I do not ordinarily ponder the fates of major democratic party figureheads, but the saga of Hillary “The Great Khan” Clinton is riveting. Not too many people now seem to recognize just how big an upset it was, when Barack Obama’s machine beat the Clinton machine. And from that upset, what can we expect now from arguably the most powerful politician on the planet without a base of operation?
Hillary Rodham first made significant news when she delivered the first commencement address to Wellesley College ever made by a student (1969). That was no accident; Rodham had accomplished many successes as a student, including organizing a two-day strike by black students after the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Rodham was featured in Life magazine that same year, in part due to criticism in her speech of Senator Edward Brooke, who had addressed the students and faculty at Wellesley immediately before Rodham. After Wellesley, Rodham went to the Yale Law School, where she was active in research, free legal service for the poor, the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, and dating a fellow student, William Jefferson Clinton. The couple became increasingly active in politics, and worked hard for the McGovern campaign in 1972. Rodham graduated from Yale with her Juris Doctor in 1973, and a year later was an advisor to the House Judiciary Committee addressing the Watergate scandal – Ms. Rodham was noted for arguing that in the event of impeachment, President Nixon should not be allowed legal counsel.
Hillary Rodham and William Clinton were married in 1975, and a year later Bill Clinton was elected Attorney General for the state of Arkansas. In 1977 Hillary Rodham Clinton joined the Rose Law Firm, specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law. Also in 1977, President Carter appointed Hillary Clinton to the board of directors for the Legal Services Corporation (created under Nixon to provide free services to those who could not privately afford it). In 1978 Hillary Clinton became the LSC’s first female Chairperson, the same year her husband won election as Governor of Arkansas. In 1979 Clinton became a full partner at the Rose Law Firm.
During the Reagan years Hillary and Bill Clinton continued to gain influence and power. In Hillary’s case, those years spent promoting her firm and favored organizations to which Hillary belonged, such as the New World Foundation. Hillary Clinton was named to the board of directors for TCBY, Wal-Mart, and Lafarge (Clinton was the first female board member at Wal-Mart).
Hillary Clinton was a distinctive First Lady on several counts. She was the first First Lady to hold a post-graduate degree, the first to have an office in the West Wing, and of course Ms. Clinton was also the only First Lady so far to ever claim equal authority to the President. Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to see approval numbers drop to 35 percent within the first 21 months of her husband’s term.
Following her husband’s eight years as President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected as a United States Senator for the state of New York. Despite statements that she was not running for President in 2004, Clinton was widely viewed as a kingmaker, and a key factor not only in John Kerry’s nomination as the Democratic Party’s candidate, but also in Al Gore’s decision not to try for the nomination himself. In January of 2007, Hillary Clinton made clear her intention to win the White House, and as late as October of 2007, Hillary Clinton was well ahead of all her rivals in the Democrats’ chase. But somehow the prize eluded her, as first Iowa then South Carolina demonstrated surprising (at the time) strength by the Obama campaign. The race became a two-person contest, then one led by Obama, then a clear victory for the no-experience orator from Illinois. Senator Obama made noises to placate Clinton’s millions of supporters, but she faded in the public attention almost to obscurity. There was talk of a subversive movement to throw the election to McCain (on the theory that Clinton would have an open field in 2012 if Obama lost in 2008), but the PUMAs turned out not to be a significant factor in the election.
With the election over and the Administration of Barack Obama about to begin, it remains to be see how Hillary Rodham Clinton will direct her considerable ability and influence. There had been some considered discussion that Clinton would make a good Vice-President for Obama, but bad blood between the two camps made this suggestion impracticable from the start. Other strategists thought Clinton could ask for the post of Senate Majority Leader, but this would allow Clinton an effective veto of her own against Obama’s policies, and so this too failed to go beyond early discussions. There is talk now about Obama making Clinton his Secretary of State, a prestigious and powerful position, but not one which any would-be executive covets. It is difficult to imagine Senator Clinton accepting a position where she takes orders from a political rival and who would have the power to fire her any time he chose. But it also raises great speculation, to consider her other options and from them deduce the path where her most likely return to glory and power would wait.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Put Away the Knives
Losing is not a good feeling. So I understand that a lot of folks are unhappy, even angry. Note to President-elect Obama; you won an impressive victory and congratulations, but there are many millions of Americans whose vote you did not win, and many more millions of people who won’t be quiet if you turn out to be just another partisan hypocrite who thinks he can fool his way into control of the government, but then ignore what America needs because he is obsessed with his own plans. With that said, however, all Americans needs to give President Obama a chance to do his job. You can say what you want when he says or does something out of line, but he has to have the chance to do the job.
I also think it’s appropriate for republicans to make peace with John McCain and Sarah Palin. Oddly, despite the fact that these two were running mates, a lot of folks love the one and hate the other – the thought seems to be that one had a chance but the other one screwed up the opportunity. I disagree. As much as I would like to have seen a republican win the White House this year, the combination of the economic crisis, the media manipulation, and the infighting among republicans made it too steep a hill to climb. So what must be done now, is for republicans to than Senator McCain and Governor Palin for their efforts, and mend our fences. Look, I was dead-set against McCain winning the GOP nomination, but I got over it and worked hard to get him elected. There are many concerns I have with how the republicans acted towards each other this year, not least their disgusting abandonment of the president after everything he has done for the party and at great personal cost, but now is the time for us to make peace with each other, for the needs of the nation are great and we cannot do well by being petty.
I also think it’s appropriate for republicans to make peace with John McCain and Sarah Palin. Oddly, despite the fact that these two were running mates, a lot of folks love the one and hate the other – the thought seems to be that one had a chance but the other one screwed up the opportunity. I disagree. As much as I would like to have seen a republican win the White House this year, the combination of the economic crisis, the media manipulation, and the infighting among republicans made it too steep a hill to climb. So what must be done now, is for republicans to than Senator McCain and Governor Palin for their efforts, and mend our fences. Look, I was dead-set against McCain winning the GOP nomination, but I got over it and worked hard to get him elected. There are many concerns I have with how the republicans acted towards each other this year, not least their disgusting abandonment of the president after everything he has done for the party and at great personal cost, but now is the time for us to make peace with each other, for the needs of the nation are great and we cannot do well by being petty.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Is Obama A Democrat Eisenhower?
The presidential election of 2008 was the first occasion since the 1952 election, when neither the sitting president nor sitting vice-president was one of the major party nominees. It may also be notable, that in 1952 the winning candidate was not known for a long political resume, and the sitting president was going through a period of largely undeserved unpopularity. Similarities between the two situations create an opportunity for comparison.
General Eisenhower won the White House in 1952 by a comfortable margin, despite having held no federal office outside his term as a general officer of the United States Army and SHAEF. He was a popular president yet made remarkably few significant decisions, except for his principled stand for desegregation. Eisenhower won re-election in a romp, yet the GOP fared less well, never gaining control of the Senate either during the Eisenhower years nor in the generation following, and though the GOP took control of the House of Representatives in 1952, they lost it in 1954 and the democrats increased their control in each succeeding election through 1960. The popularity of President Eisenhower did not carry over to the republican candidates for the House and Senate. With the present democrats enjoying support at historically dismal levels, there is reason to believe that the American public may separate its impression of Barack Obama from the Democratic Party in general.
General Eisenhower won the White House in 1952 by a comfortable margin, despite having held no federal office outside his term as a general officer of the United States Army and SHAEF. He was a popular president yet made remarkably few significant decisions, except for his principled stand for desegregation. Eisenhower won re-election in a romp, yet the GOP fared less well, never gaining control of the Senate either during the Eisenhower years nor in the generation following, and though the GOP took control of the House of Representatives in 1952, they lost it in 1954 and the democrats increased their control in each succeeding election through 1960. The popularity of President Eisenhower did not carry over to the republican candidates for the House and Senate. With the present democrats enjoying support at historically dismal levels, there is reason to believe that the American public may separate its impression of Barack Obama from the Democratic Party in general.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wild Card Republicans
While Barack Obama undeniably ran an effective and energized campaign, it’s plain by now that the McCain campaign of 2008 was a lot like the Republicans in general during 2008 – sloppy, disorganized, and frustrated. Now that he has lost the election and the most liberal candidate in more than a generation is the President-elect, Republicans and especially Conservatives have decided to tie John to a pole and set up a firing squad. Some republicans have opted for the full inquisition and tried to go after Governor Palin, only to find out Madame Governor is no docile scapegoat, and is inclined to return fire when attacked.
The problem for republicans, and especially for conservatives, is that there is no standout leader for 2010 or 2012 (thinking about the next go for rebalancing Congress, and of course things have reached the point where someone is bound to have already started planning the 2016 campaign). That’s not to say that there are not some good people, and some potential stars waiting to be discovered or for their time to arrive. But in the main, we have known ahead of time about big-league republicans and conservatives:
George W. Bush was a major GOP player as far back as 1994. Some said he was being groomed for the White House when he first won the governorship of Texas.
George H.W. Bush was a major candidate in 1980, and no one doubted that he would be the front-runner in 1988 when Reagan finished his two terms.
Reagan’s speech to the GOP Convention in 1976 laid a strong foundation for his 1980 run, as many republicans discovered what the RNC already knew as early as 1972; that Ronald Reagan was a rock star waiting for his stage.
It’s hard to believe in these post-Watergate days, but Richard Nixon was very well-respected all the years between 1952 (when he became Ike’s veep) and 1968, a man not much liked but understood to be a formidable force in politics and campaigning. It’s not generally recognized that many successful politicians learned from Nixon’s campaign disciplines.
