#49 Seemingly Off-Topic, But Actually Not

"So Exxon Mobil has just broken its own record again, reporting a mind-boggling $11.6 billion profit on $138 billion in sales," writes Matt Nesto of CNBC today. "While it would be easy to protest -- and some will -- and easy to simplistically label it a windfall -- and many will -- the fact of the matter is that Microsoft is three times more profitable than Exxon. Instead of only looking at the absolute numbers, professionals assess the degree of earnings power a company has via profit margins (net income divided by total sales). By that measure, Exxon doesn't even land on the medal platform of the the mega-cap corporations."

According to Nesto at least. On the other hand, there are Statistics, and then there are Damned Statistics, and finally, I might add, there's Bullshit. His argument falls into this last category.

Exxon's "non-windfall" profit of 11.6 billion dollars cannot be compared to MSFT's profit margins or any other company's profit margins, profits -- or any other number. There ARE no other numbers comparable. This is the largest recorded profit ever anywhere.

Remember that these are the same folk who brought us the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and whose punitive damages were recently reduced by--what--90%?

When people are having to choose between buying gas and buying food, Exxon's profit of 11.6 billion dollars is obscene. Period.

Our next president may have to address the inequities of income in our society, where the very very rich (people, as in dubya's friends; corporations, as in Exxon) get richer, and the rest of us work harder to make ends meet. If this kind of news doesn't convince middle- and lower-income Americans, and many rich Americans, to vote Democratic across the board come November, nothing will.

-- triton --

#48 Governor Tim Kaine has made the cut

Those of you following the last five months of blogposts here know that I'm a Jim Webb fan. Webb is the current Democratic senator from Virginia, what could be a battleground state if Webb were to be chosen for the VP slot on Barack Obama's ticket. However, Webb, like several other Democrats I've liked for the VP slot (Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, for example), has indicated he isn't interested in running for VP.

Tim Kaine, current governor of Virginia, has apparently made it to the most recent "List of Five" for Obama. Kaine is, as I've pointed out, not as well known nationally as is Webb, though that deficiency can be addressed with the media blitz that will accompany whoever is nominated.

Kaine is also missing some of Webb's other credentials. Kaine is 50 years old, barely older than Obama, whereas Webb is a more seasoned 62 years old. Webb graduated from Annapolis; Kaine graduated from the University of Missouri in 1979. Webb served as a Marine in Viet Nam (and perhaps could counteract McCain's experience there); Kaine was too young to serve there.

But Kaine has certifiable "governing" experience as Mayor of Richmond, as Lt Governor of Virginia, and now (since 2006) as governor. He could bring some administrative skills to an Obama presidency. However, because of his own previously held positions, Webb would seem to have more knowledge of international and defense issues. On the other hand (and I'm dangerously close in this paragraph to having three hands), Kaine apparently has nothing in his background akin to Webb's long-ago comment about women in military academies.

Whoever is nominated, we can assume the Democrats will mount a furious campaign to convince the public that he (and, yes, I'm still saying the Democrats will need to nominate a white male to be VP) is most qualified for the position. The Republicans, of course, will mount a counter campaign.

On the Republican side, right now at least John McCain is doing exactly what he should be doing. No, I don't mean his flubbs and his fluff and his funky comparison of Barack with Britney and Paris. I mean that John McCain should wisely NOT announce his VP candidate until after the Democrats announce theirs. The chronology of the conventions the last week of August (the Democratic convention in Colorado) and the first week of September (the Republican convention in Minnesota) plays beautifully into McCain's strategy...if there actually is a strategy.

There is no reason for McCain to announce anything until after the Democratic convention. In fact, there's no reason for him even to make any decision, just to vet the possible candidates, and hold off actually deciding until he sees who might best counter the Democratic choice.

I'd love to see a race between Obama-Webb (or, I suppose, Kaine) and McCain-Pawlenty. That race could possibly move the Red Virginia to Blue, and the Blue Minnesota to Red, and just throw the last eight years out the window. Hmmm. Another reason to get rid of these last eight years....

-- triton --

#47 Saying and Doing the Right Things

Barack Obama has returned from his tour abroad, where he said and did the right things, even in canceling his trip to a military hospital in Germany. As he has indicated, once he realized that such a visit could be construed as "political" rather than actually caring about the wounded, he changed his plans. Of course, John McCain--with strong prodding from his ill-tempered advisors--attacked him for caring more about photo ops than our troops. This smells like an Evil Karl Rove tactic. Whether or not EKR is actually inolved in McCain's campaign is irrelevant; the tactics are his.

Obama's campaign fired back immediately with the comment that "John McCain is an honorable man running a dishonorable campaign," providing a clear contrast between McCain-the-man and McCain-the-protege-of-the-Evil-Karl-Rove.

