, and specifically how accurate the polls will turn out to be. Our neighborhood's disappearing Obama signs give additional cause to raise that question.
-- triton --
Friday, October 3, 2008
#70 Biden's Passion
Several bloggers and TV commentators have mentioned Joe Biden's passion that surfaced a few times last night. They point particularly to his emotional reference to the loss of his first wife and infant daughter. That was a touching moment, and it did steal the thunder from Sarah Painful's introducing what it's like to be a parent with a job and home responsibilities and government responsibilities.
But I thought Biden's passion was at its strongest when he interrupted Gwen Ifill after Painful finished referring--for the umpteenth time--to McCain and herself as "mavericks." Biden said (and these are close to but probably not exact quotes), "Gwen, I have to interrupt you at this point to refute what the governor has said about John and her being mavericks. I love John [a point he made just a liiiiiittle too often last night], but he's no maverick most of the time, and certainly NOT on the issues that matter most to the American middle class." And then Biden looked straight to the camera, which zeroed in on his face, and he listed the litany of times that McCain supported the dubya administration's policies that adversely affected normal, middle-class Americans. It was, from my point of view, the most powerful moment in the debate.
It is this kind of passion, straight from the heart, that connects Joe Biden with the blue-collar voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania and, I hope, Ohio.
Next post: a return to the states that are moving.
-- triton --
But I thought Biden's passion was at its strongest when he interrupted Gwen Ifill after Painful finished referring--for the umpteenth time--to McCain and herself as "mavericks." Biden said (and these are close to but probably not exact quotes), "Gwen, I have to interrupt you at this point to refute what the governor has said about John and her being mavericks. I love John [a point he made just a liiiiiittle too often last night], but he's no maverick most of the time, and certainly NOT on the issues that matter most to the American middle class." And then Biden looked straight to the camera, which zeroed in on his face, and he listed the litany of times that McCain supported the dubya administration's policies that adversely affected normal, middle-class Americans. It was, from my point of view, the most powerful moment in the debate.
It is this kind of passion, straight from the heart, that connects Joe Biden with the blue-collar voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania and, I hope, Ohio.
Next post: a return to the states that are moving.
-- triton --
#69 It's still the economy....
Two debates down, two to go. But the debates--so far at least--haven't done much to change the direction of the election. "It's the economy...," to quote part of James Carville's mantra from eight years ago.
"Employers cut 159,000 jobs, most in more than 5 years; jobless rate holds steady," is today's AP online headline. And of course the stock market has been tanking, with its double-digit moves down and up--mostly down--for several weeks. This drop in the Dow Jones Industrial average, the S&P 500, Nasdaq and nearly every other indicator was foreshadowed months ago when the Dow Jones Utilities average broke below its 474 support level. It's at 415.52 as we begin trading today.
The economy has taken its toll on the Republican ticket, and probably not just on John McCain/Sarah Painful. If there is not a dramatic, and highly unusual movement upward in the next month (or a dubya-manufactured October surprise), expect Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate to increase significantly.
The economy hits home first and hardest and most obviously. People vote their pocketbooks. And many more people are unemployed and homeless today than a year ago, with unemployment up nearly 33% from the 4.6% average 2007 US unemployment. Banks and investment firms are going out of business, or are being bought up at bargain prices by their stronger former competitors; and over a trillion dollars was lost in one day in retirement accounts this past week.
McCain has all but pulled his support staff and advertising budget from Michigan, once thought to be a battleground state, conceding its 17 electoral votes to Obama. North Carolina is now a tossup; Pennsylvania--another battleground state--seems to be moving solidly toward Obama; Nevada and Colorado are battleground states, while New Mexico (which I moved weeks ago to the Obama side) now is more solidly Blue. Montana, on the other hand, seems pretty solidly a Red state again.
If NV and CO actually vote Democratic for president this year, Obama might not need to win Ohio, though I still don't trust the close polls, especially with a significant number of "undecided" voters out there.
But the economy has shaken things loose and shaken up the McCain campaign. We have 32 days until the election. Still anything can happen, but September and early October have been disastrous for the economy, and for the Republicans.
-- triton --
"Employers cut 159,000 jobs, most in more than 5 years; jobless rate holds steady," is today's AP online headline. And of course the stock market has been tanking, with its double-digit moves down and up--mostly down--for several weeks. This drop in the Dow Jones Industrial average, the S&P 500, Nasdaq and nearly every other indicator was foreshadowed months ago when the Dow Jones Utilities average broke below its 474 support level. It's at 415.52 as we begin trading today.
The economy has taken its toll on the Republican ticket, and probably not just on John McCain/Sarah Painful. If there is not a dramatic, and highly unusual movement upward in the next month (or a dubya-manufactured October surprise), expect Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate to increase significantly.
The economy hits home first and hardest and most obviously. People vote their pocketbooks. And many more people are unemployed and homeless today than a year ago, with unemployment up nearly 33% from the 4.6% average 2007 US unemployment. Banks and investment firms are going out of business, or are being bought up at bargain prices by their stronger former competitors; and over a trillion dollars was lost in one day in retirement accounts this past week.
McCain has all but pulled his support staff and advertising budget from Michigan, once thought to be a battleground state, conceding its 17 electoral votes to Obama. North Carolina is now a tossup; Pennsylvania--another battleground state--seems to be moving solidly toward Obama; Nevada and Colorado are battleground states, while New Mexico (which I moved weeks ago to the Obama side) now is more solidly Blue. Montana, on the other hand, seems pretty solidly a Red state again.
If NV and CO actually vote Democratic for president this year, Obama might not need to win Ohio, though I still don't trust the close polls, especially with a significant number of "undecided" voters out there.
But the economy has shaken things loose and shaken up the McCain campaign. We have 32 days until the election. Still anything can happen, but September and early October have been disastrous for the economy, and for the Republicans.
-- triton --
Monday, September 29, 2008
#68 The October Surprise (sneak preview)
It's too early to count McCain out yet, even though he "suspended" his campaign to make sure the bailout would be agreed upon and passed. All his alleged campaign suspension and his threats not to attend the debate accomplished was to emphasize how impulsive and erratic his behavior is.
Barney Frank had the best line. When the Republicans blamed Nancy Pelosi for souring the deal because she accused the Republicans of being extremists, Frank said (almost exact quote), "Oh, so the Republicans got their feelings hurt, and now they're taking it out on the whole country."
Good man Barney; that puts the blame where it belongs, on the ~70% of House Republicans who voted against the bailout.