You get the idea. While democrats have sometimes picked up their candidates on the fly, republicans tend to pick their winners pretty far in advance. The ones that get the nod late in the process – Ford, Dole, and now McCain – do not tend to fare well in the actual election. As a result, even though there should be opportunity in 2012 for a solid candidate, it is not clear at this time just how the GOP could hope to find a clear favorite. The primary season of 2007-8 was pretty dismal, in review. Few real conservatives ran at all, and the ones that did showed surprisingly little energy for the fight. Besides McCain, who ran his primary campaign on the strength of independent and crossover-democrat support (which did not show up for him in the general election), the main contenders in the republican primaries were Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, good men both of them but neither of them a true Reaganite. Thompson carried the hopes and prayers of many a conservative, but while he had the belly, he lacked fire in it.
It would seem that for 2012, the early cast of republican contenders comes in three flavors:
First, there are the 2008 contenders. Not to be mean, but if we ran McCain again, or Romney or Huckabee or Giuliani or even Thompson, we would only assure Obama’s re-election. I just do not see any of these gentlemen developing the requisite qualities which were lacking in this last election.
Second, we can look to the new generation. Certainly there is hope there, in such people as Palin, Jindal, Cantor, Putnam, Pawlenty, or Thune. But if we choose that road, we have to answer better for the onslaught of attacks that we saw leveled against Sarah Palin this time. Any of these contenders will need a lot of preparation and coaching, yet they have to remain the same pure essence of conservatism and energy that makes them attractive in the first place.
Finally, we can always hope that someone will demonstrate outstanding leadership in the House or Senate, someone as yet unknown who will make the case for conservatism in a way that we have not seen in a generation. I cannot say who that would be, and indeed at the moment I cannot imagine any of the present members of the House or Senate in that kind of heroic role, but then again, miracles can and do happen, and if we are granted one we should not overlook the grace of it.
The problem for republicans, and especially for conservatives, is that there is no standout leader for 2010 or 2012 (thinking about the next go for rebalancing Congress, and of course things have reached the point where someone is bound to have already started planning the 2016 campaign). That’s not to say that there are not some good people, and some potential stars waiting to be discovered or for their time to arrive. But in the main, we have known ahead of time about big-league republicans and conservatives:
George W. Bush was a major GOP player as far back as 1994. Some said he was being groomed for the White House when he first won the governorship of Texas.
George H.W. Bush was a major candidate in 1980, and no one doubted that he would be the front-runner in 1988 when Reagan finished his two terms.
Reagan’s speech to the GOP Convention in 1976 laid a strong foundation for his 1980 run, as many republicans discovered what the RNC already knew as early as 1972; that Ronald Reagan was a rock star waiting for his stage.
It’s hard to believe in these post-Watergate days, but Richard Nixon was very well-respected all the years between 1952 (when he became Ike’s veep) and 1968, a man not much liked but understood to be a formidable force in politics and campaigning. It’s not generally recognized that many successful politicians learned from Nixon’s campaign disciplines.
You get the idea. While democrats have sometimes picked up their candidates on the fly, republicans tend to pick their winners pretty far in advance. The ones that get the nod late in the process – Ford, Dole, and now McCain – do not tend to fare well in the actual election. As a result, even though there should be opportunity in 2012 for a solid candidate, it is not clear at this time just how the GOP could hope to find a clear favorite. The primary season of 2007-8 was pretty dismal, in review. Few real conservatives ran at all, and the ones that did showed surprisingly little energy for the fight. Besides McCain, who ran his primary campaign on the strength of independent and crossover-democrat support (which did not show up for him in the general election), the main contenders in the republican primaries were Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, good men both of them but neither of them a true Reaganite. Thompson carried the hopes and prayers of many a conservative, but while he had the belly, he lacked fire in it.
It would seem that for 2012, the early cast of republican contenders comes in three flavors:
First, there are the 2008 contenders. Not to be mean, but if we ran McCain again, or Romney or Huckabee or Giuliani or even Thompson, we would only assure Obama’s re-election. I just do not see any of these gentlemen developing the requisite qualities which were lacking in this last election.
Second, we can look to the new generation. Certainly there is hope there, in such people as Palin, Jindal, Cantor, Putnam, Pawlenty, or Thune. But if we choose that road, we have to answer better for the onslaught of attacks that we saw leveled against Sarah Palin this time. Any of these contenders will need a lot of preparation and coaching, yet they have to remain the same pure essence of conservatism and energy that makes them attractive in the first place.
Finally, we can always hope that someone will demonstrate outstanding leadership in the House or Senate, someone as yet unknown who will make the case for conservatism in a way that we have not seen in a generation. I cannot say who that would be, and indeed at the moment I cannot imagine any of the present members of the House or Senate in that kind of heroic role, but then again, miracles can and do happen, and if we are granted one we should not overlook the grace of it.
Cosnavigieta
The Wheel of Fortune turns
I go down, demeaned;
Another is raised up;
Far too proud
Sits the king at the summit –
Let him fear ruin!
For under the axis we read
About Queen Hecuba
- Carmina Burana, c. 13th century
I go down, demeaned;
Another is raised up;
Far too proud
Sits the king at the summit –
Let him fear ruin!
For under the axis we read
About Queen Hecuba
- Carmina Burana, c. 13th century
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Reverberations
The presidential election of 2008 finished nine days ago, and by now most of the emotions have begun to settle. People for whom grace is their natural condition have returned to graceful tone, while those for whom spite and petulance is their preferred environment (sadly present to a significant degree in both major political parties) have continued to attack and defame their enemies and targets. In other words, things are returning to normal.
One thing which occurs to me in this readjustment of mood, is that while this election was important and its effects are significant, we are headed neither for a golden age nor the precipice of gotterdammerung. I am not one of those who believes that the United States shall die as the result of an Obama presidency, and I am certainly no worshipper of this modern Narcissus, nor am I so fooled by any of his dazzling promises, even the ones he has not already tried to wipe from his websites and interviews. What I see here is not so different from many times before, a lot of promises and in performance, ehhh, something less but nothing either of dreams or nightmares.
Since the election, I have been critical of the hype and propaganda from the Obama (‘God, only better’) camp, and for this have been accused of dining on ‘sour grapes’. In the actual case, I consider myself far better balanced emotionally than many, even considering some on the Left who are still inexplicably bitter and foul in their mood and behavior. But there will always be those for whom nothing is ever enough to make them act with courtesy or a gracious tone. In the matter of Obama’s election, though, I congratulate him not only on his victory but on the effectiveness of his organization and his near-total control of the media. If he can maintain that control, President Obama will be the first president since Reagan to able to use the media as a tool to help advance his agenda, rather than yet another obstacle or enemy waiting to trip him up or seek a weakness to exploit. Barack Obama also showed himself an adept student of Nixonian politics, wherein he not only played attacks on him into claims of victimization, but also played hard to his party’s fringe during the primaries, but swung hard towards the center when running his general campaign, to the point of denying statements and promises made during the primaries. Just as Nixon knew few republicans would vote for Humphrey or McGovern, Obama knew few democrats would consider voting for McCain. And just as Nixon’s campaign worked hard to get grassroots support and turnout, so too did Obama’s team sweat out the details to get all likely supporters to the polls. In many respects, this year’s election was one where democrats were energized, coordinated, and showed up to vote, while republicans were disorganized and allowed themselves to become demoralized and sat out the election.
In many ways this election is interesting, not least because of the myths which were disproven. The first myth shattered, obviously, was the ‘Bradley Effect’ – while some morons may vote for or against someone solely because of their race, it is not true to imagine that it is a major effect. The second myth, and one still floating around, is that the public really wanted democrats in control. The reason this is clearly a myth, is that despite the economic climate and the scale of Obama’s victory, the congressional and senate races did not produce the overwhelming numbers predicted. The democrats made modest gains in both chambers, so it’s not as if the republicans have rebounded in public approval (the third debunked myth). It would appear that President Obama will begin his term with fairly high public approval, but the democrats and republicans in Congress and as political parties will see little public support.
I have no doubt that President Obama will make some mistakes early in 2009, mistakes which some will claim prove him unfit for the job. But every president runs into some of that, and it’s a poor student of history who believes that when it happens again, it’s somehow the first time or proof of inadequacy. In some respects, it will be interesting to see if President Obama learns from the lessons of Presidents Bush and Clinton before him; not only that if a president does not consider his importance in relation to a policy or bill that his credibility with Congress could fail and make later work much more difficult, but also that if a president obsesses about his ‘legacy’ he may accomplish little work of substance.
One thing which occurs to me in this readjustment of mood, is that while this election was important and its effects are significant, we are headed neither for a golden age nor the precipice of gotterdammerung. I am not one of those who believes that the United States shall die as the result of an Obama presidency, and I am certainly no worshipper of this modern Narcissus, nor am I so fooled by any of his dazzling promises, even the ones he has not already tried to wipe from his websites and interviews. What I see here is not so different from many times before, a lot of promises and in performance, ehhh, something less but nothing either of dreams or nightmares.
Since the election, I have been critical of the hype and propaganda from the Obama (‘God, only better’) camp, and for this have been accused of dining on ‘sour grapes’. In the actual case, I consider myself far better balanced emotionally than many, even considering some on the Left who are still inexplicably bitter and foul in their mood and behavior. But there will always be those for whom nothing is ever enough to make them act with courtesy or a gracious tone. In the matter of Obama’s election, though, I congratulate him not only on his victory but on the effectiveness of his organization and his near-total control of the media. If he can maintain that control, President Obama will be the first president since Reagan to able to use the media as a tool to help advance his agenda, rather than yet another obstacle or enemy waiting to trip him up or seek a weakness to exploit. Barack Obama also showed himself an adept student of Nixonian politics, wherein he not only played attacks on him into claims of victimization, but also played hard to his party’s fringe during the primaries, but swung hard towards the center when running his general campaign, to the point of denying statements and promises made during the primaries. Just as Nixon knew few republicans would vote for Humphrey or McGovern, Obama knew few democrats would consider voting for McCain. And just as Nixon’s campaign worked hard to get grassroots support and turnout, so too did Obama’s team sweat out the details to get all likely supporters to the polls. In many respects, this year’s election was one where democrats were energized, coordinated, and showed up to vote, while republicans were disorganized and allowed themselves to become demoralized and sat out the election.
