A divide is coming. The divide has been a long time in coming, but other events are finally starting to push it to the breaking point. Yesterday, Iraq opened up its oil fields to development by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia has also recently talked about how they are willing to increase production by small amounts. This is in contrast to many other oil companies who are run by dictatorial regimes and simply want a lot of money.
Iraq has no real choice but to invite Western companies in, simply because it still lacks the complete infrastructure to put out what they are capable of producing. Plus, the Iraqi government is generally pro-Western given their recent situation. Saudi Arabia on the other hand is simply being farsighted. They know the price of oil will stay high due to insane demand from China and India. But they are very worried that the rocketing prices will push the US and Canada to establish themselves as completely independent of foreign oil and develop alternatives to oil that they would in turn sell to Europe, undercutting the market.
On the other side of the fence, you have most other OPEC nations, being led by the Iran-Russia alliance. These nations are more than willing to take a short amount of pain in the effort to keep themselves rich and use oil as a weapon against more powerful nations. Iran in particular has made no secret of the fact that they will close the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic (where 40% of Middle Eastern oil passes through) if their nuclear facilities are attacked or if anyone sides with Israel in the event of an Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack.
More than likely, the world will see two camps form. Russia and Iran will take the point and lure as many oil producing and oil processing nations into their alliance (this would include Turkey who doesn’t produce much oil, but controls a large number of oil pipelines). Counterbalancing this would be the more pro-Western oil nations who grow more and more fearful of not only loss of influence, but outright military assault.
This will probably have the effect of creating an odd looking set of concentric rings around Israel. Israel would be at the center, surrounded by a set of nations and factions that are all either pro-Iranian, or Iranian proxies. Then there would be a second ring where the countries, while not pro-Israel, are at least indifferent and opposed to Iran (Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, SA). Then there would be the outer ring of the of the oil-war nations (Iran, Russia and the various -stans, Turkey, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, etc.). What’s more, while the US, Canada, Australia, and Japan might be able to remain free of the oil-war league’s nets, other countries such as India, China, and parts of Europe might be forced to dance to whatever tune the Russians and Iranians dictate due to their own energy demands.
We know Israel will be forced to deal with Iran very soon. However, it’s actions in the face of the power of the new alliance that is forming means that Israel will soon stand alone. Even the US will probably be forced to be less vocal in its support, no matter which party wins the White House. Once that happens, woe to us all.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
...Before the Dark Times
Last week, we all got a bit of a notice that Israel is fully prepared to do what it needs to do to ensure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons. Their little display out in Greece was both a warning and a legitimate dry run for an attack. There are several factors that influenced this:
First, most experts seem to agree that Iran might be able to start producing weapons-grade uranium in less than six months.
Second, the US presidential election might produce an administration that will not look very favorably on an Israeli bombing mission and turn the screws accordingly in a way that Mr. Bush has not.
Third, and most importantly, Russia has stepped in and sold Iran a set of field use anti-aircraft missiles that could destroy much of a planned Israeli attack force.
It is this third item that really stands out. If the Israelis have spies on the ground that are telling them that Iran can knock out an aerial assault force within two months, it stands to reason that they will attack before the defenses are in place.
A fellow with whom I sometimes discuss things like this noted that it would make sense for Israel to be planning their attack during a period of no moon. Since one can’t exactly depend on cloud cover over the course of a 900-mile flight, it would make sense that the attack would take place during the period of the new moon. The next two new moons will happen around July 4th and August 1st.
I also mention this because it is very obvious that Iran is not going to take the destruction of their nuclear reactor lying down. They might not do much more than seethe with their own army (they would have to either march through Turkey or fight through us and the Iraqis to get to Israel), but as they all but control Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and heavily fund Hamas; it doesn’t take much imagination to see how Iran will execute its counterpunch.
I made the note about dates because of one other little fact. I personally think that an attack over the 4th of July weekend is probably too little time for Israel, making an attack at the beginning of August much more likely. August 10th is the fast of Tisha B’Av (the ninth of Av) marking a day of fasting and repentance as Jews note the day that both Temples were destroyed (by the Babylonians and Romans respectively). There are some other fasts that lead up to this date among the more orthodox as well as the whole three week period leading up to the fast is generally referred to as the “dark times” (17 Tammuz to 9 Av).