But all is not lost for John McCain. The famous "October surprise" awaits in the wings. Now that the bailout as proposed to the House of Representatives has failed (at least temporarily), with an overwhelming majority of the Republicans voting against it--and McCain campaigned with these same Republicans to support it so he could take credit--John McCain can ride in to the rescue.
And now the October surprise. Remember: you read it here first. (If it's wrong, you don't remember where you read it.)
John McCain will resolve the bailout bust by...
(are you ready?)
(are you sure you're ready for this one?)
(last chance to bail out on the bailout...)
John McCain will resolve the bailout bust by...using Cindy McCain's money to buy up all the rotten mortgages, and restore confidence in the banking system, and save the stock market, and bring Republicans and Democrats back together again in one harmonious, glorious, unified governmental collaboration! And he'll WIN! And JOHN McCAIN WILL BE PRESIDENT!! And SARAH PALIN WILL BE...
[uh oh. i gotta stop taking those pills.]
-- triton --
Barney Frank had the best line. When the Republicans blamed Nancy Pelosi for souring the deal because she accused the Republicans of being extremists, Frank said (almost exact quote), "Oh, so the Republicans got their feelings hurt, and now they're taking it out on the whole country."
Good man Barney; that puts the blame where it belongs, on the ~70% of House Republicans who voted against the bailout.
But all is not lost for John McCain. The famous "October surprise" awaits in the wings. Now that the bailout as proposed to the House of Representatives has failed (at least temporarily), with an overwhelming majority of the Republicans voting against it--and McCain campaigned with these same Republicans to support it so he could take credit--John McCain can ride in to the rescue.
And now the October surprise. Remember: you read it here first. (If it's wrong, you don't remember where you read it.)
John McCain will resolve the bailout bust by...
(are you ready?)
(are you sure you're ready for this one?)
(last chance to bail out on the bailout...)
John McCain will resolve the bailout bust by...using Cindy McCain's money to buy up all the rotten mortgages, and restore confidence in the banking system, and save the stock market, and bring Republicans and Democrats back together again in one harmonious, glorious, unified governmental collaboration! And he'll WIN! And JOHN McCAIN WILL BE PRESIDENT!! And SARAH PALIN WILL BE...
[uh oh. i gotta stop taking those pills.]
-- triton --
Saturday, September 27, 2008
#67 States in Play
"Candidates' travels show it's all about Ohio" is the headline on Carrie Budoff Brown's Politico online article this evening.
And it's true that both Obama and McCain have spent more time there and in Florida than in any other state. Obama is also visiting Virginia and North Carolina far more frequently than John Kerry did four years ago, as he tries to make inroads into what his campaign clearly believes are vulnerable Red states. My question, rhetorical of course: if he's so concerned about trying to capture Virginia, why didn't he choose as his running mate the senator or the governor? Either Webb or Keane would really have put that state into play.
McCain is spending much time in Michigan and Pennsylvania, as he tries to woo moderate Republicans in the Philly suburbs, conservative Republicans in the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, and Democrats disaffected with Governor Granholm's statewide economic problems in Michigan.
Both Obama and McCain seem to think that Iowa will go Blue this year, although McCain has added Iowa to his schedule recently, so he may see something there that the polls have not reflected. I think Obama needs to spend some time there as well, even though right now at least one poll has him with a nine point lead. Obama is also trying to bring New Mexico back to the Blue, and I see him succeeding there. But he has to work hard to keep Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in the Democratic column. The polls fluctuate sufficiently in those four states that I don't trust them to reflect true Obama strength.
Obama also has to be careful not to keep neglecting New England (other than New Hampshire, which seems definitely in play). New Englanders are a proud people, and won't look kindly on being ignored, or taken for granted as Obama seems to be doing. Luckily, McCain's not spending much time there either (except for New Hampshire). If Obama doesn't spend some time in the other New England states, I'm concerned about an unpleasant surprise in New England on November 4.
Frankly, I think Obama is wasting his time in Florida. McCain has also spent a lot of time there, and every poll I've seen puts him pretty safely ahead of Obama. Barring something really unforeseen, I don't see that lead changing. Missouri's another state that, I believe, Obama currently has little chance of winning.
McCain probably can't win the election without Ohio, unless he takes both Michigan and Pennsylvania, and maybe Minnesota for good measure. McCain's strong collection of southern states, mountain states, and Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Texas base create a math that indicates that likely Obama can't win without it either.
Finally, then, as I've said before, It's Ohio.
-- triton --
And it's true that both Obama and McCain have spent more time there and in Florida than in any other state. Obama is also visiting Virginia and North Carolina far more frequently than John Kerry did four years ago, as he tries to make inroads into what his campaign clearly believes are vulnerable Red states. My question, rhetorical of course: if he's so concerned about trying to capture Virginia, why didn't he choose as his running mate the senator or the governor? Either Webb or Keane would really have put that state into play.
McCain is spending much time in Michigan and Pennsylvania, as he tries to woo moderate Republicans in the Philly suburbs, conservative Republicans in the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, and Democrats disaffected with Governor Granholm's statewide economic problems in Michigan.
Both Obama and McCain seem to think that Iowa will go Blue this year, although McCain has added Iowa to his schedule recently, so he may see something there that the polls have not reflected. I think Obama needs to spend some time there as well, even though right now at least one poll has him with a nine point lead. Obama is also trying to bring New Mexico back to the Blue, and I see him succeeding there. But he has to work hard to keep Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in the Democratic column. The polls fluctuate sufficiently in those four states that I don't trust them to reflect true Obama strength.
Obama also has to be careful not to keep neglecting New England (other than New Hampshire, which seems definitely in play). New Englanders are a proud people, and won't look kindly on being ignored, or taken for granted as Obama seems to be doing. Luckily, McCain's not spending much time there either (except for New Hampshire). If Obama doesn't spend some time in the other New England states, I'm concerned about an unpleasant surprise in New England on November 4.
Frankly, I think Obama is wasting his time in Florida. McCain has also spent a lot of time there, and every poll I've seen puts him pretty safely ahead of Obama. Barring something really unforeseen, I don't see that lead changing. Missouri's another state that, I believe, Obama currently has little chance of winning.
McCain probably can't win the election without Ohio, unless he takes both Michigan and Pennsylvania, and maybe Minnesota for good measure. McCain's strong collection of southern states, mountain states, and Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Texas base create a math that indicates that likely Obama can't win without it either.
Finally, then, as I've said before, It's Ohio.
-- triton --
Thursday, September 25, 2008
# 66 Good News and Bad News: Read This Post
Actually, this post should be numbered 666. That is, at least, the way I'm feeling right now.