In many ways this election is interesting, not least because of the myths which were disproven. The first myth shattered, obviously, was the ‘Bradley Effect’ – while some morons may vote for or against someone solely because of their race, it is not true to imagine that it is a major effect. The second myth, and one still floating around, is that the public really wanted democrats in control. The reason this is clearly a myth, is that despite the economic climate and the scale of Obama’s victory, the congressional and senate races did not produce the overwhelming numbers predicted. The democrats made modest gains in both chambers, so it’s not as if the republicans have rebounded in public approval (the third debunked myth). It would appear that President Obama will begin his term with fairly high public approval, but the democrats and republicans in Congress and as political parties will see little public support.
I have no doubt that President Obama will make some mistakes early in 2009, mistakes which some will claim prove him unfit for the job. But every president runs into some of that, and it’s a poor student of history who believes that when it happens again, it’s somehow the first time or proof of inadequacy. In some respects, it will be interesting to see if President Obama learns from the lessons of Presidents Bush and Clinton before him; not only that if a president does not consider his importance in relation to a policy or bill that his credibility with Congress could fail and make later work much more difficult, but also that if a president obsesses about his ‘legacy’ he may accomplish little work of substance.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Semper Paratus
Yesterday I wrote about veterans in general, but today I want to focus on my personal favorite branch of the United States Armed Forces – the U.S. Coast Guard. These guys start missions in conditions which would shut down a SEAL team, they fly into places with almost no advance information, forcing improvisation and ingenuity to be a regular part of every team leader’s regular practice. Their missions range from military (Coasties have fought in World War 2, Vietnam, and the Iraq conflict) to drug interdiction to extensive short-notice and no-notice rescue operations. A coastie therefore must not only be ready to fight, but also have medical knowledge, understand the law with regard to arrests and contraband seizure, and be able to take charge of a wide range of crisis situations.
Like the other branches of service, the USCG has an academy to train officers. But unlike West Point, Annapolis, or the Air Force Academy, having a buddy in Congress won’t help you get into the Coast Guard Academy; the Coasties take academy cadets strictly by competition. And the Coast Guard does not train for what might happen someday, somewhere – a coastie knows he will see action, over and over again lives will depend on him knowing what to do and carrying it through, and he will get less press for saving a dozen lives than a Marine gets for successfully dressing himself. Coasties head full speed into conditions that would make Rangers mess their pants, and they do it all the time. Some soldiers are tough, some are smart, some are capable, but you have to be all three to be a coastie.
Semper Paratus.
Like the other branches of service, the USCG has an academy to train officers. But unlike West Point, Annapolis, or the Air Force Academy, having a buddy in Congress won’t help you get into the Coast Guard Academy; the Coasties take academy cadets strictly by competition. And the Coast Guard does not train for what might happen someday, somewhere – a coastie knows he will see action, over and over again lives will depend on him knowing what to do and carrying it through, and he will get less press for saving a dozen lives than a Marine gets for successfully dressing himself. Coasties head full speed into conditions that would make Rangers mess their pants, and they do it all the time. Some soldiers are tough, some are smart, some are capable, but you have to be all three to be a coastie.
Semper Paratus.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Veterans
Today is Veterans’ Day. You’ll read about it in the papers and see mentions of it on TV, but probably there will not be much else said or done about it. Politicians will lay wreaths at gravesites, and then go on about forgetting the men and women the rest of the time. The VA will continue to be underfunded, the Guard will get sent in harm’s way after training with sub-standard equipment, and congressmen thinking only of their re-elections will push for actions which look good but ignore the needs of the men in the field. Kipling is ignored by Americans just as well as the British forgot him.
There are exceptions, of course. There are businesses which grant preference to veterans when they hire, seems they like to take on men and women who know how to handle responsibility and a genuinely difficult burden, who have dealt with stress and the tough decisions in a way that makes a few business decisions no sweat at all. There are a few congressmen and senators who will actually go out to see where the men serve and meet them to find out what they need in a non-election year, the way John McCain and Joe Lieberman did. And there are some good people who have been sending letters and packages to the troops, caring everyday and not just on a calendar day.
What makes America different, is that Americans do not like war. Even our troops have no desire to do the business of war, the destruction and the killing things they would just as soon not see happen, and these soldiers are only too happy to come home to a normal life. That’s why it matters, that we respect these men and women, not just when we know the cameras are rolling and there’s political gain or cost to a gesture, but in recognition of genuine sacrifice. And when they say they want to complete the mission, to finish the job, we owe them that voice and we should respect their decision.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan (parts of the same war, though some would lie and pretend otherwise) is controversial, not least because it requires stamina and patience, and the democrats have seen fit to use the war as a political football in more than one election. The soldiers simply want to win, finish the job, leave a stable and independent and free Iraq and Afghanistan, and come home. Anyone who wants to settle for less neither respects nor honors the troops.
War is a horrible thing, and sometimes it serves no good purpose and at other times the best of intentions carry horrific cost. But there are times where it is necessary, where there is no way for greater costs to be avoided except that our soldiers fight, often killing and sometimes dying. The horror of the cost is terrible to consider, yet we must consider it and consider it in context if we are to understand any of it. And the sad truth of it, is that many who make decisions about our troops never even try to consider the cost and its meaning.
Some people attach the moral value of a conflict to the president or party which supports it. I do not. I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for reasons similar to why I supported the war effort in Bosnia and in Somalia, similar to why I supported Just Cause and the invasion of Grenada, and why I thought the failed mission at Desert One was something we should all respect and try to understand. Partly because in each of those conflicts American troops were committed and we owe support to the men who went in on valid orders from their commander. Partly also because wars are not to be decided in the same way we choose the next winner of ‘American Idol’. And partly because there is a virtue to American wars, something unique that comes from the character of the men who fight under our flag and the mission of the American war effort. We fight no wars of conquest, and our soldiers change the world for the better when they remove tyrants and despots.
This day is only a symbol of a debt so large we cannot possibly repay it, but the men and women in uniform deserve better than a mattress sale and a passing insincere gesture from a politician whose mind is on his own gain ninety-nine percent of the time. Think about it, then act on it.
There are exceptions, of course. There are businesses which grant preference to veterans when they hire, seems they like to take on men and women who know how to handle responsibility and a genuinely difficult burden, who have dealt with stress and the tough decisions in a way that makes a few business decisions no sweat at all. There are a few congressmen and senators who will actually go out to see where the men serve and meet them to find out what they need in a non-election year, the way John McCain and Joe Lieberman did. And there are some good people who have been sending letters and packages to the troops, caring everyday and not just on a calendar day.
What makes America different, is that Americans do not like war. Even our troops have no desire to do the business of war, the destruction and the killing things they would just as soon not see happen, and these soldiers are only too happy to come home to a normal life. That’s why it matters, that we respect these men and women, not just when we know the cameras are rolling and there’s political gain or cost to a gesture, but in recognition of genuine sacrifice. And when they say they want to complete the mission, to finish the job, we owe them that voice and we should respect their decision.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan (parts of the same war, though some would lie and pretend otherwise) is controversial, not least because it requires stamina and patience, and the democrats have seen fit to use the war as a political football in more than one election. The soldiers simply want to win, finish the job, leave a stable and independent and free Iraq and Afghanistan, and come home. Anyone who wants to settle for less neither respects nor honors the troops.
War is a horrible thing, and sometimes it serves no good purpose and at other times the best of intentions carry horrific cost. But there are times where it is necessary, where there is no way for greater costs to be avoided except that our soldiers fight, often killing and sometimes dying. The horror of the cost is terrible to consider, yet we must consider it and consider it in context if we are to understand any of it. And the sad truth of it, is that many who make decisions about our troops never even try to consider the cost and its meaning.
Some people attach the moral value of a conflict to the president or party which supports it. I do not. I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for reasons similar to why I supported the war effort in Bosnia and in Somalia, similar to why I supported Just Cause and the invasion of Grenada, and why I thought the failed mission at Desert One was something we should all respect and try to understand. Partly because in each of those conflicts American troops were committed and we owe support to the men who went in on valid orders from their commander. Partly also because wars are not to be decided in the same way we choose the next winner of ‘American Idol’. And partly because there is a virtue to American wars, something unique that comes from the character of the men who fight under our flag and the mission of the American war effort. We fight no wars of conquest, and our soldiers change the world for the better when they remove tyrants and despots.
This day is only a symbol of a debt so large we cannot possibly repay it, but the men and women in uniform deserve better than a mattress sale and a passing insincere gesture from a politician whose mind is on his own gain ninety-nine percent of the time. Think about it, then act on it.
Veterans Day 2008
Today is the day that America remembers its veterans. I wonder how President-Elect Obama will respect and honor – oh that’s right, this is the guy whose campaign worked so hard to keep overseas military ballots from being counted this election. Continuing the fine democrat tradition of ‘loathing’ the military, donchano?