This immediate reaction is important. It shows a major difference between the Obama campaign and the Kerry campaign four years ago. When Kerry was attacked by the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies and Deceit (abbreviated SBD: I don't think that was the name of their group, but close enough), Kerry's advisors waited too long before attempting to reply. By then, the damage was done.

In another area of campaigning, it's reported online today that Obama will "give his vice president substantive work and will choose his running mate based on ability to govern, not to help win a state in November." Again, exactly the right thing to say. Of course, I don't believe that last phrase for a minute, mainly because there are so many good choices for Obama that he may as well combine the two qualities: ability to govern AND help win a state in November. That's why I've been pushing a Virginian or an Ohioan all along, though I'll agree that Colorado, Indiana, and several other states have highly qualified Vice Presidential possibilities.

And, in a refreshing change from the current administration's practice, Obama said: “I’m going to want somebody with integrity."

I could stop there and breathe a sigh of relief and joy. But wait, there's more. Obama added, "I’m going to want somebody with independence — who’s willing to tell me where he thinks, or she thinks, I’m wrong."

Omyword! A president who does NOT want a Yes man or Yes woman? A president who actually wants a vice president who will disagree with him and then discuss their differences?

What a concept. Let's give it a try in November.

-- triton --

#46 McCain's "Seismic Event"

Barack Obama has been coming under fire from the Republicans for not visiting American service men and women in hospital while he was in Germany.

According to the Associated Press, "[Obama’s] spokesman has claimed that the visit to a military hospital in Germany was scrapped after the Pentagon raised concerns about political activity on a military base....[T]he campaign had said Obama decided the visit might be seen as inappropriate politicking. However, the Pentagon said the senator was never told not to visit."

McCain joined in the fray, "saying in an interview to be aired Sunday by ABC's 'This Week' that 'if I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event.' "

Swell. I can imagine that McCain would have caused a "seismic event." He's done so in the past, within the privacy of his own campaign, leading some of his own supporters to be worried about his being a loose cannon on the campaign trail.

We've just had seven-plus years of a president who doesn't think, who depends on oil-dependent advisors, and who will not be confused by facts. Can we afford another four years of a president who explodes and causes "seismic events" whenever he doesn't get his way? Can we afford another four years of a president whose foreign policy will continue to isolate us from most of the rest of the world, and from the reality of geo-politics? Aren't there any of dubya's and McCain's advisors out there who recognize that, while 200,000 Germans can't vote in American elections, they may actually represent a signficiant worldwide view of the disasters the current administration has led to in its foreign policies?

I'm preaching to the choir, I suspect. I was not an Obama supporter when both the Republican and Democratic parties had many potential candidates vying for their party's presidential nomination. At that time I was a Bill Richardson supporter. McCain's stated policies and his explosiveness have moved me into the Obama camp. It's the only place I can be now. I am deeply concerned about greater isolation of our country. I am deeply concerned about a president not in control of his emotions. I am deeply concerned about a president not in control of his policies. I am deeply concerned about a McCain presidency.

-- triton --

#45 Robert Novak and Offal

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

#44 Now I Know Why McCain Will Be The Republican Nominee

Please note the following language clarifications: (1) "dubyan" is the adjectival form of "dubya," and (2) "offal" (in this post both a singular and duplicitous noun) is the shortened form of "officials" of dubya's administration. Just wanted to clarify those points so that these words, at least, won't add to the confusion created by former dubyan offal.

----- ----- -----

The recent congressional hearings on waterboarding and other interrogation techniques at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have shed new light on...not the interrogation techniques permitted by the current dubyan administration, but the inability of dubyan offal to remember what they did, what they talked about, what others did that they thought they themselves had done, or what others didn't do that they themselves thought they might not have done. Confused? I think that's their idea.

I mean, when John Ashcroft can say with a straight face (and this is probably not an exact quote, but it's scarily close) "I don't remember enough of what I did or heard or said, to be able to refuse to answer that question," then we know the motto of dubya's administration: "Obfuscation Rules!"

Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and several other dubyan offal were "unable to recollect" a whole bunch of information on who ordered what torture, or even that any torture was ordered or committed.

And, so, now I know why John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Though I don't agree with several of his policies, I believe he's an honest man, and thus he doesn't perjure himself when he talks about what he has said or done in the past. When he says that he doesn't remember, HE DOESN'T REMEMBER! Really.

And now I can understand more fully why Barack Obama talks of a McCain presidency as "a third bush administation." While a McCain administration may be more honest, it will be no more effective than dubya's.

-- triton --

#43 Everyone's Top Five Lists

John McCain has allowed his list of Top Five potential VP candidates to hit the tube. I still think Romney (the alleged favorite) isn't a good choice, and Pawlenty is. Both are on his list.