Here's the bad news:
John McCain has a really good chance of being our next president, and Sarah Palin our next vice president.
How can that be? By all the ideals that the citizens of this country claim to live by; by all that we individually view as sacred, and by our moral and ethical standards; by the use of our minds that can reason and analyze and synthesize; by all that is meaningful in our lives, especially our children and our grandchildren and our friends and our colleagues: by all of these, John McCain should be fifteen, twenty, twenty-five points behind Barack Obama in the polls.
1) The bush administration has deregulated so many parts of our economy that the entire economy is in a shambles, leading the German president to say, bluntly, that the United States will no longer be viewed as the world's financial leader. This is the Republicans' doing.
2) The bush administration has mired us down in a war that we probably had no legitimate reason for beginning in the first place. This is the Republicans' doing.
3) The bush administration, as a result of (2) above, has failed in its pledge to capture those responsible for the September 11 attacks. This is the Republicans' doing.
4) The bush administration, even as a johnny-come-lately to environmental concerns (if we believe they really care at all), has lost all credibility and hence the ability to get global agreement to attack global warming. This is the Republicans' doing.
(5) John McCain has admitted during the campaign that he didn't know much about economics. But one of the most serious problems (of many) that we currently face is the real possibility of a devastating depression in this country, putting millions more people out of work, out of homes, out of everything, and causing unimaginably horrible ripples through the economies of every other nation.
(6) John McCain, in a successful attempt to appeal to the faaaaaaaaaaaar right base of the Republican party, selected unknown and unqualified Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate. If the McCain-Palin ticket wins this election, she will be a heartbeat away from becoming president, a horribly alarming prospect since then-president McCain has had cancer four times, is still psychologically suffering from his war experiences (even his Republican handlers fear his impetuosity and his temper), and looks, sounds, and thinks like a person much older than his 72 years.
(7) John McCain's temper and impetuous nature are precisely the qualities we must not have in a president, the person with his finger on the trigger to our nuclear and conventional weapons.
(8) John McCain flew into the middle of bailout negotiations in D.C. to find a way out of the current 780 billion dollar mess, and negotiations flew into a rage, at least temporarily failing.
(9) John McCain, unprepared to face Barack Obama in a debate on Foreign Policy--for God's sake, that's supposed to be McCain's forte!--so far has backed out, using the ruse of trying to settle our economic dilemma (see #5 above).
(10) Barack Obama needs to be waaaaaay ahead in the polls going into election day if he is to have a chance to win. The bottom line is, Right Now, more people than we could ever believe will deny him their vote because he's black. It is so prevalent now that people are actually saying it to pollsters. The pollsters are further concerned that "Undecided" is becoming a code word for "notablackperson." I am disgusted with racism.
I could go on and on and what good would that do. I see no other reason than racism for the closeness of the current election. It is very depressing.
And now here's the good news.
Right now, this evening as I write this post; right now, as the news is filled with the failure of the Republicans to help construct a solution to the country's, possibly soon to be the world's, economic disasters; right now, with the polls showing just about a dead heat between the two major candidates; right now, there is no good news.
Except perhaps for this courageous statement from Paul Begala, on Anderson Cooper's "A C 360" this evening. I'm surprised his comment wasn't blipped. I'll be surprised if tomorrow it isn't all over the press here and abroad. But perhaps his saying it will somehow awaken our reason, our sense of fairness, our sense of righteous indignation that some people, some of our own countrypeople, view race as more important than ability. Tonight, Paul Begala said that the current president of the United States is "a high-functioning moron."
And no one disagreed. God bless America for its freedom of speech. And that IS good news.
-- triton --
Here's the bad news:
John McCain has a really good chance of being our next president, and Sarah Palin our next vice president.
How can that be? By all the ideals that the citizens of this country claim to live by; by all that we individually view as sacred, and by our moral and ethical standards; by the use of our minds that can reason and analyze and synthesize; by all that is meaningful in our lives, especially our children and our grandchildren and our friends and our colleagues: by all of these, John McCain should be fifteen, twenty, twenty-five points behind Barack Obama in the polls.
1) The bush administration has deregulated so many parts of our economy that the entire economy is in a shambles, leading the German president to say, bluntly, that the United States will no longer be viewed as the world's financial leader. This is the Republicans' doing.
2) The bush administration has mired us down in a war that we probably had no legitimate reason for beginning in the first place. This is the Republicans' doing.
3) The bush administration, as a result of (2) above, has failed in its pledge to capture those responsible for the September 11 attacks. This is the Republicans' doing.
4) The bush administration, even as a johnny-come-lately to environmental concerns (if we believe they really care at all), has lost all credibility and hence the ability to get global agreement to attack global warming. This is the Republicans' doing.
(5) John McCain has admitted during the campaign that he didn't know much about economics. But one of the most serious problems (of many) that we currently face is the real possibility of a devastating depression in this country, putting millions more people out of work, out of homes, out of everything, and causing unimaginably horrible ripples through the economies of every other nation.
(6) John McCain, in a successful attempt to appeal to the faaaaaaaaaaaar right base of the Republican party, selected unknown and unqualified Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate. If the McCain-Palin ticket wins this election, she will be a heartbeat away from becoming president, a horribly alarming prospect since then-president McCain has had cancer four times, is still psychologically suffering from his war experiences (even his Republican handlers fear his impetuosity and his temper), and looks, sounds, and thinks like a person much older than his 72 years.
(7) John McCain's temper and impetuous nature are precisely the qualities we must not have in a president, the person with his finger on the trigger to our nuclear and conventional weapons.
(8) John McCain flew into the middle of bailout negotiations in D.C. to find a way out of the current 780 billion dollar mess, and negotiations flew into a rage, at least temporarily failing.
(9) John McCain, unprepared to face Barack Obama in a debate on Foreign Policy--for God's sake, that's supposed to be McCain's forte!--so far has backed out, using the ruse of trying to settle our economic dilemma (see #5 above).
(10) Barack Obama needs to be waaaaaay ahead in the polls going into election day if he is to have a chance to win. The bottom line is, Right Now, more people than we could ever believe will deny him their vote because he's black. It is so prevalent now that people are actually saying it to pollsters. The pollsters are further concerned that "Undecided" is becoming a code word for "notablackperson." I am disgusted with racism.
I could go on and on and what good would that do. I see no other reason than racism for the closeness of the current election. It is very depressing.
And now here's the good news.
