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 --
Showing posts with label 270 electoral votes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 270 electoral votes. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
# 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 --
Saturday, July 5, 2008
#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.
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.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
#29 It's the Math, Stupid. And the Charisma. And the Impulsiveness.
No, I'm not really calling anyone stupid. I'm just playing on James Carville's 1992 "It's the Economy, Stupid" line. And yes it is still the economy, but it's also the math. And Obama's advisors may be forgetting that ever so briefly right now.
The most recent VP rumors are that Obama's advisors are vetting retired military folk. Fine. But if they choose a retired military man (yes, I said "man"), he needs to be able to carry some specific state(s) that the Democrats need to carry to win the 270 electoral votes. Say, did I mention Jim Webb of Virginia recently? What's that? Only every other post? Oh. Okay.
Wes Clark has been mentioned. I really liked Clark four years ago, but his campaign never really got off the ground. Something about lack of charisma. Man, but the Democrats have a lot of folk without charisma. Luckily, so do the Republicans. Folk like, oh, John McCain.
Here's an article I read online:
“McCain’s speech, his “Kermit the Frog” green backdrop, even his physical appearance were fodder for scores of worried e-mails and phone calls Tuesday and Wednesday between Republican donors, operatives and lobbyists."...“'They were appalled at the environment the candidate was standing in and his performance,' said [one Republican] strategist. 'It’s a serious problem — the contrast is so clear that it’s demoralizing. And it deflated our balloon last night. When the guys on Fox are trash-talking, you know it’s bad.'”
Last evening on CNN I saw McCain delivering a prepared speech to I-don't-know-or-care-whom. He was standing behind the lectern, and began the speech looking to his right. As if on cue, he turned to the center of his audience, then as if on cue turned to the audience on his left, then back to the center, and finally back to his right. He repeated this pattern during his speech. It almost seemed as if he had a little ear microphone and someone quietly directing him: "Face right, now turn straight ahead, now to the left, now turn back to the center, now to your right."
About five seconds in each direction. Just enough to make him look like a robot. It was not charismatic.
But wait, there's more.
Another article, this one on May 29, from Michael Scherer of TIME:
"Back in Washington, the anxiety level of Republicans is rising. 'The McCain camp is now acting without much rhyme or reason,' says a prominent consultant. 'And it all goes to the top.' Another Republican campaign strategist, in a thinly veiled reference to McCain, says, 'Somebody is behaving impulsively is the point.'"
While McCain's forces try to raise the spectre of inexperience about Obama, McCain seems to have neither the charisma nor the disposition for a long-haul run for the presidency and, so far at least, Obama does. All is fluid, however, and I don't yet know what role the Evil Karl Rove will play, if any, in the McCain campaign. If the Evil Karl Rove gets involved, the center will not hold, and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. In other words, as Yeats titled it, the Second Coming is at hand. And it ain't a good second coming.
The Evil Karl Rove and Racism:
Not that the Evil Karl Rove is a racist, no, these are separate topics, but I couldn't resist the alliteration. Also, the juxtaposition of the two words is precisely the kind of damnation that the Evil Karl Rove used in 2000 against McCain in the primaries and in 2004 against Kerry in the election: innuendoes and word associations. I am concerned that the Evil Karl Rove may play a bigger role in this election than we want to see. I don't want to see the Evil Karl Rove at all. The man's an evil genius. I lay much of the blame for our suffering from dubya's poor policies with the Evil Karl Rove, just for getting him elected twice.
Separate from the Evil Karl Rove's possible entry into Republican campaign strategizing, I'm very concerned that racism may play a bigger role in this election than we yet think--quiet, underlying, implied racism. Racism may be the silent beast throughout this campaign, occasionally raising its ugliness as it did in the exit polls in Pennsylvania.
And we may not know til the votes are in. Even November's election-day exit-polls may not elicit the honesty of Pennsylvania (ugly honesty though it was), and so, until the votes are counted, we may not have a sense of the extent to which voters cast their ballots not for a candidate but against the race of one-half of one of the candidates.
As Jim Webb--still my favorite personal choice for VP, and former military man himself--said a short while ago (and I'm paraphrasing): "Why do people refer to Barack Obama as being the first African-American possibly to become president? If he's elected, why not refer to him as the fourteenth Scots-Irish to become president?"
That puts a person's race and the presidential race in their proper perspective. Thank you Senator.