Barack Obama has his Top Five contenders as well, and Jim Webb is not on it. Pity. Of course, Webb's indication that he isn't interested may have had something to do with his being omitted. The Democrats need to chat with him about becoming interested.

Interesting that Evan Bayh is on the list. Remember how I discussed Senator Bayh and could NOT let go of him, since he LOOKED so vice-presidential even though one has difficulty determining where he'll stand on an issue. A political problem if Bayh were on the ticket and actually became VP is that the governor of Indiana is a Republican and would appoint a Republican to replace Bayh in the senate. The Democrats may not be able to afford to lose a seat through appointment.

Joe Biden is also on Obama's short list, as is Sam Nunn. They're both good guys, though Biden ran into some "plagiarism" accusations years and years ago.

But the key point in all this is that McCain is trying to take some of the headlines away from Obama's trip abroad. If McCain actually announces before the Democratic convention who his VP choice is, he deserves on that basis alone (not including his positions on the issues) to lose the election: it would be a really not-smart thing to do.

As I said in post #10 on February 26, "If his advisors are thinking ahead, John McCain will not announce his VP candidate until just before or early in the Republican convention; that is, AFTER the Democratic convention. That way, the Republicans can see whom the Democrats nominate for VP, and then adjust their own choice accordingly."

But can the impetuous and impatient McCain hold on...hold on...hold on...and NOT open his mouth to make an announcement within the next month?

-- triton --

#42 The Mine-Shaft Gap, revisited

But first, a follow-up on Mitt Romney--if John McCain chooses him to be the VP running mate on the Republican ticket--helping to carry Michigan for the Republicans in November: I said previously that Michigan's economy will likely preclude that state going Republican. Here's Adam Wiederman's take on that state's economy in his online column today (July 20) about retirement investments and home equity:

"And home equity? Not a chance. In fact, the job market in Detroit is so soft that the city has been dubbed 'the foreclosure capital of the U.S.' "

Now, today's title. Some of you may have recognized the allusion. During the Cold War, everyone was talking about the "Missile Gap." In "Dr. Strangelove," George C. Scott's character (General Buck Turgidson) was apoplectic about the "Mine-Shaft Gap," the Russians having dug more mine-shafts than the Americans.

Well, an article on July 19 discussed John McCain's preference for town hall meetings (some of which were targeted to undecided voters) to Barack Obama's preference for larger, less informal gatherings. The article's key statement: "In any given period, McCain usually takes more questions from voters than does Obama, either in town halls or other forums."

And so I have to add that this election process has opened up the “questions-from-voters-in-town-hall-meetings gap.”

[triton's note: we have GOT to get something real for the press to write about!]

-- triton --

#41 An October (September? early November?) surprise

Recent polls have shown how mixed the views of the voting public are about the two soon-to-be-named presidential candidates. But they also lead to a possible strategy behind the scenes in the current administration (read that: "the Evil Karl Rove" who, though he has resigned his official position, is still sneaking in the shadows, like a vampire intent on bloodsucking before the sun rises).

On the one hand, polls show that voters consider the economy to be the most important issue in the campaign and, by a 53% to 39% margin, believe that Obama will handle this issue better than McCain.

On the other hand, a Washington Post/ABC survey shows that 50% of anticipated voters say they trust McCain to lead better in a crisis, against 41% for Obama. A CBS News/New York Times poll gives Obama a six-point lead overall over McCain, but 82% believe that McCain will be an effective commander-in-chief, while only 62% feel Obama will be effective.

My concern: expect an October 'surprise' that will highlight McCain's better poll numbers as potential commander-in-chief and "leader-in-a-crisis." The surprise may come as early as September or as late as the beginning of November just before the election, but if McCain is still behind in the national polls expect some crisis that will highlight his perceived competency.

It wouldn't be the first time an administration has manufactured a crisis to affect an election. And the current administration has shown itself particularly immune to moral considerations.

-- triton --

#40 Mitt Romney and a puddle of brown gravy

In post #13, on March 16, I wrote about the Dow Jones Utilities average possibly serving as an indicator of a stock market crash, particularly if it dropped below the 474 level. I was quoting an online technical analyst, but since that time the DJU moved up strongly to above the 520 level. Yet, the rest of the market plummeted, at one point recently to under 11,000 on the Dow Jones Industrial average. Well, now, in the last week or so the DJU has plunged to under 489.

This is NOT to say that it will continue to decline or that it will drop below 474. But IF it does, we can expect a further decline in the broader market, perhaps just in time for, or a short time after, the Democratic convention in late August and the Republican convention in early September. And, indeed, today's financial news indicates strong agreement that today's rally is to be shortlived. Last year I predicted that the Dow would drop below 10,000 in 2008. Unfortunately for all the pain that would cause good folk, I still think it's possible.