Just Something to Keep You Awake
In 1995, a man named Babrak Kamal, one of Iraq’s leading bioweapons scientists, defected to Jordan. Fearing what he would reveal, the government of Iraq admitted some of its biowar planning, particularly at the Al Hakam and Al Manal plants (which had previously been identified as vaccine making facilities). Al Hakam was a factory for manufacturing anthrax, and is estimated to have created more than twenty tons of anthrax. None of the anthrax made by the Al Hakam plant was ever recovered or destroyed, and unlike most toxins, anthrax can be stored indefinitely in powder form. The Al Manal plant was even scarier, as it manufactured botulism toxin, a poison over one hundred thousand times more toxic than Sarin. A dot of bot tox the size of the one over this i can kill between eight and fifteen people; the Al Manal plant produced over nine thousand cubic yards, at twenty times weapons-grade concentration. None of the bot tox made at the Al Manal plant was ever recovered or destroyed. What’s more, in a deal made between the UN and the Iraqi government, the Al Manal plant was neither destroyed, seized, nor closed. There is no report on what was done at Al Manal and similar plants between 1995 and 2003, when Coalition forces invaded Iraq.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Monday Trivia
In what year were biological weapons first used against the United States by a military force?
First Crisis
One sure event in every president’s first few months in office is a crisis. Some crises are predictable, like the economic depression Franklin Roosevelt had to face. But in recent years, the crises have more often been unpredictable, though just as serious. Early in George W. Bush’s first year, a US Navy surveillance aircraft collided with a Chinese PLA Navy jet in international waters. In early 1993, President Clinton was faced with a crisis in Russia, as Yeltsin all but abolished the Congress of People’s Deputies as he tried to force Russia to reform its constitution. In 1989, new President GHW Bush had to deal with the challenge of Noriega’s attempt to deny US access to the Panama Canal as reprisal for interfering with his drug trafficking. In 1981, new President Reagan had to deal with a militant and ambitious Iran. Every new president tends to find surprise problems waiting for his attention early on, serious problems which were not always apparent before his election to office. Because many of these crises come from areas where the new president is not expert, he very often must rely on the experience of appointed heads of departments and offices, and so the decision in those appointments may prove pivotal in the success of the crisis resolution.
The quality of President Obama’s early appointments may therefore be far more significant than they may first appear.
The quality of President Obama’s early appointments may therefore be far more significant than they may first appear.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Minimum Standards
I keep hearing how ‘historic’ this election is. After consideration, I do not agree. Oh, I understand the contention. Barack Obama is the first black man to be elected President of the United States. And the media seems to be bragging about how this has advanced the United States, morally, in doing so. But that really does not seem to me to be the case.
First, let’s start with the notion that a black man winning election makes that election ‘historic’. Really now, by that logic we have had a lot of ‘historic’ elections. George Washington was the first president, John Adams the first president not named Washington, various presidents were the first to be elected of their party, Thomas Jefferson was the first president to be elected in a contest decided by the House of Representatives, Martin Van Buren was the first natural-born American to be elected president, John Quincy Adams was the first president elected in an election where citizens voted for their states’ electors, James Buchanan was the first and so far only bachelor to be elected president, John Kennedy was the first Catholic president, and so on and so on. Party, region, constitutional quirk, all kinds of ‘firsts’ have come to pass over the years. Skin tone hardly seems to jump out as a significant reason to call an election ‘historic’.
I do realize that those who are cheering this election as ‘historic’ see this as more than a cosmetic change. But there again, I cannot agree. Barack Obama was hardly the first black man to run for president, even as a candidate for a major political party. Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes preceded him as notable democrat and republican candidates, but even they were not the first. Barack Obama did not win because he had overcome a prejudice against black candidates; he won because of a combination of slick advertising, a popular message, and an economic crisis with the sitting president belonging to the opposing party.
What is strange about Obama’s focus on being the first black president, is that he started his campaign claiming to be beyond that. Beyond playing the race card, beyond attack politics. Of course, we know that was just a lie; Obama’s campaign regularly attacked any criticism as “racism”. Obama’s campaign saw nothing wrong with sexism or age bias, either. McCain was cast as ‘too old’ and Team Obama started countless rumors about his health. Palin was the target of a relentless smear campaign, from lawyers sent to paw through her trash to talk show hosts trashing her success as a governor, this of course coming only after similar smear campaigns against Hillary Clinton. That’s not to say too much against Obama; Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon used smear tactics with similar success, so in that regard Obama was merely following a proven method to winning. But anyone claiming that Barack Obama represented a higher standard of ethics and personal integrity is well off the mark. Barack Obama is a man of minimum qualifications and standards, and so is hard-pressed to find an accomplishment he can point to as genuinely historic. Certainly this election does not promise such lofty hopes.
First, let’s start with the notion that a black man winning election makes that election ‘historic’. Really now, by that logic we have had a lot of ‘historic’ elections. George Washington was the first president, John Adams the first president not named Washington, various presidents were the first to be elected of their party, Thomas Jefferson was the first president to be elected in a contest decided by the House of Representatives, Martin Van Buren was the first natural-born American to be elected president, John Quincy Adams was the first president elected in an election where citizens voted for their states’ electors, James Buchanan was the first and so far only bachelor to be elected president, John Kennedy was the first Catholic president, and so on and so on. Party, region, constitutional quirk, all kinds of ‘firsts’ have come to pass over the years. Skin tone hardly seems to jump out as a significant reason to call an election ‘historic’.
I do realize that those who are cheering this election as ‘historic’ see this as more than a cosmetic change. But there again, I cannot agree. Barack Obama was hardly the first black man to run for president, even as a candidate for a major political party. Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes preceded him as notable democrat and republican candidates, but even they were not the first. Barack Obama did not win because he had overcome a prejudice against black candidates; he won because of a combination of slick advertising, a popular message, and an economic crisis with the sitting president belonging to the opposing party.
What is strange about Obama’s focus on being the first black president, is that he started his campaign claiming to be beyond that. Beyond playing the race card, beyond attack politics. Of course, we know that was just a lie; Obama’s campaign regularly attacked any criticism as “racism”. Obama’s campaign saw nothing wrong with sexism or age bias, either. McCain was cast as ‘too old’ and Team Obama started countless rumors about his health. Palin was the target of a relentless smear campaign, from lawyers sent to paw through her trash to talk show hosts trashing her success as a governor, this of course coming only after similar smear campaigns against Hillary Clinton. That’s not to say too much against Obama; Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon used smear tactics with similar success, so in that regard Obama was merely following a proven method to winning. But anyone claiming that Barack Obama represented a higher standard of ethics and personal integrity is well off the mark. Barack Obama is a man of minimum qualifications and standards, and so is hard-pressed to find an accomplishment he can point to as genuinely historic. Certainly this election does not promise such lofty hopes.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Hopeless is Not Powerless
In an earlier post, I wrote that now there is no hope. I think the context of that statement is apparent, but perhaps not its meaning. It appears that some folks think that when hope is gone, the war is over, there is no more resistance.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Hope stays the desperate man from using all the tools at his disposal. When hope is lost, so is the last restraint.
My ancestors were murdered in Hungary, in Scotland, and in Pennsylvania, all because they stood up to thugs, tyrants, and oppressors. We have lost everything countless times, yet we still exist. And it is when we are hopeless that we are the most dangerous. I am neither violent nor unlawful, but I am still dangerous to tyrants, and men like me are everywhere.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Hope stays the desperate man from using all the tools at his disposal. When hope is lost, so is the last restraint.
My ancestors were murdered in Hungary, in Scotland, and in Pennsylvania, all because they stood up to thugs, tyrants, and oppressors. We have lost everything countless times, yet we still exist. And it is when we are hopeless that we are the most dangerous. I am neither violent nor unlawful, but I am still dangerous to tyrants, and men like me are everywhere.
Not 1976
Emotions are still running a bit high from the election. That’s actually reasonable, given the stakes, but such emotion often leads to statements which do not really stand up to inspection, one common to this week being that we have returned to 1976. I understood the analogy right away: A new president replacing a party presumed to be in disgrace, that new president having remarkably little experience but supported by a party in control of both chambers of Congress. A public disillusionment with a recent war and a desire to hide from conflicts, coupled with uncertainty about the economy and a moral desire to be good global citizens. At first glance, there seem to be a lot of similarities between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.
But let’s look deeper. First, James Earl Carter was governor of the state of Georgia when he was elected to the White House, while Barack Obama was a senator from the state of Illinois. In some respects, it is all the more remarkable that a sitting senator won election as president for only the second time since 1920. Four of the last five presidents served as governors, in large part because governors are not only executives but also have direct knowledge of the difference between how the federal and state governments function, and this is generally reflected in the manner in which governors explain their positions as presidential candidates. Carter was much more specific and direct in his positions during the 1976 campaign.
Jimmy Carter served seven years as a naval officer, following his graduation from Annapolis. Barack Obama has never served in the military. Jimmy Carter owned and ran a large successful business before entering politics, while Barack Obama has nothing but politics in his resume, no business experience of any kind whatsoever. Jimmy Carter won in the now-traditional ‘Southern Strategy’, based on southern states and majority demographics. Barack Obama won through a media flood and with hundreds of millions of dollars from hidden sponsors targeted at major urban centers and demographic minorities.
Conditions are different as well. Carter inherited a stable economy with modest growth, and a half-global American hegemony of influence and power. Obama inherits an economy in crisis and a global community which threatens key American interests in dozens of locations and issues. Carter inherited a cold war condition, with a reasonable yet implacable enemy with the capability of ending all human life on the planet. Obama inherits a continuing War on Terror, with no main enemy capable of destroying the nation but a myriad number of small but vicious groups which mean to kill Americans and destabilize our nation and our allies, who cannot be reasoned with and who have no limits to their rapacity and cruelty. Women, children, the innocent are not only considered valid targets but are often the preferred targets by these groups. The main enemy of the United States today is a large and populous nation which controls much and influences more, which pretends both civility and a love of peace yet prepares for what it sees as an inevitable confrontation with America, one in which the loser is annihilated.