-- triton --
The most recent VP rumors are that Obama's advisors are vetting retired military folk. Fine. But if they choose a retired military man (yes, I said "man"), he needs to be able to carry some specific state(s) that the Democrats need to carry to win the 270 electoral votes. Say, did I mention Jim Webb of Virginia recently? What's that? Only every other post? Oh. Okay.
Wes Clark has been mentioned. I really liked Clark four years ago, but his campaign never really got off the ground. Something about lack of charisma. Man, but the Democrats have a lot of folk without charisma. Luckily, so do the Republicans. Folk like, oh, John McCain.
Here's an article I read online:
“McCain’s speech, his “Kermit the Frog” green backdrop, even his physical appearance were fodder for scores of worried e-mails and phone calls Tuesday and Wednesday between Republican donors, operatives and lobbyists."...“'They were appalled at the environment the candidate was standing in and his performance,' said [one Republican] strategist. 'It’s a serious problem — the contrast is so clear that it’s demoralizing. And it deflated our balloon last night. When the guys on Fox are trash-talking, you know it’s bad.'”
Last evening on CNN I saw McCain delivering a prepared speech to I-don't-know-or-care-whom. He was standing behind the lectern, and began the speech looking to his right. As if on cue, he turned to the center of his audience, then as if on cue turned to the audience on his left, then back to the center, and finally back to his right. He repeated this pattern during his speech. It almost seemed as if he had a little ear microphone and someone quietly directing him: "Face right, now turn straight ahead, now to the left, now turn back to the center, now to your right."
About five seconds in each direction. Just enough to make him look like a robot. It was not charismatic.
But wait, there's more.
Another article, this one on May 29, from Michael Scherer of TIME:
"Back in Washington, the anxiety level of Republicans is rising. 'The McCain camp is now acting without much rhyme or reason,' says a prominent consultant. 'And it all goes to the top.' Another Republican campaign strategist, in a thinly veiled reference to McCain, says, 'Somebody is behaving impulsively is the point.'"
While McCain's forces try to raise the spectre of inexperience about Obama, McCain seems to have neither the charisma nor the disposition for a long-haul run for the presidency and, so far at least, Obama does. All is fluid, however, and I don't yet know what role the Evil Karl Rove will play, if any, in the McCain campaign. If the Evil Karl Rove gets involved, the center will not hold, and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. In other words, as Yeats titled it, the Second Coming is at hand. And it ain't a good second coming.
The Evil Karl Rove and Racism:
Not that the Evil Karl Rove is a racist, no, these are separate topics, but I couldn't resist the alliteration. Also, the juxtaposition of the two words is precisely the kind of damnation that the Evil Karl Rove used in 2000 against McCain in the primaries and in 2004 against Kerry in the election: innuendoes and word associations. I am concerned that the Evil Karl Rove may play a bigger role in this election than we want to see. I don't want to see the Evil Karl Rove at all. The man's an evil genius. I lay much of the blame for our suffering from dubya's poor policies with the Evil Karl Rove, just for getting him elected twice.
Separate from the Evil Karl Rove's possible entry into Republican campaign strategizing, I'm very concerned that racism may play a bigger role in this election than we yet think--quiet, underlying, implied racism. Racism may be the silent beast throughout this campaign, occasionally raising its ugliness as it did in the exit polls in Pennsylvania.
And we may not know til the votes are in. Even November's election-day exit-polls may not elicit the honesty of Pennsylvania (ugly honesty though it was), and so, until the votes are counted, we may not have a sense of the extent to which voters cast their ballots not for a candidate but against the race of one-half of one of the candidates.
As Jim Webb--still my favorite personal choice for VP, and former military man himself--said a short while ago (and I'm paraphrasing): "Why do people refer to Barack Obama as being the first African-American possibly to become president? If he's elected, why not refer to him as the fourteenth Scots-Irish to become president?"
That puts a person's race and the presidential race in their proper perspective. Thank you Senator.
-- triton --
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
#25 The Three Speeches
Yes, yes, I know. This post was supposed to be about the current status of electoral votes. But that discussion will have to wait, in the light of the three speeches given this evening. The three were studies in contrast, not just because one was by the presidential candidate who locked up the Republican nomination months ago, the second by the unrepentant Democratic runner-up, and the third by the history-making Democratic candidate. No. The three are major contrasts because of the tone and the look and the implications.