Not that the Democrats are hoping for a big stock market drop, but that kind of stock action could bode well for them, since the crash would possibly occur under a dubya administration and just before the election. If the DJUtilities Average closes below about 474, it will have broken down out of its technical pattern, and could test the 471 it hit in late August 2007. If it drops below that level, its next major test areas are in the 450 range, then the 420 range, and, going back to March 2006 and November/December 2005, the 390 range. I’m certainly not saying it will drop that far, just that the Utilities average appears right now to be testing a breakdown and has some serious technical downside risk.

On the other hand, it could just be blowing smoke.

NOT in the realm of blowing smoke, there's been some talk about John McCain choosing Mitt Romney as his VP candidate. On the one hand, Romney looks like a good possible choice. He's handsome; he claims to be a successful businessman who understands economics (a self-confessed weak point for McCain), a claim supported by his being a millionaire who spent a lot of his own money running for the Republican presidential nomination (in the hopes of becoming the VP candidate?); and finally--so the word goes--he could help McCain carry Michigan.

There's one other point: he's Mormon. He will certainly help carry the Mormon vote, and the two states with the heaviest percentage of Mormons, Utah and Idaho. There's just one problem. Well, there are at least five problems.

(1) Utah and Idaho are the two states most likely to vote Republican in November even were John McCain to choose for his vice president--to use a Monty Python line--"a puddle of brown gravy." Utah and Idaho aren't voting any color in November except Republican Red.

(2) Yes, Romney will likely bring the Mormon vote into the Republican camp. Oh...Wait.... Recent presidential elections have shown Mormons voting heavily Republican anyway. Advantage: "puddle of brown gravy," again.

(3) On the other side, Mormons, like Jews and Blacks and Muslims and Polka Dots and any other minority group, invoke a fear factor in some part of the public. There's a number of folk out there who just plain don't like some minority groups, and wouldn't consider voting for them. How large a number? No way really to know, since the folk who fear don't always 'fess up. That's why I've said over and over that polls this year showing Obama ahead of McCain may not be particularly accurate.

(4) Romney would help the GOP carry Michigan. Not so fast, brown gravyites! If the economy continues to stumble, if inflation continues to increase while jobs and income and the stock market and the auto industry decline, Michigan's electorate may not so readily vote Republican, even though Mitt's dad was former three-term Michigan governor George Romney, and Mitt was born in the state.

(5) Note, in fact, that no one is predicting a Mitt on the ticket would bring Massachusetts (where Mitt was governor) into the Republican camp. It won't, and neither would it by itsef likely bring Michigan.

On the surface, then, Mitt Romney may look like a good VP candidate for John McCain. Not so far under the surface, however, he isn't.

If I were a card-carrying Republican, I would still go for Tim Pawlenty, in his second term as governor of Minnesota. From a Republican point of view, he looks like an almost ideal complement to John McCain. His place on the Republican ticket would put Minnesota in play (as I believe Romney would not put Michigan in play); he has economic governing experience as a governor; he's nearly as young as Barack Obama (Pawlenty will be 48 in late November); and he has strongly conservative political and religious credentials.

Next post: the October (or September, or very early November) surprise.

--- triton --

#39 A Retired English Teacher's Digression

I was checking out some General Motors bad news online this evening, and I saw this comment quoted from GM's Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner in an AP article:

"[Rick]Wagoner said the company believes the trend away from trucks and SUVs in the U.S. market is permanent and that the company is responding, with 18 cars or crossovers in development. But he said GM never could have predicted how quickly the change would come as oil prices doubled in the last year.

" 'We missed that, but I think us and 99.999 percent of the rest of the people in the world did too,' he said."

Oh Lordy, I hope that AP is misquoting Wagoner. I hope he didn't actually say, "us...did too." If he did, it just helps to support my view that good English leads to success in life, and bad English...don't.

-- triton...will return to politics in the next post --

#38 Tirade Time

With friends like these, Barack Obama doesn't need Republicans. What in the blazing saddles are Jesse Jackson and Bernie Mac thinking with their respective off-mic and on-mic comments? Last night, Bernie Mac showed up at a fundraiser in Chicago, and told a sexual joke. Earlier in the week, Jesse Jackson--thinking a FOX news mic was off--made a nasty and borderline obscene comment about Obama, whom he (supposedly) supports.

These two actions give white racists, and possibly non-racists, ammunition: 'are these the kinds of people Obama is going to surround himself with if he becomes president?' is the question that folk may start asking.

Let me reiterate how hard it is for an African-American to get elected to a high office for the first time: Doug Wilder, running for governor of Virginia in 1989--and to become the first African-American elected as governor of any state--had a nearly nine percent lead in the polls leading up to the November election, and won by less than one-half of one percent. Barack Obama will be facing a potentially still-latent racism without his alleged allies aiding his opposition.

