November has arrived, and you can literally count down the hours until the polls open for the 2008 presidential election. This is the time where the pollster really earns their keep, polling incessantly, in every variation they can think of, day and night. But most of these polls reflect the popular vote. So, what does this really mean? You’d have to take all of the national and state polls and place them into context within each state, tallying that states electoral votes against the chances of a candidate winning and figure out who can hit the magic number. 270. That’s the magic number of electoral votes that clinches the deal, 270.
Now, without delving into the problems inherit in the Electoral College system, I think this would be a good time, as I said you can count the hours, to take a look at the breakdown of how either candidate could potentially win this election. There are a lot of states that any pollster, New York Times reader, or political junkie could tell you are all but shored up for the candidates, except for that voting bit, but who wants to wait for that. There are also a handful of states that, at this point, are certainly too close to call. These swing states would include Colorado (9), Florida (27), Indiana (11), Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nevada (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Virginia (13). (The number in parenthesis are the number of electoral votes each state has, this will important later.)
Here is the breakdown of the states that polls* seem to have conclusively (as conclusively as is possible, while being entire prone to errors) determined a winner in, the non-swing states. McCain is the likely winner in: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Nebraska (5), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), West Virginia (5), and Wyoming (3). Obama is the likely winner in: California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New Mexico (5), New York (31), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (11), and Wisconsin (10). These are certainly not guarantees for either candidate, but the polls and historical precedents seem to indicate that these states are in little danger of swinging. If these projections are correct than that leaves John McCain with 157 electoral votes and Barack Obama with 243 electoral votes before factoring in any swing states.
Though this is no guarantee of anything it appears that McCain needs to get out the vote in the swing states, in a big way, if he is going to win this election. There are certainly many X factors involved, but even in the expanded number of swing states this year Obama has the upper hand. In a combination of recent polling McCain only has the edge in North Dakota, Montana and Indiana. While Obama is polling stronger than McCain in Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. (Side note: Missouri currently has the longest record of voting for whoever wins the presidency*, and is the only swing state that has absolutely inconclusive polls at the moment. The polls vary from Obama by 2 points to McCain by 2 points*.) With both parties making calls and knocking on doors frantically in all these states with only minutes remaining it seems that anything could happen. But if the predicted states remain the same Obama only needs to pull out two of the bigger swing states to cross the 270 threshold. This should be of some consolation to Obama supporters who fear repeats of 2000 in Florida, where one swing state determined the fate of the nation. While this is still a possibility, it would take a serious turn around in almost all of the swing states for McCain and Palin to make a serious run. Polls across the nation still seem to be close, and McCain has gained some ground over the past week, but the electoral votes are still falling heavily in favor of Obama. In fact, if you tabulate the conglomerate of the polls in every state as though the polls represented actual votes (and give McCain Missouri, because this is a hypothetical and why not) Obama wins with 353 electoral votes to McCain’s 185. This, more likely than not, is not going to be the case on election day. But it’s interesting to extract exactly what these polls, which litter the papers daily, mean in terms of the electoral college, which is all that really matters in the end. *
* The polls used here are Reuters/Zogby, CNN/Time, LA Times/Bloomberg, AP/GfK Battleground, Civitas, Marist, American Research, Public Policy, Strategic Vision, Survey USA, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Selzer & Co., Research 2000, and Mason Dixon Research.
* Information taken from 270towin.com
* CNN/Time poll on 10/29 has McCain up by 2 points, American Research poll released on 10/31 have them even, and a Reuters/Zogby poll on 10/27 has Obama up by 2.
* The author wishes to note, that even if there is any truth in this article (which there may not be) that is not a reason for an uncast ballot.
Showing posts with label Joe Biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Biden. Show all posts
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Point, Counterpoint, Point
In case you haven't read a frustrated post on here called Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything, David Luke Doody (responses are posted at his blog This Is How I Love You) and I are having a battle in which we agree, but somehow disagree in some abstract way that no one really understands. Here is what has happened some far, followed by the latest counterpoint:
Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything
It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson
Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.
But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.
The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.
The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody
Point:
I would not argue that this (straightforward dialogue on the issues) will ever happen, because that's election year politicking, this is not a new revelation for anyone. But what happens in a presidential race is mimicked extensively in congressional elections. The presidential race sets the tone for the rest of the contests. If we had candidates that weren't concerned that speaking about the issues that could irritate the “on the fence” voters the congressional races would follow suit.
I think there is something to be said for that, because while the president should not be the "king" of America, there is a collective mentality that it is so (to a certain extent). So, whether or not it's true, it is made true by the actions of the constituents.