The last time Israel’s neighbors planned a major assault on her, it coincided with Yom Kippur in 1973. I would not be shocked if Iran was already telling its proxies to be ready to make a massive attack to coincide with the “dark days.” It might catch the Israelis off guard and the psychological impact of being attacked from all sides during a period of profound mourning could be devastating. One should also not discount the possibility that Syria might take the extreme measure and use non-conventional weapons in its attempts to regain the Golan and other surrounding areas. If that happens, Israel will not hesitate in turning Damascus into a glass parking lot.
I don’t know if this is exactly where we are going, but it is a scenario that is starting to become a lot more real as we roll forward.
First, most experts seem to agree that Iran might be able to start producing weapons-grade uranium in less than six months.
Second, the US presidential election might produce an administration that will not look very favorably on an Israeli bombing mission and turn the screws accordingly in a way that Mr. Bush has not.
Third, and most importantly, Russia has stepped in and sold Iran a set of field use anti-aircraft missiles that could destroy much of a planned Israeli attack force.
It is this third item that really stands out. If the Israelis have spies on the ground that are telling them that Iran can knock out an aerial assault force within two months, it stands to reason that they will attack before the defenses are in place.
A fellow with whom I sometimes discuss things like this noted that it would make sense for Israel to be planning their attack during a period of no moon. Since one can’t exactly depend on cloud cover over the course of a 900-mile flight, it would make sense that the attack would take place during the period of the new moon. The next two new moons will happen around July 4th and August 1st.
I also mention this because it is very obvious that Iran is not going to take the destruction of their nuclear reactor lying down. They might not do much more than seethe with their own army (they would have to either march through Turkey or fight through us and the Iraqis to get to Israel), but as they all but control Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and heavily fund Hamas; it doesn’t take much imagination to see how Iran will execute its counterpunch.
I made the note about dates because of one other little fact. I personally think that an attack over the 4th of July weekend is probably too little time for Israel, making an attack at the beginning of August much more likely. August 10th is the fast of Tisha B’Av (the ninth of Av) marking a day of fasting and repentance as Jews note the day that both Temples were destroyed (by the Babylonians and Romans respectively). There are some other fasts that lead up to this date among the more orthodox as well as the whole three week period leading up to the fast is generally referred to as the “dark times” (17 Tammuz to 9 Av).
The last time Israel’s neighbors planned a major assault on her, it coincided with Yom Kippur in 1973. I would not be shocked if Iran was already telling its proxies to be ready to make a massive attack to coincide with the “dark days.” It might catch the Israelis off guard and the psychological impact of being attacked from all sides during a period of profound mourning could be devastating. One should also not discount the possibility that Syria might take the extreme measure and use non-conventional weapons in its attempts to regain the Golan and other surrounding areas. If that happens, Israel will not hesitate in turning Damascus into a glass parking lot.
I don’t know if this is exactly where we are going, but it is a scenario that is starting to become a lot more real as we roll forward.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
New AFI List
Last night, we watched AFI's latest listing of movies. This time, they took just the top 10 from 10 different genres. Mrs. X and I had seen a listing of the movies to pick from before and tried to guess what would be number 1. We got 6 of the 10 right, which isn't bad. Two of the ones we got wrong (Sci-Fi and Romantic Comedy) I have no qualms about. Especially as our guess ended up being the number two choice. However, I disagree with them on the remaining two that we got wrong (Western and Epic). In Western, the #2 movie (High Noon) should have been #1 and personally don't see any way that Lawrence of Arabia (grand in scope as it is) can possibly compare to the overwhelming scale of either Ben-Hur or Gone With the Wind.