End of tirade. For now at least. Until someone else says something really dumb again.

-- triton --

#37 Names, in travel and politics

Malpensa, Milan’s airport, roughly translates into English as “Bad Thoughts.” Why would any English-speaking tourist want to go to an airport with such a name? On the other hand, I suppose it’s a good airport to depart from, as my wife and I did several years ago after a wonderful Italian tour: take to the air and leave “Bad Thoughts” behind.

Many years ago, when the Chevy Nova was a popular American car (it was the first car we owned, back in Columbus, Ahia), General Motors decided to try to export it to the growing automobile market in South America. It didn’t sell at all well. Finally, GM’s marketers realized that Nova—“doesn’t go”—is probably NOT a good name for an automobile on a primarily Spanish and Portuguese speaking continent.

I bring you these thoughts because of their relevance to one of the congressional races in Texas being targeted this year by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Two years ago, Democrat Nick Lampson won Texas’s Twenty-Second District, which had been Tom DeLay’s bailiwick in suburban Houston. The district had voted 64% for dubya in 2004. DeLay, you may remember, had been the Republican majority leader who was tied to the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Well, Nick Lampson is up for re-election. And “scandal babies,” the term given to underdogs who win seats because of the incumbents’ illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior, or at least implications of such behavior, tend not to do well in their re-election campaigns, once the scandal has passed from the public consciousness. The National Republican Congressional Committee has targeted Lampson’s district as one that has a good chance of returning to the Republican column.

In his campaign, Nick Lampson is emphasizing how he has worked to protect NASA against budget cuts, a major concern of his constituents. Unfortunately, from an English language point of view (with French accents, perhaps), the name of one of Lampson’s consultants is…Mike Malaise.

May not bode well for Nick in November.

-- triton --

#36 The election has become a doggy-doggy world

Sometimes people don't quite understand the cliched idioms and metaphors that we use in daily life. Years ago, I had a student writing about how competitive our society had become. He explained that we lived in a "doggy-doggy world." We chatted about that statement, and I thought he understood that all statements, even cliches and idioms, had to make sense on some level, whether literal or figurative. Unfortunately, when he took a literature course from me the next semester, he wrote about Robert Frost's poem, which he referred to as "The Mending Wall." We chatted about THAT item as well (even though it was neither cliche nor idiom), especially since "Mending Wall"--the actual title--is an action by the narrator in the poem, and the wall itself remains admirably inactive.

I mention these past events because an AP/Yahoo article today indicated that pet owners favor John McCain over Barack Obama 42% to 37%. This poll also found that people who don't have pets favor Obama by 48% to McCain's 34%.

"I think a person who owns a pet is a more compassionate person — caring, giving, trustworthy. I like pet owners," said one pet owner, who owns two cats herself. Another pet owner indicated that, if a person owns a pet, that fact "tells you that they're responsible at least for something, for the care of something," though he also admitted that pet-owning would not influence his vote.

According to the online article, John McCain "has a veritable menagerie, including Sam the English springer spaniel, Coco the mutt, turtles Cuff and Link, Oreo the black and white cat, a ferret, three parakeets and a bunch of saltwater fish."

The American Pet Product Manufacturers Association estimates that 63 percent of American homes include a pet, including 88 million cats and 75 million dogs. That's a lot of dog poo and cat pee to contend with, and these individuals favor McCain by 43 percent to 34 percent for dog owners, and by 41 percent to 38 percent for cat owners.

Perhaps these statistics will influence the major political parties in subsequent nominations, by indicating that an equine-loving candidate would do even better, given all the homegrown #or$e$#!t he or she could shovel at the voting public.

These polls about cats and dogs lead me to believe that the press may think it has nothing better to do in this election than to ferret out some off-the-wall information to amuse the public. Well, if it doesn't become a habit, I guess we can handle it. But the media must not forget how serious and substantive the issues are, issues that will affect us and potentially generations to come: the national debt, our two wars in Asia, genocide in Africa, global warming, and a host of other problems that dubya's two administrations have caused or have ignored.

One final consideration in the media's feline-canine conceit: while he doesn't currently have a pet, Barack Obama is reported to have promised his daughters a dog once the campaign is over.

-- triton --

#35 The "Tossup" States, and Projected Electoral Vote Totals; Obama and the NYTimes

Second things first. The lead editorial in yesterday's NYTimes chastised ("chided" is too gentle a word for the Times' tone) Barack Obama for changing his positions on (a) financing his own campaign, (b) unlawful eavesdropping, (c) using public funding for religious organizations' use on social issues.

Their arguments are cogent, and I can't disagree with those arguments. These are issues on which Obama has apparently changed the positions he took during the primary campaign. On the one hand, if he has changed his position for political expediency, he should be called on it. On the other hand, as the Times says, "We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election." The editors are calling him, however, on an implied hypocrisy, "because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games."