In 1976, Carter won on issues of re-establishing a standard of accountability in the White House, of addressing real-world needs of Americans, and in a spirit of respect for his opponents. Today, Obama won on vague promises which cannot be fulfilled in practice, on intimidation and social pressure to conform, and with deliberate malice towards anyone who did not fall into line. In 1976, pollution meant carbon monoxide, which kills all living things. Today, pollution means carbon dioxide, which is necessary for plant life and which is generally benign to animals. Carter tried to ‘zero base’ the federal budget, to rein back any spending that could not be proven to be absolutely necessary. Today, Obama has already promised trillions of dollars in new spending, but with no solid answer for how it would be paid for, and how it would prove to be effective.
In 1976, republicans could take comfort in the fact that Gerald Ford only lost by a couple points to Carter, and that Ronald Reagan had already demonstrated a capability and competency that would see him elected four years later. In 2008, McCain‘s campaign was disjointed and lacked a clear message, and there is no clear leader for the party for 2012.
In 1976, there was hope. In 2008, there is no hope.
But let’s look deeper. First, James Earl Carter was governor of the state of Georgia when he was elected to the White House, while Barack Obama was a senator from the state of Illinois. In some respects, it is all the more remarkable that a sitting senator won election as president for only the second time since 1920. Four of the last five presidents served as governors, in large part because governors are not only executives but also have direct knowledge of the difference between how the federal and state governments function, and this is generally reflected in the manner in which governors explain their positions as presidential candidates. Carter was much more specific and direct in his positions during the 1976 campaign.
Jimmy Carter served seven years as a naval officer, following his graduation from Annapolis. Barack Obama has never served in the military. Jimmy Carter owned and ran a large successful business before entering politics, while Barack Obama has nothing but politics in his resume, no business experience of any kind whatsoever. Jimmy Carter won in the now-traditional ‘Southern Strategy’, based on southern states and majority demographics. Barack Obama won through a media flood and with hundreds of millions of dollars from hidden sponsors targeted at major urban centers and demographic minorities.
Conditions are different as well. Carter inherited a stable economy with modest growth, and a half-global American hegemony of influence and power. Obama inherits an economy in crisis and a global community which threatens key American interests in dozens of locations and issues. Carter inherited a cold war condition, with a reasonable yet implacable enemy with the capability of ending all human life on the planet. Obama inherits a continuing War on Terror, with no main enemy capable of destroying the nation but a myriad number of small but vicious groups which mean to kill Americans and destabilize our nation and our allies, who cannot be reasoned with and who have no limits to their rapacity and cruelty. Women, children, the innocent are not only considered valid targets but are often the preferred targets by these groups. The main enemy of the United States today is a large and populous nation which controls much and influences more, which pretends both civility and a love of peace yet prepares for what it sees as an inevitable confrontation with America, one in which the loser is annihilated.
In 1976, Carter won on issues of re-establishing a standard of accountability in the White House, of addressing real-world needs of Americans, and in a spirit of respect for his opponents. Today, Obama won on vague promises which cannot be fulfilled in practice, on intimidation and social pressure to conform, and with deliberate malice towards anyone who did not fall into line. In 1976, pollution meant carbon monoxide, which kills all living things. Today, pollution means carbon dioxide, which is necessary for plant life and which is generally benign to animals. Carter tried to ‘zero base’ the federal budget, to rein back any spending that could not be proven to be absolutely necessary. Today, Obama has already promised trillions of dollars in new spending, but with no solid answer for how it would be paid for, and how it would prove to be effective.
In 1976, republicans could take comfort in the fact that Gerald Ford only lost by a couple points to Carter, and that Ronald Reagan had already demonstrated a capability and competency that would see him elected four years later. In 2008, McCain‘s campaign was disjointed and lacked a clear message, and there is no clear leader for the party for 2012.
In 1976, there was hope. In 2008, there is no hope.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
State Poll Accuracy 2008
The election of 2008 having been concluded for the main part, examination of the numbers is becoming possible. Some of the national polls were quite a bit off, but others seem to have been correct, at least in their final submission. My own opinions on the national polls have been stated and debated and mocked by some, so there is no purpose now to revisiting them. The last venue of interest for now with regard to polls is the state polls. It should be noted that except for Rasmussen, most of the groups doing state polling did not also do national polls. There are two ways to look at the accuracy of state polls; comparing specific polls to the results, and comparing various indicators to the election results. The one may be used to grade the success of various polling agencies, and I shall post on that method in the near future, but the other gives a look at the overall efficacy of state polling, especially that popular practice of aggregating results. With that in mind, here are the results for the salient indicators. I am noting the historical average since 1948, the results from 2004, the Real Clear Politics average of polls, the reweighted average using 2006 demographics, and the actual election results.
Compared to the historical average since 1948, Barack Obama collected less support in 7 states, the same in 1, and more in 42. John McCain collected less support in 26 states, the same in 3, and more in 21 states. On average Obama outperformed the historical average by 5.30 points, while McCain outperformed the historical average by 0.36 points. The reason both candidates can outperform the historical average is the significant participation of third-party candidates in historical elections. The historical average does not appear to be useful as a vector for future behavior. Shorter terms will be examined, but if one appears to match the results from 2008, that term would have to be tested against earlier elections to see if the trend was applicable outside the moment.
Compared to the 2004 election, Barack Obama collected less support than John Kerry in 3 states, the same in 4, and more in 43. John McCain collected less support than George W. Bush in 43 states, the same in 3, and more in 4 states. On average Obama outperformed Kerry’s 2004 results by 4.76 points, while McCain underperformed Bush’s 2004 results by 4.58 points.
Compared the the RCP average for each state, Barack Obama collected less support in 4 states, more in 43, and exactly what was called in 3 states. John McCain collected less support than the RCP average in 5 states, more in 40, and exactly what was called in 5 states. It should be noted that the RCP averages had a certain amount of undecided weight, which is one reason why 83 out of 100 calls were less than the amount received in the actual election. On average Obama outperformed predicted support by RCP by 3.02 points, while McCain outperformed RCP support by 2.80 points.
Compared to the reweighted average for party affiliation, Barack Obama received less support in 2 states, more in 48, and the reweights were exactly right in no states. John McCain collected less support than the reweighted average in 20 states, more in 23, and the reweights were exactlty right in 7 states. On average Obama outperformed the reweighted averages by 5.82 points, while McCain’s average was identical to the reweighted averages. The significance of this datum, especially with 7 exact calls using historical reweights, is that for the republican candidate the reweighting corrects the polls’ undercount of support, but at least in this election, the democratic party candidate’s support was better measured by the unadjusted polls.
More information is needed for a better analysis, but the preliminary indication from this review, is that rather than a ‘Bradley effect’ being in play, the polls at the state level may have understated Obama’s support.
Compared to the historical average since 1948, Barack Obama collected less support in 7 states, the same in 1, and more in 42. John McCain collected less support in 26 states, the same in 3, and more in 21 states. On average Obama outperformed the historical average by 5.30 points, while McCain outperformed the historical average by 0.36 points. The reason both candidates can outperform the historical average is the significant participation of third-party candidates in historical elections. The historical average does not appear to be useful as a vector for future behavior. Shorter terms will be examined, but if one appears to match the results from 2008, that term would have to be tested against earlier elections to see if the trend was applicable outside the moment.
Compared to the 2004 election, Barack Obama collected less support than John Kerry in 3 states, the same in 4, and more in 43. John McCain collected less support than George W. Bush in 43 states, the same in 3, and more in 4 states. On average Obama outperformed Kerry’s 2004 results by 4.76 points, while McCain underperformed Bush’s 2004 results by 4.58 points.
Compared the the RCP average for each state, Barack Obama collected less support in 4 states, more in 43, and exactly what was called in 3 states. John McCain collected less support than the RCP average in 5 states, more in 40, and exactly what was called in 5 states. It should be noted that the RCP averages had a certain amount of undecided weight, which is one reason why 83 out of 100 calls were less than the amount received in the actual election. On average Obama outperformed predicted support by RCP by 3.02 points, while McCain outperformed RCP support by 2.80 points.
Compared to the reweighted average for party affiliation, Barack Obama received less support in 2 states, more in 48, and the reweights were exactly right in no states. John McCain collected less support than the reweighted average in 20 states, more in 23, and the reweights were exactlty right in 7 states. On average Obama outperformed the reweighted averages by 5.82 points, while McCain’s average was identical to the reweighted averages. The significance of this datum, especially with 7 exact calls using historical reweights, is that for the republican candidate the reweighting corrects the polls’ undercount of support, but at least in this election, the democratic party candidate’s support was better measured by the unadjusted polls.
More information is needed for a better analysis, but the preliminary indication from this review, is that rather than a ‘Bradley effect’ being in play, the polls at the state level may have understated Obama’s support.
The Wrong Man Won
Despite the media hype, there are a lot of people who believe that the wrong man won the election on Tuesday. At least 55 million people voted so. This does not mean that President-elect Obama's victory is not genuine, but it reminds us that for all his sneering at the job done by President Bush, Barack the Beginner will be hard-pressed to do as well, much less keep all the promises he made in order to win the office. Take a look at the map, especially by county - Obama won the big cities and the coasts, but there's a lot of America that did not want him and whose support he needs if he is to be effective.
This is not a slap at Obama, however. One reason the Bush Administration was less than effective at times, was that the same conditions existed in his terms. Almost sixty million voters wanted Kerry in 2004, and in 2000 the popular vote went for Gore. In those elections there were a lot of Americans who thought Bush was the wrong man. Look at Clinton, his 1992 election brought less support than Bush took in 2000, and Clinton's 1996 re-election was weaker than Bush's 2004 campaign, never making a clear majority either time, so the 'we did not want him' theme is even stronger in the Clinton years. Even in the Reagan years, folks sometimes forget that tens of millions of Americans voted for Carter, then Mondale. If the 'Great Communicator' could not sell his case to everyone, then no one could. It's culture as much as politics, and personal ethics as much as public policy.