This is easily exemplified by the debates last night when the moderator asked Palin and Biden how they would act as vice president and if they would use Cheney's interpretation of the vice president’s duties as outlined by the constitution. I don't have the exact quote from the moderator, but she spoke about the constitution being vague on the exact location of power for the vice president. Palin immediately responded that she agreed with Cheney (red flag anyone? The first time anyone besides Bush and Lucifer have publicly agreed with Cheney). The specific branch where the powers of the vice president lie are not vaguely stated in the constitution, he (or potentially she) is a part of the executive branch, he is not a roving force that hovers over all branches of the government. But because someone argues for such powers, and convinces people of them, that can make it reality, whether or not it should be. The mere fact that this was phrased in this fashion and that Palin, without hesitation, responded she subscribes to this doctrine legitimizes this view. The president, especially now, as the executive branch continually expands it's power, the position functions beyond it's equal power doctrine between the branches. The checks and balances are broken.
From Article One of the Constitution:
That said, I agree with you. Any time radical change has come from within the government (it's hard to believe sometimes, but it's happened) it is not a result of a president taking more power into the executive branch, it is a result of a sweeping majority in one party through both houses of Congress. Obama is not the savior, and he isn't going to save the country by becoming president. I certainly believe that it's a step in the right direction, but to see radical change in government it's going to take a whole lot more than a president who is willing to stand up for their policies. (unless they want to tear the constitution to shreds and kind of have a free for all - as has happened recently, but even then, the Republicans had a solid majority when Bush first took office).
- Dustin Luke Nelson
Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything
It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson
Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.
But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.
The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.
The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody
Point:
I would not argue that this (straightforward dialogue on the issues) will ever happen, because that's election year politicking, this is not a new revelation for anyone. But what happens in a presidential race is mimicked extensively in congressional elections. The presidential race sets the tone for the rest of the contests. If we had candidates that weren't concerned that speaking about the issues that could irritate the “on the fence” voters the congressional races would follow suit.
I think there is something to be said for that, because while the president should not be the "king" of America, there is a collective mentality that it is so (to a certain extent). So, whether or not it's true, it is made true by the actions of the constituents.
This is easily exemplified by the debates last night when the moderator asked Palin and Biden how they would act as vice president and if they would use Cheney's interpretation of the vice president’s duties as outlined by the constitution. I don't have the exact quote from the moderator, but she spoke about the constitution being vague on the exact location of power for the vice president. Palin immediately responded that she agreed with Cheney (red flag anyone? The first time anyone besides Bush and Lucifer have publicly agreed with Cheney). The specific branch where the powers of the vice president lie are not vaguely stated in the constitution, he (or potentially she) is a part of the executive branch, he is not a roving force that hovers over all branches of the government. But because someone argues for such powers, and convinces people of them, that can make it reality, whether or not it should be. The mere fact that this was phrased in this fashion and that Palin, without hesitation, responded she subscribes to this doctrine legitimizes this view. The president, especially now, as the executive branch continually expands it's power, the position functions beyond it's equal power doctrine between the branches. The checks and balances are broken.
From Article One of the Constitution:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.
That said, I agree with you. Any time radical change has come from within the government (it's hard to believe sometimes, but it's happened) it is not a result of a president taking more power into the executive branch, it is a result of a sweeping majority in one party through both houses of Congress. Obama is not the savior, and he isn't going to save the country by becoming president. I certainly believe that it's a step in the right direction, but to see radical change in government it's going to take a whole lot more than a president who is willing to stand up for their policies. (unless they want to tear the constitution to shreds and kind of have a free for all - as has happened recently, but even then, the Republicans had a solid majority when Bush first took office).
- Dustin Luke Nelson
New Ideas? Anyone?
It seems as though the Republican mantra of trickle down economics is something that we are sticking resiliently to. The notion that giving $700 billion dollars to Wall Street is going to, in turn, trickle down to the mythical “main street” both McCain and Biden have spoken of in debates. But where is the evidence of this working? Certainly not anywhere in the last 9 to 10 years. The parallel of our times to the Great Depression has been omnipresent, both in straight comparison of the economic downturn and when the comparison has been shrugged off, like McCain’s former advisor calling American’s a nation of whiners, invoking the Great Depression as something we couldn’t fathom.
Yet, looking back at one of the nation’s darkest economic times seems entirely relevant to a country where relatively few people remain from that difficult era. It was not a trickle down effect that led America out of the Depression (though war, in the end, didn’t hurt either). FDR’s New Deal policies never took the stance that a trickle down was an option, that there was time to watch the money trickle at all. The New Deal policies held it most important to get money in the hands of the middle and lower classes first. To allow the, um, steam to rise…I’m not exactly sure what to call this, but I guess that’s the only way I know that water rises.
Putting systems in place, such as social security, and using the government to temporarily employee citizens while they assisted in making the country a better place were policies that attacked a number of the nation’s problems at once. With Bush’s approval rating in danger of falling far below 30%, and congress at dismal 15% (who knows where Cheney is, what the percentage for 40 people in the country?) it seems more than reasonable to suggest that it is this kind of multi-pronged policy that is necessary to pull the nation out of this turmoil, to let the steam rise.