Give me a break. The Times' editors are being either naive or disingenuous. Whatever else he is, Barack Obama is a politician, and apparently (so far at least) a smart one. He knew, instinctively or intellectually, how to appeal to the left wing of the Democratic party for the states' primary and caucus season, an easy job for him since he has been the Senate's most liberal senator in the short time he has been a member.

Obama also knows how to attempt to seize the center of the political spectrum now on the national level. Which he has to do in order to be elected.

And which, incidentally, the Democrats have been unable to do since Bill Clinton campaigned for president. Al Gore and John Kerry allowed the Evil Karl Rove to manipulate the 2000 and 2004 campaigns so that, unbelievably in retropsect, dubya was able to pose as a centrist. The bottom line is, We can't tell from a presidential campaign what an elected president will actually do under the real circumstances he or she will actually face. dubya claimed to be a "uniter" when he ran in 2000, an ironic use for self-promotion of his own party's national divisiveness by bringing Clinton up on impeachment charges of lying under oath (note that Nancy Pelosi has refused to bring dubya up on impeachment charges despite his violating constitutional rights). dubya has succeeded in one sense only: he has united the electorate against him more strongly than any president in polling history.

Obama has to use dubya's unpopularity, and whatever weaknesses McCain's policies may have, to move toward the political center and to unite enough American voters in order to gain at least 270 electoral votes on November 4.

What a nimble segue to the originally planned topic for this post...

Here, again, are my currently listed TOSSUP states:
Arkansas 6 (Republican?)
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7 (because of Lieberman)
Iowa 7
Minnesota 10 (possibly depending on the Republican’s VP)
Missouri 11 T (Republican?)
Montana 3
Nevada 5
New Mexico 5 (Democrat?--depending on what Bill Richardson does)
Virginia 13 (depending on the Democrat’s VP)
West Virginia 5 (Republican?)

Currently 81 electoral votes are tossups, with 22 leaning Republican, 5 leaning Democratic, and 54 still up in the air.

Arkansas will likely go Republcian, but strong campaigning by Bill or Hillary there might shake up the Democrats enough to vote on election day.

Colorado has normally voted Republican but is beginning to move toward the Democratic candidates, even nationally: its governor and one of its senators are Democrats. Maybe holding the Democratic convention there this year--if the Democrats behave, and clean up after themselves--will convince the voters to go Blue in November.

Connecticut would normally go strongly Democratic, but I don't know how significantly Lieberman's support for McCain will affect the voters. They did elect him as an independent two years ago, so we can't overlook the possibility that they may follow his lead again this November.

Iowa, though normally expected to vote Republican, is currently up in the air in part at least because of McCain's opposition to farm subsidies. Still, aside from flooding, farm states should be doing relatively well economically, with all grain prices at or near record levels. But polls have shown Iowa as too close to call, and how the feds react to recent inundation will have an effect come November.

Minnesota normally should be Democratic. From a Republican point of view, Tim Pawlenty would be a strong Vice President candidate, if they select him, to provide some geographical balance on the ticket and to put the state in play. Besides, the Republican convention is in the Twin Cities a week after the Democratic convention takes place in Denver, so Pawlenty--should he want to run for VP--could mount a subtle favorite-son campaign to be on the ticket. And whoever runs with McCain will be the leading candidate for the presidential spot in four years if McCain was serious about being a one-term president if elected this year. If Pawlenty is not on McCain's ticket, this state goes Democratic.

There's a second significant race in Minnesota this year, Al Franken running against incumbent Republican senator Norm Coleman (who, six years ago, beat Walter Mondale, the last minute substitute for the late Paul Wellstone). Whose coattails--Franken's or Obama's--will carry whom? Or will neither carry the other?

Missouri will likely go Republican (at least right now that's my thinking), but it can be very close, depending on the success of get-out-the-vote campaigns in St. Loo and KC. We saw the vote patterns in the Democratic primary and we can expect to see those patterns again, but intensified in the rural areas which are far more likely to vote Republican.

Montana will probably go Republican, though its recent trend has favored the Democrats. Still, McCain reflects the values of the rugged Montanan: veteran, fiscal conservative, "straight talk."

Nevada: the population growth that Nevada has experienced recently (as long as the housing crisis hasn't caused it to reverse) has brought more liberal voters into the state. There seems to be an increasing chance that the state might go blue this year.

New Mexico, Virginia, and West Virginia are fascinating studies for different reasons.

New Mexico went for Gore narrowly, but then not for Kerry. Bill Richardson campaigned heavily for Gore but not for Kerry. The governor is still popular in New Mexico, though not as popular as he was before moving from Hillary to the Obama camp, and could play a major role in helping Obama. However, Hispanics and African Americans have historically clashed in our larger cities, and Obama will have to spend much time in the state with the governor in order to overcome these historical obstacles.