John McCain did his candidacy no favors tonight. He looked old and tired, not helpful appearances in his case. The commentators had trouble letting go of the blank green screen behind him, but I think that may have been a goof by McCain's people. Perhaps computers were supposed to project for the television audience images of the imaginary supporters sitting behind him on stage, but for some reason the computers failed.
I'm kidding of course about his imaginary audience. But he didn't look good, and green is not too many people's best color. McCain can't afford too many photo-ops where he looks old and tired.
Hillary.... What can I say? It had been leaked all over the press that she wasn't going to concede tonight, and indeed she didn't. But her speech was self-aggrandizing to the point where she wrenched her arm patting herself on the back. Oh, sure, she brought into her speech the eighteen million people who voted for her, out of the thirty-five million total who had voted in the Democratic primaries. Anyone want to do THAT math -- she made it sound as if she got more votes than ALL the other Democratic candidates combined. And what was she trying to accomplish by asking all eighteen million to email her with advice on what course she should follow now. That isn't a question. She's trying to apply pressure on Obama: "I have control over these people's votes," she seemed to be saying. But toward what end: put her on the ticket? pay off her $20 million campaign debt? step down as the nominee and give it to her?
If there had been any doubt in my mind whether Obama should consider her as his running-mate, her speech tonight would have resolved that doubt: stay away from her, far far away.
Now that advice may fly in the face of everything I've said on this blog: that it's all about the math, getting to 270 electoral votes; and the VP choice is likely to be instrumental (or at least a good choice will be instrumental) in getting to that number. But it doesn't really contradict what I've written many times in the previous twenty-four posts. I don't believe people will vote for Hillary. She has not made herself likable during much of her shrillness in the campaign, and she came off petulant again this evening.
Besides, Obama doesn't need her on the ticket. He probably needs her stated support, but she and Bill have behaved so badly--and her handlers have run such a poor campaign for her--that he would do well to choose someone from a truly tossup state rather than someone with her amount of "baggage." Nasty way to talk about an ex-president, you say? Wait til dubya leaves the White House.
And, as I mentioned in the last post, she would make a fine Sec'y of Health and Human Services, in which capacity she would have a legitimate shot at creating universal health care. The promise of this cabinet post might get her on board the Obama campaign.
Barack Obama may not need much more than that from Hillary. By selecting the same venue for his speech tonight as the Republicans have chosen for their convention in early September, Obama is signaling that Minnesota is his state, even if the Republicans go with favorite-son Tim Pawlenty as their VP candidate. I have maintained that Pawlenty would be a smart choice for the Republicans, and it is, because it would put Minnesota into play. Pawlenty is the governor, and the state also elected a Republican, Norm Coleman, as one of their senators. Obama's people seem to be warning the Republicans not to try to make the state a battleground in the election.
Seventeen thousand people jammed into the arena, and fifteen thousand more watched huge monitors outside. They, and we, were rewarded. Obama's speech tonight was brilliant. It didn't quite have the charisma that Bill C's best speeches had, but it had enough charisma to get people's juices flowing. It was delivered beautifully, but just as importantly it had substance, it was far more specific than any speech I had previously heard from him, and it laid out what I hope will be his approach during the upcoming campaign.
"I honor John McCain for his outstanding service" to the country, Obama said, "even if he denies mine." That's not the exact line, but it epitomizes Obama's position that he will not attack McCain personally, but he will also not sit back and take blows to the head without retaliating more subtly. That answers those people who questioned how Obama would handle personal attacks.
More outstanding were Obama's point by point specific references: on the economy, with examples of individuals whom he's met during the primaries; on judging the candidates on their positions on substantive issues, and not on the cliched tests of religion and patriotism (and he phrased it so much better than I have just done); on a paced withdrawal from Iraq, in which the Iraqis will be increasingly responsible for their county's wellbeing, rather than McCain's "hundred years" of occupation (which has actually been taken out of context, and exaggerated); on education and the environment; and on taking pride in making the world better for all our children rather than for a few wealthy individuals.
If Barack Obama can maintain this intensity and this rhetorical power throughout the campaign, John McCain will have great difficulty winning. Hidden, even subliminal, racism may play a role in the voting totals, but Obama's ideas and style give him a strong initial advantage in the upcoming campaign.
And so, barring some other exciting intervening event, next time a look at the electoral vote possibilities at this time.