Barack Obama is about to find out that the real test is just beginning. It was one thing to run as a fresh face and a popular image; it's something else to get the results he promised. Even with a democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama may find out that his policies and proposals still run into obstacles (a lot of folks forget that Clinton's Healthcare plan of 1993 was shot down by a democrat-run Congress). This happens because Congressmen and Senators do listen to their constituents, and an angry public is a powerful force.
This is not a slap at Obama, however. One reason the Bush Administration was less than effective at times, was that the same conditions existed in his terms. Almost sixty million voters wanted Kerry in 2004, and in 2000 the popular vote went for Gore. In those elections there were a lot of Americans who thought Bush was the wrong man. Look at Clinton, his 1992 election brought less support than Bush took in 2000, and Clinton's 1996 re-election was weaker than Bush's 2004 campaign, never making a clear majority either time, so the 'we did not want him' theme is even stronger in the Clinton years. Even in the Reagan years, folks sometimes forget that tens of millions of Americans voted for Carter, then Mondale. If the 'Great Communicator' could not sell his case to everyone, then no one could. It's culture as much as politics, and personal ethics as much as public policy.
Barack Obama is about to find out that the real test is just beginning. It was one thing to run as a fresh face and a popular image; it's something else to get the results he promised. Even with a democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama may find out that his policies and proposals still run into obstacles (a lot of folks forget that Clinton's Healthcare plan of 1993 was shot down by a democrat-run Congress). This happens because Congressmen and Senators do listen to their constituents, and an angry public is a powerful force.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
I Dissent
Back in 2000, when Al Gore tried to have the election decided by lawyers instead of the voters, the mess was sorted out by a series of court decisions, the last one the United States Supreme Court. When the high court finally ruled that the law in Florida trumped the lawyers for Gore, emotions were still strong, even among the justices. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was particularly incensed with the decision, and she wrote a scathing criticism of the opinion, concluding wth the curt but clear phrase, ”I dissent”.
Short, angry, bitter, and in the minority. I now feel as I believe Justice Ginsberg felt at that time. This election was not, despite the hype, the grand demonstration of egalitarian democracy and the fulfillment of promised ideals. Rather, it proved that a slick thug from Chicago with no executive experience whatsoever can get elected President if he has enough money, is protected from tough questions by a complicit media, and runs a campaign on pure style and hype. It’s not just for con men anymore.
I wrote last month that the polls were wrong. I also said that if I were wrong, I would stand and take my lumps for it. The reader will make his or her own decision, but I would like to address the facts of the polls’ Otober reports, and compare that to the actual election results as they appear to be forming up. I would argue that my statement in October, however it appears now, was valid and should be considered moving ahead.
First, the election results. At this time, President-elect Obama has won 52% of the popular vote, while Senator McCain has received 46% of the popular vote. Against that, let’s look at what the polls were saying on October 21:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 52-42 Obama
Ipsos/McClatchey: 50-42 Obama
Pew Research: 53-39 Obama
IBD/TIPP: 47-44 Obama
GWU/Battleground: 49-46 Obama
Newsweek: 53-41 Obama
Rasmussen: 52-45 Obama
Gallup (traditional): 50-46 Obama
Gallup (expanded): 51-45 Obama
Diageo/Hotline: 48-43 Obama
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: 52-40 Obama
ABC News/Wash Post: 54-43 Obama
At first glance, three things seem to be true: Some of the polls were wrong, some were close, and most were closer on Obama’s actual support than McCain’s. However, these polls all show a certain number of undecideds, and this is an important factor to consider – how did the last-minute voters go? For the polls to be accurate, here’s how the undecideds would have to have broken from each poll:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Obama stays even while McCain gains 4
Ipsos/McClatchey: Obama gains 2, while McCain gains 4
Pew Research: Obama loses 1 while McCain gains 7
IBD/TIPP: Obama gains 5 while McCain gains 2
GWU/Battleground: Obama gains 3 while McCain stays even
Newsweek: Obama loses 1 while McCain gains 5
Rasmussen: Obama stays even while McCain gains 1
Gallup (traditional): Obama gains 2 while McCain stays even
Gallup (expanded): Obama gains 1 while Mccain gains 1
Diageo/Hotline: Obama gains 4 while McCain gains 3
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: Obama stays even while McCain gains 6
ABC News/Wash Post: Obama loses 2 while McCain gains 3
Note how many of these polls would have to claim McCain made big gains among last-minute voters, for their poll to be correct? Well then, how did last-minute voters actually vote? According to CNN, they were essentially split, with a slight edge going to Obama.
So, that means that – as I said – the polls were generally wrong.
How big a deal is that? Let’s look at the margin in those polls, and compare that to the actual 6-point margin in the election:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Obama by 10
Ipsos/McClatchey: Obama by 8
Pew Research: Obama by 14
IBD/TIPP: Obama by 3
GWU/Battleground: Obama by 3
Newsweek: Obama by 12
Rasmussen: Obama by 7
Gallup (traditional): Obama by 4
Gallup (expanded): Obama by 6
Diageo/Hotline: Obama by 5
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: Obama by 12
ABC News/Wash Post: Obama by 11
Notice how much those margins support Obama, and we know now they were inflated. Consider the next fact; turnout this year was down, not up. Down by more than five million votes from 2004. Somebody did not bother to vote this year. But who was it?
Again looking at CNN, it turns out that participation by democrats was 7 points higher than republicans. There was a modest 3 percent increase nationally in democrat voter registration from 2004’s tallies, while republicans dropped turnout by at least 15 percent from 2004. So if you are one of those eight million republicans who thought there was no reason to vote congratulations, you helped get Senator Thug-Light elected President. I have said all along that the election would come down to turnout, the independents, and the undecided voter, in that order.
So there it is. The polls were right and I was wrong, in so far that they predicted republicans would stay home. I disagree, however, that this means the number of people who consider themselves democrats has risen to a 7-point advantage. That will depend on how well Obama governs as President. And I have no confidence at all, that he is competent for the responsibility. That is an area where I would very much like to be wrong, because the consequences are dire indeed if I should this time prove to be right.
I would like to thank everyone who has been reading my work this campaign season. I realize that with the election over and Captain Unicorn having won the Fairy Kingdom, interest in polling and statistics will once again drop off sharply, especially by those who think the headline tells the whole story. I still maintain that the models were wrong, and the publicity of those polls may have played a role in suppressing republican support, but I accept that I will be in the minority in that opinion.
Short, angry, bitter, and in the minority. I now feel as I believe Justice Ginsberg felt at that time. This election was not, despite the hype, the grand demonstration of egalitarian democracy and the fulfillment of promised ideals. Rather, it proved that a slick thug from Chicago with no executive experience whatsoever can get elected President if he has enough money, is protected from tough questions by a complicit media, and runs a campaign on pure style and hype. It’s not just for con men anymore.
I wrote last month that the polls were wrong. I also said that if I were wrong, I would stand and take my lumps for it. The reader will make his or her own decision, but I would like to address the facts of the polls’ Otober reports, and compare that to the actual election results as they appear to be forming up. I would argue that my statement in October, however it appears now, was valid and should be considered moving ahead.
First, the election results. At this time, President-elect Obama has won 52% of the popular vote, while Senator McCain has received 46% of the popular vote. Against that, let’s look at what the polls were saying on October 21:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 52-42 Obama
Ipsos/McClatchey: 50-42 Obama
Pew Research: 53-39 Obama
IBD/TIPP: 47-44 Obama
GWU/Battleground: 49-46 Obama
Newsweek: 53-41 Obama
Rasmussen: 52-45 Obama
Gallup (traditional): 50-46 Obama
Gallup (expanded): 51-45 Obama
Diageo/Hotline: 48-43 Obama
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: 52-40 Obama
ABC News/Wash Post: 54-43 Obama
At first glance, three things seem to be true: Some of the polls were wrong, some were close, and most were closer on Obama’s actual support than McCain’s. However, these polls all show a certain number of undecideds, and this is an important factor to consider – how did the last-minute voters go? For the polls to be accurate, here’s how the undecideds would have to have broken from each poll:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Obama stays even while McCain gains 4
Ipsos/McClatchey: Obama gains 2, while McCain gains 4
Pew Research: Obama loses 1 while McCain gains 7
IBD/TIPP: Obama gains 5 while McCain gains 2
GWU/Battleground: Obama gains 3 while McCain stays even
Newsweek: Obama loses 1 while McCain gains 5
Rasmussen: Obama stays even while McCain gains 1
Gallup (traditional): Obama gains 2 while McCain stays even
Gallup (expanded): Obama gains 1 while Mccain gains 1
Diageo/Hotline: Obama gains 4 while McCain gains 3
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: Obama stays even while McCain gains 6
ABC News/Wash Post: Obama loses 2 while McCain gains 3
Note how many of these polls would have to claim McCain made big gains among last-minute voters, for their poll to be correct? Well then, how did last-minute voters actually vote? According to CNN, they were essentially split, with a slight edge going to Obama.
So, that means that – as I said – the polls were generally wrong.
How big a deal is that? Let’s look at the margin in those polls, and compare that to the actual 6-point margin in the election:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Obama by 10
Ipsos/McClatchey: Obama by 8
Pew Research: Obama by 14
IBD/TIPP: Obama by 3
GWU/Battleground: Obama by 3
Newsweek: Obama by 12
Rasmussen: Obama by 7
Gallup (traditional): Obama by 4
Gallup (expanded): Obama by 6
Diageo/Hotline: Obama by 5
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: Obama by 12
ABC News/Wash Post: Obama by 11
Notice how much those margins support Obama, and we know now they were inflated. Consider the next fact; turnout this year was down, not up. Down by more than five million votes from 2004. Somebody did not bother to vote this year. But who was it?