Virginia -- one word: jimwebb. Okay, okay, so it's two words, but if you've been reading these posts you know what I mean. I think Jim Webb would be a quality VP candidate and would have an excellent chance of helping the Democrats carry Virginia. His now-quarter-of-a-century-old comments about women in the military academies may come up in the campaign if he is on the ticket, but he has long since recanted, and his actions should also speak loudly.

West Virginia has puzzled me for eight years. By all that is holy in labor, this state should be solidly in the Democratic column. Why in the blazing saddles would union members ever vote Republican? Yet, despite a long history of voting Democratic in presidential elections (except 1984, when they joined the Reagan landslide), they voted for dubya in 2000 and 2004. And Obama did SO BADLY against Hillary in the primary that I see the state as currently leaning Republican in November.

If I had to assign these tossup states to candidates, and without VP candidates having been selected yet, I would list the following:

McCain -- Arkansas 6, Missouri, 11, Montana 3, Virginia 13, West Virginia 5 = 38.
McCain would have 240 total electoral votes.

Obama -- Colorado 9, Connecticut 7, Iowa 7, Minnesota 10, Nevada 5, New Mexico 5 = 43.
Obama would have 298 electoral votes, and would be our next president.

If Pawlenty is the Republican VP candidate and Webb the Democratic, we might move Virginia to Democratic and Minnesota to Republican:

McCain would then have 237 votes, and Obama would have 301. Obama would still be our next president.

If Obama chooses a VP who cannot carry his own state, and McCain chooses Pawlenty, and Minnesota votes Republican, McCain would have 250 votes. Then, if I'm wrong about Ohio, McCain would have 270 electoral votes and would be our next president.

Obama has not much margin for error.

Disclaimer? oh my yes. Any major or even several minor events (nationally in particular, but some international problems as well) between now and November 4, and the votes could shift.

#34 Why We Must Vote in November: Kathleen Sebelius' Dad. And Many Other Reasons

True, I don't sleep much. And true, I have just posted two entries to this blog in about two hours. But they're listed on two different dates, and they discuss two kind-of-different topics, so it's okay.

Seriously, let me tell you about Kathleen Sebelius’ dad, John J. Gilligan. Sebelius, you may remember from some of my earlier posts, is the Democratic governor of Kansas, a very Republican state, and has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate. I think she’s great, but putting her on the ticket would not carry Kansas for the Democrats, so from that very practical point of view she shouldn’t be the VP candidate.

But this post is about her dad, John Gilligan. When I was voting in Ohio, as a graduate student at Ohio State, the governors were limited to two consecutive terms. After I left Ohio, Republican James Rhodes completed his second consecutive term, and Democrat John Gilligan was elected in November 1970. He was a very fine governor of Ohio from January 1971 to January 1975. When he came up for reelection in November 1974, Rhodes was again eligible to run, and did so.

I bring this story up for its relevance to the current presidential election.

All the polls indicated a strong sweep for Gilligan against Rhodes. Significant numbers of citizens of Cuyahoga County, i.e., basically Cleveland, didn’t vote. In fact, about two hundred thousand Cuyahoga County and other northern Ohio residents, most of them Democrats, stayed home apparently thinking that Gilligan had it wrapped up, and their votes weren’t needed. Rhodes won by fewer than 100,000 votes.

Several pundits (does that word really consist of “pun”—playing with words—and “dits”—short for ditzy?) are now beginning to view the upcoming election as a blowout for Obama. Wrong. Nothing is a blowout until the votes have actually been cast and counted. If all the new young Democrats vote who have participated in the primaries and caucuses, and don’t sit home thinking that Obama has it wrapped up, and if latent racism isn’t an issue, then Yes I agree Obama should win. If they don’t vote, he may indeed not win.

But we must leave nothing to chance. In honor of Kathleen Sebelius’ dad, we must vote in November. And for many, many other reasons.

#33 The (potentially, possibly, perhaps) Definitive Electoral College as It Now Stands

I promised the faithful readers of this blog that I would post updates on my view of how the electoral college would sort itself out during this election campaign. I did so initially in post #17 on April 14, and again in post #26 on June 5.

Following the commentary in the post is my current list:

Obama with 255 pretty secure (not entirely) electoral votes;
McCain with 202 (pretty secure);
Tossup lagging with 81.

Of those 81, I think 22 are leaning Republican and 5 are leaning Democratic. Even if they end up that way, Obama would have 260 and McCain would have 224. The candidates would be fighting over the remaining 54 electoral votes.