--triton--
John McCain did his candidacy no favors tonight. He looked old and tired, not helpful appearances in his case. The commentators had trouble letting go of the blank green screen behind him, but I think that may have been a goof by McCain's people. Perhaps computers were supposed to project for the television audience images of the imaginary supporters sitting behind him on stage, but for some reason the computers failed.
I'm kidding of course about his imaginary audience. But he didn't look good, and green is not too many people's best color. McCain can't afford too many photo-ops where he looks old and tired.
Hillary.... What can I say? It had been leaked all over the press that she wasn't going to concede tonight, and indeed she didn't. But her speech was self-aggrandizing to the point where she wrenched her arm patting herself on the back. Oh, sure, she brought into her speech the eighteen million people who voted for her, out of the thirty-five million total who had voted in the Democratic primaries. Anyone want to do THAT math -- she made it sound as if she got more votes than ALL the other Democratic candidates combined. And what was she trying to accomplish by asking all eighteen million to email her with advice on what course she should follow now. That isn't a question. She's trying to apply pressure on Obama: "I have control over these people's votes," she seemed to be saying. But toward what end: put her on the ticket? pay off her $20 million campaign debt? step down as the nominee and give it to her?
If there had been any doubt in my mind whether Obama should consider her as his running-mate, her speech tonight would have resolved that doubt: stay away from her, far far away.
Now that advice may fly in the face of everything I've said on this blog: that it's all about the math, getting to 270 electoral votes; and the VP choice is likely to be instrumental (or at least a good choice will be instrumental) in getting to that number. But it doesn't really contradict what I've written many times in the previous twenty-four posts. I don't believe people will vote for Hillary. She has not made herself likable during much of her shrillness in the campaign, and she came off petulant again this evening.
Besides, Obama doesn't need her on the ticket. He probably needs her stated support, but she and Bill have behaved so badly--and her handlers have run such a poor campaign for her--that he would do well to choose someone from a truly tossup state rather than someone with her amount of "baggage." Nasty way to talk about an ex-president, you say? Wait til dubya leaves the White House.
And, as I mentioned in the last post, she would make a fine Sec'y of Health and Human Services, in which capacity she would have a legitimate shot at creating universal health care. The promise of this cabinet post might get her on board the Obama campaign.
Barack Obama may not need much more than that from Hillary. By selecting the same venue for his speech tonight as the Republicans have chosen for their convention in early September, Obama is signaling that Minnesota is his state, even if the Republicans go with favorite-son Tim Pawlenty as their VP candidate. I have maintained that Pawlenty would be a smart choice for the Republicans, and it is, because it would put Minnesota into play. Pawlenty is the governor, and the state also elected a Republican, Norm Coleman, as one of their senators. Obama's people seem to be warning the Republicans not to try to make the state a battleground in the election.
Seventeen thousand people jammed into the arena, and fifteen thousand more watched huge monitors outside. They, and we, were rewarded. Obama's speech tonight was brilliant. It didn't quite have the charisma that Bill C's best speeches had, but it had enough charisma to get people's juices flowing. It was delivered beautifully, but just as importantly it had substance, it was far more specific than any speech I had previously heard from him, and it laid out what I hope will be his approach during the upcoming campaign.
"I honor John McCain for his outstanding service" to the country, Obama said, "even if he denies mine." That's not the exact line, but it epitomizes Obama's position that he will not attack McCain personally, but he will also not sit back and take blows to the head without retaliating more subtly. That answers those people who questioned how Obama would handle personal attacks.
More outstanding were Obama's point by point specific references: on the economy, with examples of individuals whom he's met during the primaries; on judging the candidates on their positions on substantive issues, and not on the cliched tests of religion and patriotism (and he phrased it so much better than I have just done); on a paced withdrawal from Iraq, in which the Iraqis will be increasingly responsible for their county's wellbeing, rather than McCain's "hundred years" of occupation (which has actually been taken out of context, and exaggerated); on education and the environment; and on taking pride in making the world better for all our children rather than for a few wealthy individuals.
If Barack Obama can maintain this intensity and this rhetorical power throughout the campaign, John McCain will have great difficulty winning. Hidden, even subliminal, racism may play a role in the voting totals, but Obama's ideas and style give him a strong initial advantage in the upcoming campaign.
And so, barring some other exciting intervening event, next time a look at the electoral vote possibilities at this time.