Anyway. For grins and giggles, here are the full lists, complete with my notes on whether I have seen the movies or not (and am "cultured" by AFI definition):
Animation
1) Snow White *
2) Pinocchio *
3) Bambi +
4) Lion King *
5) Fantasia *
6) Toy Story +
7) Beauty and the Beast *
8) Shrek *
9) Cinderella *
10) Finding Nemo *
Romantic Comedy
1) City Lights
2) Annie Hall
3) It Happened One Night
4) Roman Holiday
5) The Philadelphia Story
6) When Harry Met Sally +
7) Adam’s Rib
8) Moonstruck
9) Harold and Maude
10) Sleepless in Seattle
Western
1) The Searchers
2) High Noon
3) Shane
4) Unforgiven *
5) Red River
6) The Wild Bunch
7) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid +
8) McCabe and Mrs. Miller
9) Stagecoach
10) Cat Ballou
Sports
1) Raging Bull
2) Rocky +
3) Pride of the Yankees *
4) Hoosiers
5) Bull Durham +
6) The Hustler
7) Caddyshack *
8) Breaking Away
9) National Velvet
10) Jerry Maguire *
Mystery
1) Vertigo *
2) Chinatown
3) Rear Window *
4) Laura
5) The Third Man
6) The Maltese Falcon +
7) North By Northwest *
8) Blue Velvet
9) Dial M for Murder *
10) The Usual Suspects *
Fantasy
1) Wizard of Oz *
2) Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring *
3) It’s a Wonderful Life *
4) King Kong *
5) Miracle on 34th Street *
6) Field of Dreams *
7) Harvey
8) Groundhog Day *
9) Thief of Baghdad
10) Big *
Sci-Fi
1) 2001: A Space Odyssey *
2) Star Wars: A New Hope *
3) ET: The Extra-Terrestrial *
4) A Clockwork Orange *
5) The Day the Earth Stood Still
6) Blade Runner *
7) Alien *
8) Terminator 2: Judgment Day *
9) Invasion of the Body Snatchers
10) Back to the Future *
Gangster
1) The Godfather *
2) Goodfellas *
3) The Godfather Part II *
4) White Heat
5) Bonnie and Clyde
6) Scarface: The Shame of a Nation
7) Pulp Fiction *
8) The Public Enemy
9) Little Caesar
10) Scarface
Courtroom Drama
1) To Kill a Mockingbird *
2) 12 Angry Men *
3) Kramer Vs Kramer
4) The Verdict
5) A Few Good Men *
6) Witness for the Prosecution
7) Anatomy of a Murder *
8) In Cold Blood
9) A Cry in the Dark
10) Judgment at Nuremburg
Epic
1) Lawrence of Arabia *
2) Ben-Hur *
3) Schindler’s List *
4) Gone With the Wind *
5) Spartacus *
6) Titanic *
7) All Quiet on the Western Front *
8) Saving Private Ryan *
9) Reds +
10) The Ten Commandments *
* - Seen entire movie
+ - Seen portions of the movie
My total count of these movies seen in their entirety is 50/100.
Anyway. For grins and giggles, here are the full lists, complete with my notes on whether I have seen the movies or not (and am "cultured" by AFI definition):
Animation
1) Snow White *
2) Pinocchio *
3) Bambi +
4) Lion King *
5) Fantasia *
6) Toy Story +
7) Beauty and the Beast *
8) Shrek *
9) Cinderella *
10) Finding Nemo *
Romantic Comedy
1) City Lights
2) Annie Hall
3) It Happened One Night
4) Roman Holiday
5) The Philadelphia Story
6) When Harry Met Sally +
7) Adam’s Rib
8) Moonstruck
9) Harold and Maude
10) Sleepless in Seattle
Western
1) The Searchers
2) High Noon
3) Shane
4) Unforgiven *
5) Red River
6) The Wild Bunch
7) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid +
8) McCabe and Mrs. Miller
9) Stagecoach
10) Cat Ballou
Sports
1) Raging Bull
2) Rocky +
3) Pride of the Yankees *
4) Hoosiers
5) Bull Durham +
6) The Hustler
7) Caddyshack *
8) Breaking Away
9) National Velvet
10) Jerry Maguire *
Mystery
1) Vertigo *
2) Chinatown
3) Rear Window *
4) Laura
5) The Third Man
6) The Maltese Falcon +
7) North By Northwest *
8) Blue Velvet
9) Dial M for Murder *
10) The Usual Suspects *
Fantasy
1) Wizard of Oz *
2) Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring *
3) It’s a Wonderful Life *
4) King Kong *
5) Miracle on 34th Street *
6) Field of Dreams *
7) Harvey
8) Groundhog Day *
9) Thief of Baghdad
10) Big *
Sci-Fi
1) 2001: A Space Odyssey *
2) Star Wars: A New Hope *
3) ET: The Extra-Terrestrial *
4) A Clockwork Orange *
5) The Day the Earth Stood Still
6) Blade Runner *
7) Alien *
8) Terminator 2: Judgment Day *
9) Invasion of the Body Snatchers
10) Back to the Future *
Gangster
1) The Godfather *
2) Goodfellas *
3) The Godfather Part II *
4) White Heat
5) Bonnie and Clyde
6) Scarface: The Shame of a Nation
7) Pulp Fiction *
8) The Public Enemy
9) Little Caesar
10) Scarface
Courtroom Drama
1) To Kill a Mockingbird *
2) 12 Angry Men *
3) Kramer Vs Kramer
4) The Verdict