Right now, this evening as I write this post; right now, as the news is filled with the failure of the Republicans to help construct a solution to the country's, possibly soon to be the world's, economic disasters; right now, with the polls showing just about a dead heat between the two major candidates; right now, there is no good news.
Except perhaps for this courageous statement from Paul Begala, on Anderson Cooper's "A C 360" this evening. I'm surprised his comment wasn't blipped. I'll be surprised if tomorrow it isn't all over the press here and abroad. But perhaps his saying it will somehow awaken our reason, our sense of fairness, our sense of righteous indignation that some people, some of our own countrypeople, view race as more important than ability. Tonight, Paul Begala said that the current president of the United States is "a high-functioning moron."
And no one disagreed. God bless America for its freedom of speech. And that IS good news.
-- triton --
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
#65 It's Ohio
Pennsylvania may be known as "The Keystone State," but this year, as in 2004, Ohio is the key state. Almost on a daily basis, certainly on a poll-to-poll basis, the lead switches back and forth between Obama and McCain in Ohio, with its twenty electoral votes.
Right now the polls have McCain ahead but barely. A few days ago, Obama was ahead by four points. It's likely to continue to alternate until November 4. If Ted Strickland (the governor) or Sherrod Brown (the senator, though I don't know if he was seriously considered by the Obama camp) had been willing to run for the VP position, Ohio might be more likely to go Democratic this year. Right now, however, it's a tossup.
But it's appearing increasingly likely that, as Ohio goes, so goes the presidency. Once again. That's a scary thought, given Ohioans' documented difficulty to vote as they actually intend, the questionable accuracy of the machines used for the electronic balloting, and 2004's early surprising difference between exit polls and actual votes. The CEO of Diebold, which made the machines used four years ago in Ohio, proudly exclaimed when the company delivered the machines that Bush was going to win the state.
It is possible--but very difficult--for either candidate to win the election without Ohio. It's also very unlikely. I hope that Strickland and Brown will be campaigning for and with Obama in the state.
I'm not saying the other states are unimportant. For Ohio to be the deciding state, the other states have to line up as they are generally expected to do: the south solidly for McCain (and I'll include VA, WV, MO, TX, OK in this group); New England (except possibly for the battleground NH), NY, NJ, PA, MI, MN, and WI solidly for Obama (and some of these are currently questionable); the agricultural midwest solidly for McCain, except possibly for IA; MT, ID, UT, WY insane for McCain; AZ and one or both of NV and CO for McCain; and the western seaboard (WA, OR, CA) plus NM for Obama. Alaska and Hawaii will likely to continue to cancel each other out. There may be a shift or two of some of the smaller states without major effect, but if several states vote differently from currently expected, they could offset Ohio's large number of electoral votes. I don't think that will happen. Ohio seems to be the key.
-- triton --
Right now the polls have McCain ahead but barely. A few days ago, Obama was ahead by four points. It's likely to continue to alternate until November 4. If Ted Strickland (the governor) or Sherrod Brown (the senator, though I don't know if he was seriously considered by the Obama camp) had been willing to run for the VP position, Ohio might be more likely to go Democratic this year. Right now, however, it's a tossup.
But it's appearing increasingly likely that, as Ohio goes, so goes the presidency. Once again. That's a scary thought, given Ohioans' documented difficulty to vote as they actually intend, the questionable accuracy of the machines used for the electronic balloting, and 2004's early surprising difference between exit polls and actual votes. The CEO of Diebold, which made the machines used four years ago in Ohio, proudly exclaimed when the company delivered the machines that Bush was going to win the state.
It is possible--but very difficult--for either candidate to win the election without Ohio. It's also very unlikely. I hope that Strickland and Brown will be campaigning for and with Obama in the state.
I'm not saying the other states are unimportant. For Ohio to be the deciding state, the other states have to line up as they are generally expected to do: the south solidly for McCain (and I'll include VA, WV, MO, TX, OK in this group); New England (except possibly for the battleground NH), NY, NJ, PA, MI, MN, and WI solidly for Obama (and some of these are currently questionable); the agricultural midwest solidly for McCain, except possibly for IA; MT, ID, UT, WY insane for McCain; AZ and one or both of NV and CO for McCain; and the western seaboard (WA, OR, CA) plus NM for Obama. Alaska and Hawaii will likely to continue to cancel each other out. There may be a shift or two of some of the smaller states without major effect, but if several states vote differently from currently expected, they could offset Ohio's large number of electoral votes. I don't think that will happen. Ohio seems to be the key.
-- triton --
# 64 McCain Chickens Out of Debate?
CNN has reported that John McCain has taken the initiative to postpone this Friday's debate in order to allow government officials to concentrate on the disaster developing (already developed) in our economy.
Why weren't these officials concentrating on enforcing the rules (and laws!) already in force in the first place?
CNN has not yet reported (the unconfirmed claim) that this was Obama's Idea, suggested privately to McCain. If indeed it was Obama's idea, that information should be publicized, to show that Obama was the leader in this suggestion, wanted to "collaborate across the aisle," and was rebuffed by a knife in the back from the McCain campaign (how's that for a mixed metaphor?).
If it wasn't Obama's idea, and if it actually came from the McCain campaign, then the Democrats should legitimately question how McCain can CLAIM to work and play well with both parties in order to put country first, and then sneak behind the Democrats with this b.s idea. Besides, it smells of the Evil Karl Rove. And anything that the Evil Karl Rove touches is (a) filet mignon for the Republicans, and (b) poison for the rest of the country.
In either case, the Democrats can claim, probably legitimately, that McCain isn't ready for the debate--whose topic is FOREIGN POLICY, not the economy--and hence chickened out. He just can't keep the information straight in his own mind or coming out of his mouth. Call McCain's bluff on this one, show him for the excessively-elder non-statesman that he is, and force him to appear on Friday.
If McCain refuses to debate, Obama should show up and, using the old Monty Python bit, debate against a puddle of brown gravy.
Damn, but I'm sick of the Evil Karl Rove.
-- triton --
Why weren't these officials concentrating on enforcing the rules (and laws!) already in force in the first place?
CNN has not yet reported (the unconfirmed claim) that this was Obama's Idea, suggested privately to McCain. If indeed it was Obama's idea, that information should be publicized, to show that Obama was the leader in this suggestion, wanted to "collaborate across the aisle," and was rebuffed by a knife in the back from the McCain campaign (how's that for a mixed metaphor?).
If it wasn't Obama's idea, and if it actually came from the McCain campaign, then the Democrats should legitimately question how McCain can CLAIM to work and play well with both parties in order to put country first, and then sneak behind the Democrats with this b.s idea. Besides, it smells of the Evil Karl Rove. And anything that the Evil Karl Rove touches is (a) filet mignon for the Republicans, and (b) poison for the rest of the country.