--triton--
#24 Obama has clinched, says AP
Online news reports from the Associated Press indicate that Barack Obama--the first term Democratic senator from Illinois, with little domestic policy experience and no foreign policy experience; with a difficult construct from his erstwhile connection with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago; with no military experience and a strongly-stated but ill-defined anti-war position about Iraq; with problems appealing to blue collar white voters--has clinched the Democratic nomination to run for president.
How can someone with so much going against him have a chance, one has to ask.
Well, someone with fewer qualifications won twice, another can answer; and we all know how george w bush has done.
Luckily, Obama is smarter than dubya, has better people working for him than dubya has, and is apparently less greedy than dubya's vice president and handlers have been.
Seriously, folks, Barack Obama may or may not become a good president, but the one we have now is an unmitigated disaster. dubya's policies (as I've tried to show in posts 19, 20, and 21) have been bad for America and for most Americans. That's why, today, dubya's approval rating stands at 28%. There should be exclamation points after that sentence. Let us remember that in any given presidential election, 40% of the voters will vote Democratic regardless of the candidate, 40% of the voters will vote Republican regardless of the candidate, and 20% of the voters are the folk the two candidates are actually fighting over. Thus it is that 30% of core Republicans have forsaken dubya (the 40% of total voters who "always" vote Republican minus the 28% of total voters who still approve of the job dubya's done; that's the 12% of total voters who normally vote Republican who think dubya's not doing well, divided by the 40% who normally vote Republicans regardless of who the nominee is). I don't apologize for the math. Math is important in this election, very important. It's almost a Sesame Street scenario: "This election has been brought to you by the number 270."
John McCain may already have won back some of that 12% but he starts behind Obama--behind virtually any decent Democrat--mathematically. And today's news indicates that Obama actually is polling ahead of McCain, even before the Democrat has received enough delegates to be nominated, and months AFTER McCain had garnered enough delegates to become the Republican nominee.
Barring a large number of racist individuals who are keeping their racism to themselves (and there may be a large number, but if they don't admit it we won't know until November), Obama should be favored to win. Can he lose it? Sure. By screwing up, or by being screwed up, either by another guilt-by-association as with Rev Wright, or by misspeaking (which McCain is more likely to do than Obama is), or by Hillary not rallying her supporters behind Obama. These are possibilities, but Obama's campaign is so well organized and he and his supporters are so articulate the odds favor their not screwing up badly.
Picking the wrong Vice President candidate is still a major possible screwup, however. Hillary should not be chosen. Not chosen. No. Hillary should be promised a position in his cabinet should he be elected. Secretary of Health and Human Services would be perfect for her, and would give her a chance to push for universal health care with what we hope will be a significant majority in both the House and the Senate. A significant point on the side here is that NY has a Democratic governor who will then appoint a Democrat replacement for her in the Senate. The Democrats cannot afford to lose Senate seats by appointing to the cabinet senators from states with Republican governors.
Similarly, Bill Richardson could be a strong possibility for Secretary of State. God knows , and so do many voters, that he has international policy experience, both from his service in the UN and from his subliminal negotiations abroad.
I still come back to Ted Strickland (my #1 choice), Bill Nelson, or James Webb (my heart-on favorite) as VP candidates. Their three states are tossups, and the presence of any one of these as VP candidate on the ticket could move his particular state into the Blue column in November.
Next time: where the electoral votes stand in June, with five months (less, by the time I post) to go.
--triton--
How can someone with so much going against him have a chance, one has to ask.
Well, someone with fewer qualifications won twice, another can answer; and we all know how george w bush has done.
Luckily, Obama is smarter than dubya, has better people working for him than dubya has, and is apparently less greedy than dubya's vice president and handlers have been.
Seriously, folks, Barack Obama may or may not become a good president, but the one we have now is an unmitigated disaster. dubya's policies (as I've tried to show in posts 19, 20, and 21) have been bad for America and for most Americans. That's why, today, dubya's approval rating stands at 28%. There should be exclamation points after that sentence. Let us remember that in any given presidential election, 40% of the voters will vote Democratic regardless of the candidate, 40% of the voters will vote Republican regardless of the candidate, and 20% of the voters are the folk the two candidates are actually fighting over. Thus it is that 30% of core Republicans have forsaken dubya (the 40% of total voters who "always" vote Republican minus the 28% of total voters who still approve of the job dubya's done; that's the 12% of total voters who normally vote Republican who think dubya's not doing well, divided by the 40% who normally vote Republicans regardless of who the nominee is). I don't apologize for the math. Math is important in this election, very important. It's almost a Sesame Street scenario: "This election has been brought to you by the number 270."