Again looking at CNN, it turns out that participation by democrats was 7 points higher than republicans. There was a modest 3 percent increase nationally in democrat voter registration from 2004’s tallies, while republicans dropped turnout by at least 15 percent from 2004. So if you are one of those eight million republicans who thought there was no reason to vote congratulations, you helped get Senator Thug-Light elected President. I have said all along that the election would come down to turnout, the independents, and the undecided voter, in that order.
So there it is. The polls were right and I was wrong, in so far that they predicted republicans would stay home. I disagree, however, that this means the number of people who consider themselves democrats has risen to a 7-point advantage. That will depend on how well Obama governs as President. And I have no confidence at all, that he is competent for the responsibility. That is an area where I would very much like to be wrong, because the consequences are dire indeed if I should this time prove to be right.
I would like to thank everyone who has been reading my work this campaign season. I realize that with the election over and Captain Unicorn having won the Fairy Kingdom, interest in polling and statistics will once again drop off sharply, especially by those who think the headline tells the whole story. I still maintain that the models were wrong, and the publicity of those polls may have played a role in suppressing republican support, but I accept that I will be in the minority in that opinion.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Waiting
I hate waiting. Everyone I know hates to wait, but I’m really bad about it, especially if I want to know something I think is really important. So yes, I’m stressing right now and I think a lot of us are. This election really is different from any we have seen before, and not because of race or gender.
One thing which bothers me, is that whichever way the election turns out, there are going to be people – many – who will not accept the results. The polls, the media, and the mainstream news have been so thoroughly pro-Obama all year, that Obama’s victory is being broadcast as ‘inevitable’. If it turns out they were all wrong, then a lot of people will fall even harder on the memes of conspiracy theories and presumption of racism. They will never respect a ‘President McCain’. But what if Obama wins? That will not fare well, either. Americans have seen what happens to the few people brave enough to ask direct questions of Obama, and who have dared to stand up to his “in your face” style of politics. They have noticed how the votes of overseas military are treated, how the ‘party of women’s rights’ treated the most successful national female candidate in history, how those who hire and promote most of the working Americans are repaid, how the party of ‘fairness’ hides its nominee’s funding of hundreds of millions of dollars from shadowy backers, how groups like ACORN treat the sanctity of elections, how the definition of “middle class” changes according to the moment. They see all this and many Americans will not trust a ‘President Obama’. The divide between Americans and their government will become worse, it will not heal with Barack Obama in control, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running legislation however they please in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Whatever happens, we are in a time of crisis, and there will be daunting challenges for the next President. Once it is time to put away the tools of the campaign of 2008, the President will have to face the Reality of 2009.
The one comfort we have in all of this, is that it seems God has protected and guided this nation. And this election is in His hands. This is not to say that He would not let us have an incompetent President, or even a very bad one. History tells us not to assume so. But if we trust the Lord, He will yet preserve us, and mayhap our nation will survive what is to come. And perhaps, if we trust Him, we shall yet find that our next President is up to the job. But we will have to wait for that time, to see what happens.
And while I have no choice, I hate to wait.
One thing which bothers me, is that whichever way the election turns out, there are going to be people – many – who will not accept the results. The polls, the media, and the mainstream news have been so thoroughly pro-Obama all year, that Obama’s victory is being broadcast as ‘inevitable’. If it turns out they were all wrong, then a lot of people will fall even harder on the memes of conspiracy theories and presumption of racism. They will never respect a ‘President McCain’. But what if Obama wins? That will not fare well, either. Americans have seen what happens to the few people brave enough to ask direct questions of Obama, and who have dared to stand up to his “in your face” style of politics. They have noticed how the votes of overseas military are treated, how the ‘party of women’s rights’ treated the most successful national female candidate in history, how those who hire and promote most of the working Americans are repaid, how the party of ‘fairness’ hides its nominee’s funding of hundreds of millions of dollars from shadowy backers, how groups like ACORN treat the sanctity of elections, how the definition of “middle class” changes according to the moment. They see all this and many Americans will not trust a ‘President Obama’. The divide between Americans and their government will become worse, it will not heal with Barack Obama in control, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running legislation however they please in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Whatever happens, we are in a time of crisis, and there will be daunting challenges for the next President. Once it is time to put away the tools of the campaign of 2008, the President will have to face the Reality of 2009.
The one comfort we have in all of this, is that it seems God has protected and guided this nation. And this election is in His hands. This is not to say that He would not let us have an incompetent President, or even a very bad one. History tells us not to assume so. But if we trust the Lord, He will yet preserve us, and mayhap our nation will survive what is to come. And perhaps, if we trust Him, we shall yet find that our next President is up to the job. But we will have to wait for that time, to see what happens.
And while I have no choice, I hate to wait.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Turners
I’d like you to take a mental walk with me, to explore the Electoral map from the historical perspective. The reason for it will become self-evident, I believe.
The race to the White House is actually 51 separate races, each of which awards between 1 and 55 electoral votes (the 1 comes from Nebraska and Maine, which award individual electoral votes according to results from the state’s precincts. As Mister Gore found out in 2000, it is entirely possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote yet win the election, although because of the way states line up it is almost impossible for Obama to win the election without also winning the popular vote. Anyway, the finish line is set at 270 electoral votes, and the goal therefore is to reach or pass that line.
We’ve heard so much for so long about “blue” states and “red” states, that we start to miss the significance of those tags. First off, some states get tagged “red” or “blue” just because they went one way in the last election. But in some cases, the name is valid. What I want to do here, is separate the states which do not shift much, from the ones which truly are possible losses or gains, what I call “turners”. Any state can be had, of course, under the right circumstances, but the history gives us a good look at how likely that really is to happen.
First, let’s look at the true blue states, states which have generally gone democrat in presidential elections since 1948 and we should expect no different now. Looking at the election results, we see the following:
“Locks” for Obama:
District of Columbia: Since 1960 D 51%+ 100.0%, R 51%+ 0.0%, Democrat last 12 elections, avg since 1960 83.2-13.8 D, 89-09 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require a 92-point swing from 2004. [92.0% chance Obama]
Hawaii: Since 1960 D 51%+ 58.3%, R 51%+ 16.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1960 53.2-43.0 D, 54-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [73.4% chance Obama]
Massachusetts: Since 1948 D 51%+ 66.7%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 55.1-48.2 R, 62-37 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 27-point swing from 2004. [70.1% chance Obama]
Minnesota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 53.3%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 8 elections, avg since 1948 47.8-44.7 R, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [70.5% chance Obama]
“Locks” for McCain:
Alaska: Since 1960 D 51%+ 8.3%, R 51%+ 75.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1960 56.0-40.7 R, 61-36 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 27-point swing from 2004. [80.0% chance McCain]
Arizona: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-40.6 R, 55-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [82.8% chance McCain]
Colorado: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.7 R, 52-47 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 7-point swing from 2004. [75.0% chance McCain]
Florida: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 51.5-42.9 R, 52-47 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 7-point swing from 2004. [70.6% chance McCain]
Idaho: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 59.1-34.7 R, 68-30 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 40-point swing from 2004. [77.7% chance McCain]
Indiana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-41.6 R, 60-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [80.9% chance McCain]
Kansas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 86.7%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 57.5-37.8 R, 62-37 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 27-point swing from 2004. [81.7% chance McCain]
Montana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 52.7-42.5 R, 59-39 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [73.6% chance McCain]
Nebraska: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 86.7%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 60.9-35.2 R, 66-33 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 35-point swing from 2004. [80.9% chance McCain]
New Hampshire: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 66.7%, Democrat last 1 election, avg since 1948 53.5-42.3 R, 50-49 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [75.5% chance McCain]
North Dakota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 56.8-38.3 R, 63-35 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 30-point swing from 2004. [81.2% chance McCain]
Ohio: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 50.5-45.1 R, 50-46 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 6-point swing from 2004. [71.7% chance McCain]
Oklahoma: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 60.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 55.1-40.7 R, 66-34 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 34-point swing from 2004. [74.0% chance McCain]
South Dakota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 54.9-41.5 R, 60-38 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 24-point swing from 2004. [81.5% chance McCain]
Utah: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 60.5-34.4 R, 72-26 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 48-point swing from 2004. [74.2% chance McCain]
Virginia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.1 R, 54-45 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [79.4% chance McCain]
Wyoming: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 58.3-37.2 R, 69-29 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 42-point swing from 2004. [74.4% chance McCain]
States leaning Obama
California: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.1-47.3 R, 54-44 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [56.2% chance Obama]
Connecticut: Since 1948 D 51%+ 33.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 47.9-47.9 tie, 54-44 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [55.0% chance Obama]
Delaware: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.0-47.9 D, 53-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require a 10-point swing from 2004. [54.7% chance Obama]
Illinois: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.5-48.3 R, 55-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [54.4% chance Obama]
Maryland: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.6-46.8 D, 56-43 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 15-point swing from 2004. [57.2% chance Obama]
New York: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 26.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-45.5 D, 58-40 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 19-point swing from 2004. [57.7% chance Obama]
Rhode Island: Since 1948 D 51%+ 53.3%, R 51%+ 26.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-39.6 D, 59-39 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [61.3% chance Obama]
Vermont: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-44.2 D, 59-39 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [66.2% chance Obama]
Washington: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-45.3 D, 53-46 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 9-point swing from 2004. [69.1% chance Obama]
States leaning McCain:
Alabama: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 56.8-33.5 R, 63-37 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 28-point swing from 2004. [56.8% chance McCain]
Arkansas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 48.6-45.1 D, 54-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [55.4% chance McCain]
Georgia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 49.0-45.7 D, 57-41 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require an 18-point swing from 2004. [54.7% chance McCain]
Iowa: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 1 election, avg since 1948 50.1-46.3 R, 50-49 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 3-point swing from 2004. [67.4% chance McCain]
Kentucky: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 50.4-46.1 R, 60-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [62.5% chance McCain]
Louisiana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 46.4-42.6 R, 57-42 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 17-point swing from 2004. [58.8% chance McCain]
Mississippi: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 47.2-37.3 R, 59-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 20-point swing from 2004. [61.9% chance McCain]
Missouri: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 49.1-48.1 R, 53-46 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 9-point swing from 2004. [59.8% chance McCain]
Nevada: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.4 R, 50-48 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 3-point swing from 2004. [69.0% chance McCain]
New Jersey: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.7-46.3 R, 53-46 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 8-point swing from 2004. [56.2% chance McCain]
New Mexico: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 1 election, avg since 1948 50.3-46.2 R, 50-49 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [62.8% chance McCain]
South Carolina: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 48.4-41.5 R, 58-41 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 19-point swing from 2004. [61.5% chance McCain]
Tennessee: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 49.6-45.4 R, 57-43 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 16-point swing from 2004. [66.3% chance McCain]
Texas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 50.5-44.9 R, 61-38 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 25-point swing from 2004. [59.7% chance McCain]
West Virginia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 48.3-47.1 R, 56-43 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 15-point swing from 2004. [58.1% chance McCain]
Toss-up States:
Maine: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.8-45.5 R, 56-43 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 25-point swing from 2004. [51.6% chance Obama]
Michigan: Since 1948 D 51%+ 33.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.2-47.8 R, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [53.3% chance McCain]
North Carolina: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 49.8-45.7 R, 56-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 14-point swing from 2004. [51.6% chance Obama]
Oregon: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 53.3-46.7 R, 51-47 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 6-point swing from 2004. [50.2% chance Obama]
Pennsylvania: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.8-48.0 D, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [51.5% chance Obama]
Wisconsin: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 48.7-46.9 R, 50-49 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [52.3% chance McCain]
The percentage chance of a candidate taking a state is a formula incorporating the percentage of wins by a party in a state since 1948, the percentage of elections where a party candidate claims 51% or more of the vote, the average support for a party in a state since 1948, the lowest and highest support levels for a party in a state since 1948, the RCP average polling for each candidate, and the 2004 results by party.