In either case, the Democrats can claim, probably legitimately, that McCain isn't ready for the debate--whose topic is FOREIGN POLICY, not the economy--and hence chickened out. He just can't keep the information straight in his own mind or coming out of his mouth. Call McCain's bluff on this one, show him for the excessively-elder non-statesman that he is, and force him to appear on Friday.
If McCain refuses to debate, Obama should show up and, using the old Monty Python bit, debate against a puddle of brown gravy.
Damn, but I'm sick of the Evil Karl Rove.
-- triton --
Sunday, September 21, 2008
# 63 "Numbers" -- Not Just a TV Show Any More
The report I cited in my post last night is still sticking in me, in part because today Yahoo has that report as one of its featured articles, so I'm constantly reminded of it. I've been fearful of latent racism since the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, when some voters indicated they weren't ready to have "an African-American as president."
We shouldn't be surprised, of course, that racial prejudice exists in our society. But the stakes in this election are so high and the Republicans have been running such a dirty, rotten scoundrel campaign that, frankly, I don't see how any one who is not a dyed-in-the-wool, can't-tell-his-ass-from-his-elbow Republican can even consider voting for McCain. On the other hand, I know some smart, good people who are supporting John McCain, so I can't apply my criteria to other folk. They have their own agendas and benchmarks, for good or for ill, and they'll vote the way they think is best.
I'm voting for Obama because (a) his ideas more closely align with my own in foreign and domestic policies; (b) he'll represent us well in international relationships, as dubya has clearly not; (c) he seems not to act impulsively and with anger, as McCain apparently does (at least according to sources from his own campaign); and (d) he chose a running mate based on qualifications, not political considerations. Joe Biden was not my first choice (or my fourth or fifth, for that matter) to be the VP candidate, but he does seem to be connecting with middle- and lower-economic classes in a way that Obama, despite his economically deprived childhood, is apparently not connecting.
Even some Republican elected officials can't support John McCain. Last week Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said that Governor Palin “doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials” and added that it’s a “stretch” to say that Palin is qualified to be president. This may be the Democrats’ answer to Lady de Rothschild, a former donor to the Democratic party, who 0n September 17 announced her support for McCain and opposition to Obama. Senator Obama is “an elitist,” said the millionaire who married into a billionaire family.
Here are some recent poll numbers, as of late last week:
NYTimes/CBS: Obama 48-43
Gallup: Obama 48-44
CNN Poll of Polls: Obama 47-44
Virginia: McCain 49 to 41
New Mexico: Obama 49-42
Ohio: tied at 48% each, in a two-person race; when the three other candidates were listed, Obama remained at 48%, McCain dropped to 44%, and Nader got 4%.
I also saw that Indiana, which had been moving toward Obama (perhaps when he was considering Evan Bayh as his running mate?) was moving back to McCain.
But the countrywide polls notwithstanding, I'm still upset with the race issue, and have made some changes in how the electoral college stands, from my point of view, right now. John McCain is now favored in five additional traditionally Red states (even though some of them have Democratic governors and/or senators) which previously I had listed as Tossups; Barack Obama will likely carry New Mexico; but I have removed four states from Obama's column, and have moved them to Tossups. Three of the four are vital midwest states: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If Obama had been able to convince Governor Strickland to be his running mate, Ohio might be strongly in the Obama camp.
KEY:
# moved from Tossup to McCain
+ moved from Tossup to Obama
* moved from Obama to Tossup
McCAIN
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Florida 27
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
#Missouri 11
#Montana 3
Nebraska 5
#Nevada 5
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
#Virginia 13
#West Virginia 5
Wyoming 3
Currently 26 states with 239 electoral votes for McCain
----- -----
OBAMA
California 55
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Minnesota 10
New Jersey 15
+New Mexico 5
New York 31
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Washington 11
Currently 16 states + DC with 219 electoral votes for Obama
---- -----
TOSSUP
Arkansas 6 (Republican?)
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7 (because of Lieberman)
Iowa 7
*Michigan 17 (despite auto factory closures and McCain’s ineptitude talking to Michiganders)
*New Hampshire 4 (a bad feeling I'm having right now about Jed Bartlett's state)
*Ohio 20 (despite auto factory closures)
*Wisconsin 10 (McCain spending time and $$ there)
Currently, 8 states with 80 electoral votes are Tossups.
But remember: the election is very fluid and, in addition to the states I've classified as Tossups, several of the states under either candidate can shift (as clearly happened since my last electoral list). Right now, based on the above lists, Obama needs 51 electoral votes: barring any further defections from the Obama column, Connecticut's 7 electoral votes, Michigan's 17, Ohio's 20, and Wisconsin's 10 would give Obama 273 votes and the presidency.
In fact, right now that's the only way I see Obama winning the election: by carrying all three of those midwest states. That's a tough task, especially in Ohio with its strong conservative Republican tradition. A lot will depend on what Governor Strickland and Senator Brown do by way of campaigning.
Two more points: (1) my having even to list Michigan as a tossup is of concern, given the condition of that state's economy; (2) that I had to add Wisconsin is a real shock, and may be a function of McCain's spending time and money there, without yet badly screwing up his appearances.
-- triton --
We shouldn't be surprised, of course, that racial prejudice exists in our society. But the stakes in this election are so high and the Republicans have been running such a dirty, rotten scoundrel campaign that, frankly, I don't see how any one who is not a dyed-in-the-wool, can't-tell-his-ass-from-his-elbow Republican can even consider voting for McCain. On the other hand, I know some smart, good people who are supporting John McCain, so I can't apply my criteria to other folk. They have their own agendas and benchmarks, for good or for ill, and they'll vote the way they think is best.
I'm voting for Obama because (a) his ideas more closely align with my own in foreign and domestic policies; (b) he'll represent us well in international relationships, as dubya has clearly not; (c) he seems not to act impulsively and with anger, as McCain apparently does (at least according to sources from his own campaign); and (d) he chose a running mate based on qualifications, not political considerations. Joe Biden was not my first choice (or my fourth or fifth, for that matter) to be the VP candidate, but he does seem to be connecting with middle- and lower-economic classes in a way that Obama, despite his economically deprived childhood, is apparently not connecting.