Obama has promised change relentlessly, but as the election lumbers forward his policies seem to be inching closer to centrist than ever before. Election years are notorious for making centrists out of the most earnest reformers, because that’s politics, policies can change; once the votes are cast they are cast. But isn’t it time for America to take on some bold new ideas, because whatever is happening now, isn’t working. Unemployment is at an all time low, the stock market has bottomed out in the past couple of weeks, increasing amounts of corruption are being unveiled on Wall Street, gas prices are at all time highs, the government is about to offer fiscal assistance to Wall Street while the housing market is collapsing, global warming is taking place at an alarmingly fast rate, parts of the country are still in need of repair from a hurricane that hit over three years ago, our president and congress are universally disliked, America is more unpopular than ever abroad, oh, and there are those two wars we are still involved in.
Obama once taunted Senator McCain’s adaptation of his “change” slogan saying, “Change isn't about slogans. It's about substance.” How about some substance? How about we implement a program that employees the growing number of unemployed whose jobs are being outsourced because of loose tax regulations, who are loosing their homes because of loose oversight on shady mortgages, who are loosing their social security and retirement funds due to poor oversight and the market crash? It’s no coincidence that some of the best policies still in place for the middle class were implemented by FDR. If the government helped the middle class to get back on their feet by assisting the country in rebuilding crumbling infrastructure such as old bridges and levees in disrepair, if they could help housing developments in urban centers go green to offset fears about global warming and the increased burden of gas prices on the lower class, wouldn’t that help everyone? Wouldn’t the steam rise?
With that increased income in their bank account maybe the bank wouldn’t have to close and they have some dispensable income that they might invest, or just try to clothe their families with, maybe they could keep up on their mortgages and not lose their homes because of laws that were loosened during the Clinton administration that had lasted from the original New Deal.
To some this might sound like Socialism. But desperate times call for some new ideas, and after Friday night’s presidential debate and last night’s abysmal vice presidential debate I’m tired of hearing the same old centrist banter, name-calling, and partisan politics. I’d like to hear some new ideas from a leader. I’d like to see them throw some water on the smouldering remains of the reigning policies of trickle down economics, so that the steam can rise.
Yet, looking back at one of the nation’s darkest economic times seems entirely relevant to a country where relatively few people remain from that difficult era. It was not a trickle down effect that led America out of the Depression (though war, in the end, didn’t hurt either). FDR’s New Deal policies never took the stance that a trickle down was an option, that there was time to watch the money trickle at all. The New Deal policies held it most important to get money in the hands of the middle and lower classes first. To allow the, um, steam to rise…I’m not exactly sure what to call this, but I guess that’s the only way I know that water rises.
Putting systems in place, such as social security, and using the government to temporarily employee citizens while they assisted in making the country a better place were policies that attacked a number of the nation’s problems at once. With Bush’s approval rating in danger of falling far below 30%, and congress at dismal 15% (who knows where Cheney is, what the percentage for 40 people in the country?) it seems more than reasonable to suggest that it is this kind of multi-pronged policy that is necessary to pull the nation out of this turmoil, to let the steam rise.
Obama has promised change relentlessly, but as the election lumbers forward his policies seem to be inching closer to centrist than ever before. Election years are notorious for making centrists out of the most earnest reformers, because that’s politics, policies can change; once the votes are cast they are cast. But isn’t it time for America to take on some bold new ideas, because whatever is happening now, isn’t working. Unemployment is at an all time low, the stock market has bottomed out in the past couple of weeks, increasing amounts of corruption are being unveiled on Wall Street, gas prices are at all time highs, the government is about to offer fiscal assistance to Wall Street while the housing market is collapsing, global warming is taking place at an alarmingly fast rate, parts of the country are still in need of repair from a hurricane that hit over three years ago, our president and congress are universally disliked, America is more unpopular than ever abroad, oh, and there are those two wars we are still involved in.
Obama once taunted Senator McCain’s adaptation of his “change” slogan saying, “Change isn't about slogans. It's about substance.” How about some substance? How about we implement a program that employees the growing number of unemployed whose jobs are being outsourced because of loose tax regulations, who are loosing their homes because of loose oversight on shady mortgages, who are loosing their social security and retirement funds due to poor oversight and the market crash? It’s no coincidence that some of the best policies still in place for the middle class were implemented by FDR. If the government helped the middle class to get back on their feet by assisting the country in rebuilding crumbling infrastructure such as old bridges and levees in disrepair, if they could help housing developments in urban centers go green to offset fears about global warming and the increased burden of gas prices on the lower class, wouldn’t that help everyone? Wouldn’t the steam rise?
With that increased income in their bank account maybe the bank wouldn’t have to close and they have some dispensable income that they might invest, or just try to clothe their families with, maybe they could keep up on their mortgages and not lose their homes because of laws that were loosened during the Clinton administration that had lasted from the original New Deal.
To some this might sound like Socialism. But desperate times call for some new ideas, and after Friday night’s presidential debate and last night’s abysmal vice presidential debate I’m tired of hearing the same old centrist banter, name-calling, and partisan politics. I’d like to hear some new ideas from a leader. I’d like to see them throw some water on the smouldering remains of the reigning policies of trickle down economics, so that the steam can rise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)