I say that McCain's 202 electoral votes are "pretty secure" because I don't see much chance, barring something really bad (read that, stupid) coming out of his campaign, that he will lose any of these states. Florida of course is being listed by "those who know" as a battleground state. I don't have much faith that it will become so unless the Hispanic and Jewish votes there go strongly for Obama, and right now I don't see that as very likely. Or perhaps if Bill Nelson (Democratic senator from Florida) becomes the Democratic VP candidate, and even then I don't know if that would be enough to swing Florida to Blue. Hence, I've put Florida pretty strongly in the McCain column. The large African American vote for Obama that might be expected in South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana probably won't materialize. In Louisiana, many African Americans who were moved out of state during Katrina have not returned, and as a result remain displaced and disenfranchised.

Sam Nunn's presence on the Democratic ticket in the VP position might inch one or two southern states toward the Democrats, but that strategy failed miserably four years ago when John Kerry put John Edwards on the ticket. Of course, we all know Sam Nunn--and John Edwards, sir, is no Sam Nunn. There's at least one other way to get some leverage in the south (Jim Webb of Virginia -- tell me you're surprised I've brought him up again!).

If I'm to be surprised in the south, I expect it would be in South Carolina or, a state where I dare to hold quietly to some hope, North Carolina. The research triangle (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) has brought a significant number of non-conservatives into the area. I just don't think they have the numbers yet. While I'm not betting that any of these southern states will vote for Obama, I am hoping to be happily surprised somewhere in the south.

Still, at this point, I've listed the south as pretty solid for McCain.

Obama's 255 are "not entirely" secure mainly because I don't yet have a good feel for how the key midwestern states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, even Wisconsin will vote. I suspect they will go Democratic for economic reasons. Pennsylvania has to go Democratic for the Democrats to win in November, and I think Obama can win that state without making Ed Rendell his VP candidate. Actually, he has to. He needs to use his VP position elsewhere. And yes, I know that Pennsylvania is not a midwestern state: but Obama will already likely do well in eastern Pennsylvania; he will need to carry the western part as well, which will present a challenge in its affinity toward Ohio more than toward the Philadelphia area. Pittsburgh will have to provide Obama with a strong majority in western Pennsylvania.

Ah yes, Ohio. Although Governor Ted Strickland has indicated he doesn't want to be Vice President, he would almost definitely add Ohio to the Democratic column in November and, while I think Obama can win without Ohio, it would be so much easier and more convincing if he carried those 20 electoral votes. Sherrod Brown, Ohio's Democratic senator, is much less well known than Strickland nationally, but he also would be a strong agent within the state to make the Scarlet and Gray become Blue.

Michigan is not a gimmee for Obama either. But unemployment in the industrial midwest is reaching horribly painful levels, and eventually (i.e., before election day) the pain of plant closings will manifest itself as Democratic votes. Finally, the economy will be the hot issue, given the price increases of oil, bread, and milk. And almost everything else.

New Hampshire in the solid Obama column might raise some of your eyebrows. It's true that McCain has run strongly there in primaries. But that's with already-Republican voters. In a statewide election between Democrats and Republicans, Obama will carry the state. You heard it here first. If I'm wrong, then you don't remember where you heard it.

Besides, any state that can give us Jed Bartlett just about HAS to give us Barack Obama. Especially since, until his last two or three years on the air, Bartlett was one of the best presidents we've always wished we had. Remember, too, that in 2004, there was a movement uncovered among soap opera buffs to vote for Bartlett against dubya.

I was going to write, "By this time, we might have expected one or the other party to have said more about a VP choice." Have you noticed how quiet that discussion has become? Obama is mending fences, and someone besides me just might have suggested to John McCain to let the Democrats announce first. That would be the smart thing for the McCain campaign to do, because then they could counter the Democrats' strategy.

I'll discuss the TOSSUPS two posts from now, since it's in the tossup states that the election will likely be decided. And now, the electoral college list, as seen by triton, as of early July:

----- -----
McCAIN

Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Florida 27
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
Nebraska 5
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
Wyoming 3

Currently 202 electoral votes for McCain

----- -----
OBAMA

California 55
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17 (Tossup? despite auto factory closures and McCain’s ineptitude talking to Michiganders?)
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 15
New York 31
Ohio 20 (because of auto factory closures)
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21 (Tossup?)
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Washington 11
Wisconsin 10

Currently 255 electoral votes for Obama

----- -----
TOSSUP
Arkansas 6 (Republican?)
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7 (because of Lieberman)
Iowa 7
Minnesota 10 (depending on the Republican’s VP)
Missouri 11 T (Republican?)
Montana 3
Nevada 5
New Mexico 5 (Democrat?--depending on what Bill Richardson does)
Virginia 13 (depending on the Democrat’s VP)
West Virginia 5 (Republican?)

Currently 81 electoral votes are tossups, with 22 leaning Republican, 5 leaning Democratic, and 54 still up in the air.