Even some Republican elected officials can't support John McCain. Last week Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said that Governor Palin “doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials” and added that it’s a “stretch” to say that Palin is qualified to be president. This may be the Democrats’ answer to Lady de Rothschild, a former donor to the Democratic party, who 0n September 17 announced her support for McCain and opposition to Obama. Senator Obama is “an elitist,” said the millionaire who married into a billionaire family.
Here are some recent poll numbers, as of late last week:
NYTimes/CBS: Obama 48-43
Gallup: Obama 48-44
CNN Poll of Polls: Obama 47-44
Virginia: McCain 49 to 41
New Mexico: Obama 49-42
Ohio: tied at 48% each, in a two-person race; when the three other candidates were listed, Obama remained at 48%, McCain dropped to 44%, and Nader got 4%.
I also saw that Indiana, which had been moving toward Obama (perhaps when he was considering Evan Bayh as his running mate?) was moving back to McCain.
But the countrywide polls notwithstanding, I'm still upset with the race issue, and have made some changes in how the electoral college stands, from my point of view, right now. John McCain is now favored in five additional traditionally Red states (even though some of them have Democratic governors and/or senators) which previously I had listed as Tossups; Barack Obama will likely carry New Mexico; but I have removed four states from Obama's column, and have moved them to Tossups. Three of the four are vital midwest states: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If Obama had been able to convince Governor Strickland to be his running mate, Ohio might be strongly in the Obama camp.
KEY:
# moved from Tossup to McCain
+ moved from Tossup to Obama
* moved from Obama to Tossup
McCAIN
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Florida 27
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
#Missouri 11
#Montana 3
Nebraska 5
#Nevada 5
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
#Virginia 13
#West Virginia 5
Wyoming 3
Currently 26 states with 239 electoral votes for McCain
----- -----
OBAMA
California 55
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Minnesota 10
New Jersey 15
+New Mexico 5
New York 31
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Washington 11
Currently 16 states + DC with 219 electoral votes for Obama
---- -----
TOSSUP
Arkansas 6 (Republican?)
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7 (because of Lieberman)
Iowa 7
*Michigan 17 (despite auto factory closures and McCain’s ineptitude talking to Michiganders)
*New Hampshire 4 (a bad feeling I'm having right now about Jed Bartlett's state)
*Ohio 20 (despite auto factory closures)
*Wisconsin 10 (McCain spending time and $$ there)
Currently, 8 states with 80 electoral votes are Tossups.
But remember: the election is very fluid and, in addition to the states I've classified as Tossups, several of the states under either candidate can shift (as clearly happened since my last electoral list). Right now, based on the above lists, Obama needs 51 electoral votes: barring any further defections from the Obama column, Connecticut's 7 electoral votes, Michigan's 17, Ohio's 20, and Wisconsin's 10 would give Obama 273 votes and the presidency.
In fact, right now that's the only way I see Obama winning the election: by carrying all three of those midwest states. That's a tough task, especially in Ohio with its strong conservative Republican tradition. A lot will depend on what Governor Strickland and Senator Brown do by way of campaigning.
Two more points: (1) my having even to list Michigan as a tossup is of concern, given the condition of that state's economy; (2) that I had to add Wisconsin is a real shock, and may be a function of McCain's spending time and money there, without yet badly screwing up his appearances.
-- triton --
#62 Latent, "Deep-Seated," Racism Among Democrats
I've been gone for awhile, watching the ocean and the S&P. What the Dow Jones Utilities average predicted a few months ago actually happened: DJU broke below its 474 support level (and is now about 40 points lower still), allegedly a signal that the Industrials would fall significantly within a couple of months. Last week that happened. Technically, a lot of damage has been done to DJI and S&P, and the lows of last Wednesday will be tested. Perhaps they'll hold. Otherwise, we're in for further declines, new lows established, with more testing of those lows to follow. So don't feel too good yet about the apparent upward momentum of the last two trading days.
Don't feel good about the title of this post either. How's that for a smooth segue. Unfortunately, I feel disgusted by the results shown by the most recent AP/Yahoo poll conducted through Stanford University. I'm including the salient parts below, but the basic point is that "one-third of white Democrats have negative feelings toward blacks," and enough of them may vote for John McCain, or may just not vote at all, to tip the election to McCain.
We saw it surface earlier, in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, when something like fourteen percent of the exit interviewees indicated that they weren't ready for an African-American to be president.
And I go back even further, to Doug Wilder's campaign for governor of Virginia more than a decade ago. He was ahead in the polls by double figures right up to the election, and won by one-half of one percent. That result was attributed to latent racism. The AP/Yahoo/Stanford poll signals to me that Obama may need to be ahead in the polls by ten points or more really to have a chance to win on November 4.
I am not amused.
-- triton --
Here's the article:
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points....
Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.
More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views....
"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey. The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.
The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.
The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.
Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.
Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.
On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.
Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.
Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.
Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling. Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice....
"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.
Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible."...
Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.
The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."
Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.
Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent." Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."...
Just 59 percent of [Hillary Clinton's] white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain. Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.
The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
Don't feel good about the title of this post either. How's that for a smooth segue. Unfortunately, I feel disgusted by the results shown by the most recent AP/Yahoo poll conducted through Stanford University. I'm including the salient parts below, but the basic point is that "one-third of white Democrats have negative feelings toward blacks," and enough of them may vote for John McCain, or may just not vote at all, to tip the election to McCain.
We saw it surface earlier, in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, when something like fourteen percent of the exit interviewees indicated that they weren't ready for an African-American to be president.
And I go back even further, to Doug Wilder's campaign for governor of Virginia more than a decade ago. He was ahead in the polls by double figures right up to the election, and won by one-half of one percent. That result was attributed to latent racism. The AP/Yahoo/Stanford poll signals to me that Obama may need to be ahead in the polls by ten points or more really to have a chance to win on November 4.
I am not amused.
-- triton --
Here's the article:
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points....
Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.
More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views....
"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey. The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.
The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.
The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.
Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.
Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.
On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.
Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.
Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.
Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling. Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice....
"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.
Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible."...
Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.
The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."
Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.
Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent." Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."...
Just 59 percent of [Hillary Clinton's] white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain. Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.
The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
#61 "Houston, we have a problem."
I know I wrote that I was going to take some time off to let the conventions settle in to our collective psyches, in order to get a clearer idea of where the election stands. But we're not just talking about a space shuttle in contact with Houston. Sarah Palin is on a God-mission that is dangerous to the constitutional separation of church and state. Nothing frosts my cake more than this kind of attempted violation of the Constitution. I and many of my friends, colleagues, and fellow and sister Americans are members of religious and ethnic minorities. She isn't just a VP candidate anymore. She is a clear and present danger to the sacred concept that our Founding Fathers created more than two hundred years ago. Here's the news article:
----- ----- -----
By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 7:23 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."
Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.
Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.
"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."
Palin attended the evangelical church from the time she was a teenager until 2002, the church said in a statement posted on its Web site. She has continued to attend special conferences and meetings there. Religious conservatives have welcomed her selection as John McCain's running mate.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lamented Palin's comments.
"I miss the days when pastors delivered sermons and politicians delivered political speeches," he said. "The United States is increasingly diverse religiously. The job of a president is to unify all those different people and bring them together around policy goals, not to act as a kind of national pastor and bring people to God."
The section of the church's Web site where videos of past sermons were posted was shut down Wednesday, and a message was posted saying that the site "was never intended to handle the traffic it has received in the last few days."
----- ----- -----
-- triton --
----- ----- -----
By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 7:23 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."
Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.
Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.
"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."
Palin attended the evangelical church from the time she was a teenager until 2002, the church said in a statement posted on its Web site. She has continued to attend special conferences and meetings there. Religious conservatives have welcomed her selection as John McCain's running mate.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lamented Palin's comments.
"I miss the days when pastors delivered sermons and politicians delivered political speeches," he said. "The United States is increasingly diverse religiously. The job of a president is to unify all those different people and bring them together around policy goals, not to act as a kind of national pastor and bring people to God."
The section of the church's Web site where videos of past sermons were posted was shut down Wednesday, and a message was posted saying that the site "was never intended to handle the traffic it has received in the last few days."
----- ----- -----
-- triton --
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
#60 She is no Ronald Reagan. Give us a few weeks.
I didn't see all of Sarah Palin's "Reagan-esque" speech tonight, but I wasn't impressed by the clips and sound bites all the news stations replayed as her best moments. Of course, I was one of those few Americans who wasn't impressed by Ronald Reagan either. Give the man a script or even a few lines that he could memorize, and he became The Great Orator. Once he finished the script and was answering questions extemporaenously, he could barely garble two sentences together, much less a coherent thought. And people forget that the phrase "The Great Orator" was initially coined by the media ironically because of his INability to speak without a strong script in front of him or already memorized. The lesson is, beware of irony lest the American public AND subsequently even the media miss it and, instead, take it literally.
Actually, I suspect Sarah Palin, who is after all a University of Idaho graduate, can string sentences and thoughts together even without a script. And hence she is no Ronald Reagan. As an off-the-cuff speaker, she may be better, and that's something Joe Biden better be alert to when he enters their sole debate.
More importantly--to me, if not to the mass of American voters or to the media--what she said tonight can easily be turned against the Republican party: for just one example, the liberals ignoring the people in favor of their own agendas. [Q: Who in the past eight years of presidency and six of the past eight years in control of Congress passed tax breaks for the uber-wealthy and passed the cost on to the middle class?] [A: the Republicans]
Now it's time to give ourselves a few weeks to let the dust settle, to let the Republican ultra-right wing base enjoy its new hero, and let the polls reflect a bump for McCain as a result of Palin. It's actually, however, not a good thing for the presidential nominee to be overshadowed by his vice presidential running mate, to (pun intended) pale in comparison.
Before the election, people enamored of Sarah will come to remember that John is at the head of the ticket. Besides, I believe that James Carville is as right today as he was sixteen years ago: It is the economy that will finally drive the vote in this election. Once the media or the Democrats seize upon the paucity of fresh ideas in the Republican platform, especially to improve the status of the millions of Americans who are worse off today than they were four years ago (echoes of Ronald Reagan anyone?), the economy will trump the voting power of the energized Republican far-right base.
And then we have only latent racism to worry about. I hate to keep coming back to that idea, but I have no way of knowing if it's still out there waiting to influence votes, or just a throwback to the Pennsylvania Democratic primary which voters have gotten over.
I plan to sit back over the next two or three weeks, take a few long drives in a fuel-efficient car, watch some news but not enough to get upset, and then wait for the mid/late September poll results. By then, the effects of the conventions will have moderated, and perhaps the Republicans will decrease their pit bull attacks and increase their policy pronouncements. Now that would be a refreshing change.
Oh, by the way, in my list of tossup states, move Minnesota off of that list and onto the Democratic list. Without Pawlenty on the Republican ticket, I don't see MN going Red this year. That move won't change my projected electoral vote totals in my July 5 post, since I had--for electoral total purposes only--assigned all the tossup states to one or the other candidate, and I had put MN's ten votes in Obama's column. I just don't see it as much of a tossup anymore. Still Obama 301, McCain 237.
Have a good three weeks.
-- triton --
Actually, I suspect Sarah Palin, who is after all a University of Idaho graduate, can string sentences and thoughts together even without a script. And hence she is no Ronald Reagan. As an off-the-cuff speaker, she may be better, and that's something Joe Biden better be alert to when he enters their sole debate.
More importantly--to me, if not to the mass of American voters or to the media--what she said tonight can easily be turned against the Republican party: for just one example, the liberals ignoring the people in favor of their own agendas. [Q: Who in the past eight years of presidency and six of the past eight years in control of Congress passed tax breaks for the uber-wealthy and passed the cost on to the middle class?] [A: the Republicans]
Now it's time to give ourselves a few weeks to let the dust settle, to let the Republican ultra-right wing base enjoy its new hero, and let the polls reflect a bump for McCain as a result of Palin. It's actually, however, not a good thing for the presidential nominee to be overshadowed by his vice presidential running mate, to (pun intended) pale in comparison.
Before the election, people enamored of Sarah will come to remember that John is at the head of the ticket. Besides, I believe that James Carville is as right today as he was sixteen years ago: It is the economy that will finally drive the vote in this election. Once the media or the Democrats seize upon the paucity of fresh ideas in the Republican platform, especially to improve the status of the millions of Americans who are worse off today than they were four years ago (echoes of Ronald Reagan anyone?), the economy will trump the voting power of the energized Republican far-right base.
And then we have only latent racism to worry about. I hate to keep coming back to that idea, but I have no way of knowing if it's still out there waiting to influence votes, or just a throwback to the Pennsylvania Democratic primary which voters have gotten over.
I plan to sit back over the next two or three weeks, take a few long drives in a fuel-efficient car, watch some news but not enough to get upset, and then wait for the mid/late September poll results. By then, the effects of the conventions will have moderated, and perhaps the Republicans will decrease their pit bull attacks and increase their policy pronouncements. Now that would be a refreshing change.