John McCain may already have won back some of that 12% but he starts behind Obama--behind virtually any decent Democrat--mathematically. And today's news indicates that Obama actually is polling ahead of McCain, even before the Democrat has received enough delegates to be nominated, and months AFTER McCain had garnered enough delegates to become the Republican nominee.
Barring a large number of racist individuals who are keeping their racism to themselves (and there may be a large number, but if they don't admit it we won't know until November), Obama should be favored to win. Can he lose it? Sure. By screwing up, or by being screwed up, either by another guilt-by-association as with Rev Wright, or by misspeaking (which McCain is more likely to do than Obama is), or by Hillary not rallying her supporters behind Obama. These are possibilities, but Obama's campaign is so well organized and he and his supporters are so articulate the odds favor their not screwing up badly.
Picking the wrong Vice President candidate is still a major possible screwup, however. Hillary should not be chosen. Not chosen. No. Hillary should be promised a position in his cabinet should he be elected. Secretary of Health and Human Services would be perfect for her, and would give her a chance to push for universal health care with what we hope will be a significant majority in both the House and the Senate. A significant point on the side here is that NY has a Democratic governor who will then appoint a Democrat replacement for her in the Senate. The Democrats cannot afford to lose Senate seats by appointing to the cabinet senators from states with Republican governors.
Similarly, Bill Richardson could be a strong possibility for Secretary of State. God knows , and so do many voters, that he has international policy experience, both from his service in the UN and from his subliminal negotiations abroad.
I still come back to Ted Strickland (my #1 choice), Bill Nelson, or James Webb (my heart-on favorite) as VP candidates. Their three states are tossups, and the presence of any one of these as VP candidate on the ticket could move his particular state into the Blue column in November.
Next time: where the electoral votes stand in June, with five months (less, by the time I post) to go.
--triton--
Monday, April 14, 2008
#17 A Snapshot in Time: Early Electoral Vote Projections
Yes, yes, I know. The Democrats don't even have a presumptive presidential candidate yet, and neither party has anything more specific for Vice President than a list of several hundred potential candidates.
Yet we're looking at triton's first set of Electoral Vote projections! Here's why:
(1) they provide a baseline against which to measure subsequent movement of states from one party to the other and to or from tossup status;
(2) the list isn't final: it's in flux, and will remain so probably up until November 4; unimagined events between now and then could change the entire situation, including world events, national events, and really dumb comments by the candidates or their staff members; and
3) I find it amazing how well the Democrats actually seem to be doing right now, despite the internecine war raging between BO and HRC (though honestly I think HRC is doing more of the waging, because she and her advisors recognize that she has lost momentum and is losing the nomination battle).
Here's the abbreviation key for today's and subsequent electoral vote lists:
"D" and "R" are the two major parties;
"T" is "TossUp": please note that I avoided the humorously and connotatively negative abbreviation "TU" which implies a terminal condition: as easy as it is to view the Democrats as currently committing suicide, they actually have not yet done so, at least based on my projections below.
"?" does not mean, Who the hell knows? Instead, it means "perhaps leaning toward...." Or, I suppose, it could mean, Who the hell knows?
One strategic note: if the list below has any validity, then the Democrats need to concentrate on winning Connecticut (7 votes), Minnesota (10 votes), and Ohio (20 votes). Those 37 electoral votes, listed below as Tossups, would give the Democratic candidate 277 electoral votes, just over the 270 needed for election. In fact, he/she wouldn't even need to court Lieberman, and could still end up with the 270 required. But Minnesota will be a problem if its governor, Tim Pawlenty, is the Republican VP candidate. And Ohio is always a problem: nominating Ted Strickland (Governor) or Sherrod Brown (Senator) might help, but they'd still need to carry Minnesota. In any case, it's shaping up to be another really close election. So far.
The summary on this April 14 (caveat: always subject to change):
Democratic or leaning toward Democratic: 240
Republican or leaning toward Republican: 237
Currently a tossup: 61
And now, the first list:
State # of Electoral Current Projection
Votes (538 total) (as of 4/14/08)
Alabama 9 R
Alaska 3 R
Arizona 10 R
Arkansas 6 T (R?)