Please note that these are historical patterns only, and do not take into account demographic changes. But it does lend some historical perspective on the situation. Take it as you will.
The race to the White House is actually 51 separate races, each of which awards between 1 and 55 electoral votes (the 1 comes from Nebraska and Maine, which award individual electoral votes according to results from the state’s precincts. As Mister Gore found out in 2000, it is entirely possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote yet win the election, although because of the way states line up it is almost impossible for Obama to win the election without also winning the popular vote. Anyway, the finish line is set at 270 electoral votes, and the goal therefore is to reach or pass that line.
We’ve heard so much for so long about “blue” states and “red” states, that we start to miss the significance of those tags. First off, some states get tagged “red” or “blue” just because they went one way in the last election. But in some cases, the name is valid. What I want to do here, is separate the states which do not shift much, from the ones which truly are possible losses or gains, what I call “turners”. Any state can be had, of course, under the right circumstances, but the history gives us a good look at how likely that really is to happen.
First, let’s look at the true blue states, states which have generally gone democrat in presidential elections since 1948 and we should expect no different now. Looking at the election results, we see the following:
“Locks” for Obama:
District of Columbia: Since 1960 D 51%+ 100.0%, R 51%+ 0.0%, Democrat last 12 elections, avg since 1960 83.2-13.8 D, 89-09 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require a 92-point swing from 2004. [92.0% chance Obama]
Hawaii: Since 1960 D 51%+ 58.3%, R 51%+ 16.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1960 53.2-43.0 D, 54-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [73.4% chance Obama]
Massachusetts: Since 1948 D 51%+ 66.7%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 55.1-48.2 R, 62-37 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 27-point swing from 2004. [70.1% chance Obama]
Minnesota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 53.3%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 8 elections, avg since 1948 47.8-44.7 R, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [70.5% chance Obama]
“Locks” for McCain:
Alaska: Since 1960 D 51%+ 8.3%, R 51%+ 75.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1960 56.0-40.7 R, 61-36 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 27-point swing from 2004. [80.0% chance McCain]
Arizona: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-40.6 R, 55-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [82.8% chance McCain]
Colorado: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.7 R, 52-47 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 7-point swing from 2004. [75.0% chance McCain]
Florida: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 51.5-42.9 R, 52-47 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 7-point swing from 2004. [70.6% chance McCain]
Idaho: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 59.1-34.7 R, 68-30 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 40-point swing from 2004. [77.7% chance McCain]
Indiana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-41.6 R, 60-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [80.9% chance McCain]
Kansas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 86.7%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 57.5-37.8 R, 62-37 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 27-point swing from 2004. [81.7% chance McCain]
Montana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 52.7-42.5 R, 59-39 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [73.6% chance McCain]
Nebraska: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 86.7%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 60.9-35.2 R, 66-33 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 35-point swing from 2004. [80.9% chance McCain]
New Hampshire: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 66.7%, Democrat last 1 election, avg since 1948 53.5-42.3 R, 50-49 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [75.5% chance McCain]
North Dakota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 56.8-38.3 R, 63-35 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 30-point swing from 2004. [81.2% chance McCain]
Ohio: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 50.5-45.1 R, 50-46 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 6-point swing from 2004. [71.7% chance McCain]
Oklahoma: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 60.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 55.1-40.7 R, 66-34 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 34-point swing from 2004. [74.0% chance McCain]
South Dakota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 54.9-41.5 R, 60-38 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 24-point swing from 2004. [81.5% chance McCain]
Utah: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 60.5-34.4 R, 72-26 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 48-point swing from 2004. [74.2% chance McCain]
Virginia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.1 R, 54-45 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [79.4% chance McCain]
Wyoming: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 58.3-37.2 R, 69-29 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 42-point swing from 2004. [74.4% chance McCain]
States leaning Obama
California: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.1-47.3 R, 54-44 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [56.2% chance Obama]
Connecticut: Since 1948 D 51%+ 33.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 47.9-47.9 tie, 54-44 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [55.0% chance Obama]
Delaware: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.0-47.9 D, 53-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require a 10-point swing from 2004. [54.7% chance Obama]
Illinois: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.5-48.3 R, 55-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [54.4% chance Obama]
Maryland: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.6-46.8 D, 56-43 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 15-point swing from 2004. [57.2% chance Obama]
New York: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 26.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-45.5 D, 58-40 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 19-point swing from 2004. [57.7% chance Obama]
Rhode Island: Since 1948 D 51%+ 53.3%, R 51%+ 26.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-39.6 D, 59-39 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [61.3% chance Obama]
Vermont: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-44.2 D, 59-39 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [66.2% chance Obama]
Washington: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-45.3 D, 53-46 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 9-point swing from 2004. [69.1% chance Obama]
States leaning McCain:
Alabama: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 56.8-33.5 R, 63-37 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 28-point swing from 2004. [56.8% chance McCain]
Arkansas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 48.6-45.1 D, 54-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [55.4% chance McCain]
Georgia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 49.0-45.7 D, 57-41 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require an 18-point swing from 2004. [54.7% chance McCain]
Iowa: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 1 election, avg since 1948 50.1-46.3 R, 50-49 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 3-point swing from 2004. [67.4% chance McCain]
Kentucky: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 50.4-46.1 R, 60-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [62.5% chance McCain]
Louisiana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 46.4-42.6 R, 57-42 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 17-point swing from 2004. [58.8% chance McCain]
Mississippi: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 47.2-37.3 R, 59-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 20-point swing from 2004. [61.9% chance McCain]
Missouri: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 49.1-48.1 R, 53-46 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 9-point swing from 2004. [59.8% chance McCain]
Nevada: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.4 R, 50-48 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 3-point swing from 2004. [69.0% chance McCain]
New Jersey: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.7-46.3 R, 53-46 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 8-point swing from 2004. [56.2% chance McCain]
New Mexico: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 1 election, avg since 1948 50.3-46.2 R, 50-49 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [62.8% chance McCain]
South Carolina: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 48.4-41.5 R, 58-41 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 19-point swing from 2004. [61.5% chance McCain]
Tennessee: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 49.6-45.4 R, 57-43 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 16-point swing from 2004. [66.3% chance McCain]
Texas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 50.5-44.9 R, 61-38 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 25-point swing from 2004. [59.7% chance McCain]
West Virginia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 48.3-47.1 R, 56-43 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 15-point swing from 2004. [58.1% chance McCain]
Toss-up States:
Maine: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.8-45.5 R, 56-43 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 25-point swing from 2004. [51.6% chance Obama]
Michigan: Since 1948 D 51%+ 33.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.2-47.8 R, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [53.3% chance McCain]
North Carolina: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 49.8-45.7 R, 56-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 14-point swing from 2004. [51.6% chance Obama]
Oregon: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 53.3-46.7 R, 51-47 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 6-point swing from 2004. [50.2% chance Obama]
Pennsylvania: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.8-48.0 D, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [51.5% chance Obama]
Wisconsin: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 48.7-46.9 R, 50-49 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [52.3% chance McCain]
The percentage chance of a candidate taking a state is a formula incorporating the percentage of wins by a party in a state since 1948, the percentage of elections where a party candidate claims 51% or more of the vote, the average support for a party in a state since 1948, the lowest and highest support levels for a party in a state since 1948, the RCP average polling for each candidate, and the 2004 results by party.
Please note that these are historical patterns only, and do not take into account demographic changes. But it does lend some historical perspective on the situation. Take it as you will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