Oh, by the way, in my list of tossup states, move Minnesota off of that list and onto the Democratic list. Without Pawlenty on the Republican ticket, I don't see MN going Red this year. That move won't change my projected electoral vote totals in my July 5 post, since I had--for electoral total purposes only--assigned all the tossup states to one or the other candidate, and I had put MN's ten votes in Obama's column. I just don't see it as much of a tossup anymore. Still Obama 301, McCain 237.
Have a good three weeks.
-- triton --
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
#59 Temper, Temper....
One more look at John McCain's unPresidential qualities: we've seen his impulsiveness in deciding--against the advice of his close aides--to put Sarah Palin on the ticket; today we see his irascibility. Make that his very strong anger.
Neither quality is what we need or should want in a president with his finger on the button that sends the bombs. On the other hand, the press is probably none too happy with a presidential candidate giving them the finger. McCain's handlers need to get him back on track, and not attacking the messengers.
I give you parts of the most recent Bloomberg News article. All of what follows is directly quoted:
----- ----- -----
The longtime love affair between John McCain and what he once called his ``base'' -- the national news media -- is on the rocks.
McCain's campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, yesterday lashed out at what he deemed "offensive'' and "demeaning'' coverage and questions from reporters after McCain's running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, confirmed her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
"It used to be that a lot of those smears and the crap [sic] on the Internet stayed out of the newsrooms of serious journalists,'' Schmidt said at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Schmidt's criticism is the latest example in the unraveling of what was once a fond relationship between the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and the media. Starting in the 2000 Republican primaries, the Arizona senator became a media sensation by chatting up the press in the back of his ``Straight Talk Express'' campaign bus. The national press corps freely mingled with McCain for hours on the bus, with no topic off limits.
More recently, though, McCain, 72, has accused news organizations such as the New York Times, Time magazine and the NBC network of being unfair to him. The campaign even considered pulling out of one of the three presidential debates because it would be moderated by Tom Brokaw, a former NBC News anchorman....
"You still need the press to get your message out and if you have an antagonistic relationship it can blow up in your face,'' [Darrell West, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington who has written several books on the mass media] said.
As the relationship has deteriorated, McCain has stopped hosting his once-famous "straight talk'' get-togethers on his campaign plane. He also has abandoned regular press conferences. Instead, he stops occasionally to read short written statements in front of cameras, like he did Aug. 31 in Jackson, Mississippi; then walks away from questions shouted by reporters. His campaign plane is custom configured with a lounge area designed for hosting question-and-answer sessions with the press. McCain inaugurated the lounge on one of the plane's first flights and hasn't used it since.
Invitations for the press to visit the Straight Talk Express also have grown scarce. Local reporters are allowed the occasional visit, though journalists traveling with McCain no longer are invited to drop in. He hasn't held a news conference since Aug. 13....
There have also been a series of public rifts between the campaign and the media. On July 31, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sparred with MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell in an exchange about a McCain campaign ad portraying Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a celebrity.
"I'm happy to talk about more substantive issues the next time I come on your program,'' Davis said, capping the testy interview.
On July 22, the McCain camp assailed the media in an Internet advertisement and an e-mail to supporters. "It's pretty obvious the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama, some may even say it's a love affair,'' McCain's campaign said in the e-mail. "The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny....''
McCain also took a combative stance in an Aug. 27 interview with Time reporters James Carney and Michael Scherer, refusing to answer a question about his definition of honor.
"Read it in my books,'' McCain said. "I'm not going to define it.'' That exchange set the tone for the rest of the interview: McCain answered a question about his opinion on premarital sex by saying, "I don't have any response to that type of question.''
He added, ``Write what you want.''
----- ----- -----
-- triton --
Neither quality is what we need or should want in a president with his finger on the button that sends the bombs. On the other hand, the press is probably none too happy with a presidential candidate giving them the finger. McCain's handlers need to get him back on track, and not attacking the messengers.
I give you parts of the most recent Bloomberg News article. All of what follows is directly quoted:
----- ----- -----
The longtime love affair between John McCain and what he once called his ``base'' -- the national news media -- is on the rocks.
McCain's campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, yesterday lashed out at what he deemed "offensive'' and "demeaning'' coverage and questions from reporters after McCain's running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, confirmed her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
"It used to be that a lot of those smears and the crap [sic] on the Internet stayed out of the newsrooms of serious journalists,'' Schmidt said at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Schmidt's criticism is the latest example in the unraveling of what was once a fond relationship between the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and the media. Starting in the 2000 Republican primaries, the Arizona senator became a media sensation by chatting up the press in the back of his ``Straight Talk Express'' campaign bus. The national press corps freely mingled with McCain for hours on the bus, with no topic off limits.
More recently, though, McCain, 72, has accused news organizations such as the New York Times, Time magazine and the NBC network of being unfair to him. The campaign even considered pulling out of one of the three presidential debates because it would be moderated by Tom Brokaw, a former NBC News anchorman....
"You still need the press to get your message out and if you have an antagonistic relationship it can blow up in your face,'' [Darrell West, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington who has written several books on the mass media] said.
As the relationship has deteriorated, McCain has stopped hosting his once-famous "straight talk'' get-togethers on his campaign plane. He also has abandoned regular press conferences. Instead, he stops occasionally to read short written statements in front of cameras, like he did Aug. 31 in Jackson, Mississippi; then walks away from questions shouted by reporters. His campaign plane is custom configured with a lounge area designed for hosting question-and-answer sessions with the press. McCain inaugurated the lounge on one of the plane's first flights and hasn't used it since.
Invitations for the press to visit the Straight Talk Express also have grown scarce. Local reporters are allowed the occasional visit, though journalists traveling with McCain no longer are invited to drop in. He hasn't held a news conference since Aug. 13....
There have also been a series of public rifts between the campaign and the media. On July 31, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sparred with MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell in an exchange about a McCain campaign ad portraying Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a celebrity.
"I'm happy to talk about more substantive issues the next time I come on your program,'' Davis said, capping the testy interview.
On July 22, the McCain camp assailed the media in an Internet advertisement and an e-mail to supporters. "It's pretty obvious the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama, some may even say it's a love affair,'' McCain's campaign said in the e-mail. "The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny....''
McCain also took a combative stance in an Aug. 27 interview with Time reporters James Carney and Michael Scherer, refusing to answer a question about his definition of honor.
"Read it in my books,'' McCain said. "I'm not going to define it.'' That exchange set the tone for the rest of the interview: McCain answered a question about his opinion on premarital sex by saying, "I don't have any response to that type of question.''
He added, ``Write what you want.''
----- ----- -----
-- triton --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)