California 55 D
Colorado 9 T
Connecticut 7 T (because of Lieberman)
Delaware 3 D
DC 3 D
Florida 27 R (T? depending on D's VP)
Georgia 15 R
Hawaii 4 D
Idaho 4 R
Illinois 21 D
Indiana 11 R
Iowa 7 T
Kansas 6 R
Kentucky 8 R
Louisiana 9 R
Maine 4 D
Maryland 10 D
Massachusetts 12 D
Michigan 17 T (D?)
Minnesota 10 T (depending on the R’s VP)
Mississippi 6 R
Missouri 11 T(R?)
Montana 3 T
Nebraska 5 R
Nevada 5 T
New Hampshire 4 D
New Jersey 15 D
New Mexico 5 T (D?) (depending on what Bill Richardson does)
New York 31 D
North Carolina 15 R
North Dakota 3 R
Ohio 20 T (depending on the D’s VP)
Oklahoma 7 R
Oregon 7 D
Pennsylvania 21 D (T?)
Rhode Island 4 D
South Carolina 8 R
South Dakota 3 R
Tennessee 11 R
Texas 34 R
Utah 5 R
Vermont 3 D
Virginia 13 R (T? depending on the D’s VP)
Washington 11 D
West Virginia 5 T (R?)
Wisconsin 10 D
Wyoming 3 R
175 R
62 T leaning toward R or R leaning toward T
- - -
237
197 D
43 T leaning toward D or D leaning toward T
- - -
240
61 T very much up for grabs
--triton--
Yet we're looking at triton's first set of Electoral Vote projections! Here's why:
(1) they provide a baseline against which to measure subsequent movement of states from one party to the other and to or from tossup status;
(2) the list isn't final: it's in flux, and will remain so probably up until November 4; unimagined events between now and then could change the entire situation, including world events, national events, and really dumb comments by the candidates or their staff members; and
3) I find it amazing how well the Democrats actually seem to be doing right now, despite the internecine war raging between BO and HRC (though honestly I think HRC is doing more of the waging, because she and her advisors recognize that she has lost momentum and is losing the nomination battle).
Here's the abbreviation key for today's and subsequent electoral vote lists:
"D" and "R" are the two major parties;
"T" is "TossUp": please note that I avoided the humorously and connotatively negative abbreviation "TU" which implies a terminal condition: as easy as it is to view the Democrats as currently committing suicide, they actually have not yet done so, at least based on my projections below.
"?" does not mean, Who the hell knows? Instead, it means "perhaps leaning toward...." Or, I suppose, it could mean, Who the hell knows?
One strategic note: if the list below has any validity, then the Democrats need to concentrate on winning Connecticut (7 votes), Minnesota (10 votes), and Ohio (20 votes). Those 37 electoral votes, listed below as Tossups, would give the Democratic candidate 277 electoral votes, just over the 270 needed for election. In fact, he/she wouldn't even need to court Lieberman, and could still end up with the 270 required. But Minnesota will be a problem if its governor, Tim Pawlenty, is the Republican VP candidate. And Ohio is always a problem: nominating Ted Strickland (Governor) or Sherrod Brown (Senator) might help, but they'd still need to carry Minnesota. In any case, it's shaping up to be another really close election. So far.
The summary on this April 14 (caveat: always subject to change):
Democratic or leaning toward Democratic: 240
Republican or leaning toward Republican: 237
Currently a tossup: 61
And now, the first list:
State # of Electoral Current Projection
Votes (538 total) (as of 4/14/08)
Alabama 9 R
Alaska 3 R
Arizona 10 R
Arkansas 6 T (R?)
California 55 D
Colorado 9 T
Connecticut 7 T (because of Lieberman)
Delaware 3 D
DC 3 D
Florida 27 R (T? depending on D's VP)
Georgia 15 R
Hawaii 4 D
Idaho 4 R
Illinois 21 D
Indiana 11 R
Iowa 7 T
Kansas 6 R
Kentucky 8 R
Louisiana 9 R
Maine 4 D
Maryland 10 D
Massachusetts 12 D
Michigan 17 T (D?)
Minnesota 10 T (depending on the R’s VP)
Mississippi 6 R
Missouri 11 T(R?)
Montana 3 T
Nebraska 5 R
Nevada 5 T
New Hampshire 4 D
New Jersey 15 D
New Mexico 5 T (D?) (depending on what Bill Richardson does)
New York 31 D
North Carolina 15 R
North Dakota 3 R
Ohio 20 T (depending on the D’s VP)
Oklahoma 7 R
Oregon 7 D
Pennsylvania 21 D (T?)
Rhode Island 4 D
South Carolina 8 R
South Dakota 3 R
Tennessee 11 R
Texas 34 R
Utah 5 R
Vermont 3 D
Virginia 13 R (T? depending on the D’s VP)
Washington 11 D
West Virginia 5 T (R?)
Wisconsin 10 D
Wyoming 3 R
175 R
62 T leaning toward R or R leaning toward T
- - -
237
197 D
43 T leaning toward D or D leaning toward T
- - -
240
61 T very much up for grabs
--triton--
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
#12 The Numbers "Game"
You may be thinking that it’s too bad we can’t just nominate and elect the most-qualified people and forget about the strategy of getting 270 electoral votes. I agree wholeheartedly. It is too bad. But we can’t look at the history, especially the recent history, of presidential politics and say that we’ve always, or even often, elected the most qualified candidates. We haven’t.
However well or poorly we think our presidents have performed once in office, Eisenhower the candidate was not more qualified than Stevenson, Kennedy was not more qualified than Nixon (I can’t believe I’m saying something not-negative about Richard Nixon!), Reagan was NOT more qualified than Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton was probably not more qualified than HW, and dubya was most definitely not more qua…. Ohhh,…the Humanity.
Besides, in this current election, all three possible major party candidates are likely qualified to lead the country, though BO has less experience than HRC who has less experience than JMcC. And I disagree with JMcC’s proposals most of the three. We can debate what “qualified” means anyway. The point is that we need to change the direction of the country, and it’s not going to happen enough, or possibly at all, under another Republican administration. Hence, we play the political numbers game. Except that it’s not a game. It’s deadly serious. And it’s been particularly deadly for our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for untold thousands of civilians there. John McCain said he is willing to keep our troops in Iraq “for a hundred years” if necessary.
No, this is no game.
And now, with tweve posts in a month, I think it’s time to let political matters settle down a bit. Let’s give the two major parties awhile, including today’s primaries in Ohio and Texas which pundits are saying may yield something resembling conclusive results. My thought is to give the Democrats and Republicans perhaps until later this month, before we continue to tell them how to conduct their campaigns. Oh. Wait. They’re not reading this blog.
Well, I’ll wait a couple of weeks anyway, say, until the week of March 17. At that time, I’ll have some thoughts on how one part of the economy in particular might play an even bigger role in the election than we currently expect. And then I’ll identify, at this early point at least, what I believe the likely swing states are going to be. In the meantime, feel free to add your own comments on the blog or by email. I look forward to them.
As they might say in Ahia and Texas, Y’all be well, now, y’hear.
triton
However well or poorly we think our presidents have performed once in office, Eisenhower the candidate was not more qualified than Stevenson, Kennedy was not more qualified than Nixon (I can’t believe I’m saying something not-negative about Richard Nixon!), Reagan was NOT more qualified than Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton was probably not more qualified than HW, and dubya was most definitely not more qua…. Ohhh,…the Humanity.
Besides, in this current election, all three possible major party candidates are likely qualified to lead the country, though BO has less experience than HRC who has less experience than JMcC. And I disagree with JMcC’s proposals most of the three. We can debate what “qualified” means anyway. The point is that we need to change the direction of the country, and it’s not going to happen enough, or possibly at all, under another Republican administration. Hence, we play the political numbers game. Except that it’s not a game. It’s deadly serious. And it’s been particularly deadly for our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for untold thousands of civilians there. John McCain said he is willing to keep our troops in Iraq “for a hundred years” if necessary.
No, this is no game.
And now, with tweve posts in a month, I think it’s time to let political matters settle down a bit. Let’s give the two major parties awhile, including today’s primaries in Ohio and Texas which pundits are saying may yield something resembling conclusive results. My thought is to give the Democrats and Republicans perhaps until later this month, before we continue to tell them how to conduct their campaigns. Oh. Wait. They’re not reading this blog.
Well, I’ll wait a couple of weeks anyway, say, until the week of March 17. At that time, I’ll have some thoughts on how one part of the economy in particular might play an even bigger role in the election than we currently expect. And then I’ll identify, at this early point at least, what I believe the likely swing states are going to be. In the meantime, feel free to add your own comments on the blog or by email. I look forward to them.
As they might say in Ahia and Texas, Y’all be well, now, y’hear.
triton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)