5) A Few Good Men *
6) Witness for the Prosecution
7) Anatomy of a Murder *
8) In Cold Blood
9) A Cry in the Dark
10) Judgment at Nuremburg
Epic
1) Lawrence of Arabia *
2) Ben-Hur *
3) Schindler’s List *
4) Gone With the Wind *
5) Spartacus *
6) Titanic *
7) All Quiet on the Western Front *
8) Saving Private Ryan *
9) Reds +
10) The Ten Commandments *
* - Seen entire movie
+ - Seen portions of the movie
My total count of these movies seen in their entirety is 50/100.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Assessing the States
In light of my last two posts, I thought it might be interesting to look at each state and try to handicap the 2008 race. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have talked about moving beyond the traditional red-blue states match-up that has defined the last two elections. So let’s take a look:
Maine (4) – Despite having two Republican senators, ME is a fairly liberal state. Mr. McCain might have a chance at taking 1 electoral vote due to the second district being a little more conservative (ME divides its electoral votes). However, the Democrats are going to try very hard to capture Susan Collins’ senate seat and that will drive Democratic turnout up.
New Hampshire (4) – NH is the oddball state in New England as it is more conservative and independent than the rest. In the past few years, a number of residents of Massachusetts have moved into the southern region, trending the state more into the blue column. However, there is still a large enough independent streak that the state will remain in play until the end.
Vermont (3) – VT is solidly liberal and Mr. Obama should have no problem taking this state.
Rhode Island (4) – Like Vermont, RI is solidly liberal and should not be under any threat from Mr. McCain, although his Navy background might increase his numbers enough to force Mr. Obama to advertise a little bit in the state.
Massachusetts (12) – This will be Kennedy vs. Romney in the battle of the surrogates. However with Mr. Kerry running for reelection to increase turnout, there is no reason that Mr. Obama will not easily take this state.
Connecticut (7) – CT is a tricky nut. On the surface, Mr. Obama shouldn’t have any problems carrying this state, especially as he actually won this state in the primary. However, Mr. McCain has Mr. Lieberman at his side. There is an outside chance that if Mr. Lieberman campaigns his heart out, CT could flip. It’s very unlikely, but there is that chance. Enough so that Mr. Obama will probably have to make a stop or two in the state to keep it nailed down.
New York (31) – NY is a solidly liberal state. Mr. Giuliani will stump hard for Mr. McCain, but it’s unlikely to dent Mr. Obama’s numbers enough to put the state in peril. Besides, Mr. Giuliani will probably be a little more in tune with setting up a run at the governorship in 2010.
New Jersey (15) – NJ is difficult to gauge. People in the state do not respond to polls so taking the temperature of the state is usually fraught with errors. The Democratic base is also much more Union and blue collar than in the rest of the blue mass that is the eastern seaboard. I would expect Mr. Obama to carry New Jersey, but there is going to be a real question mark about the state until we get closer to the general election.
Pennsylvania (21) – Mr. Obama will crush Mr. McCain in Philadelphia, while Mr. McCain will slap Mr. Obama pretty hard in the northern reaches and the central portions of the state. That means the fate of the state will lie in the working-class enclaves of Bethlehem, Scranton, and the Pittsburgh suburbs. This is the first state with a danger zone for Mr. Obama. He has not performed well with these traditionally Democratic groups and Mr. McCain will work very hard for their votes. The enthusiasm of Democratic governor Ed Rendell (who was a Clinton supporter) is one of the major keys for Mr. Obama to hold the state. If his machine is on full power, I think Mr. Obama keeps it in the blue column. If he is tepid in his support, Mr. McCain could take enough traditional Democrats to steal the state.
Maryland (10) – MD’s high African-American population and wealthy DC suburbs should keep Maryland in the Democratic column, as these are Mr. Obama’s largest group of supporters.
Delaware (3) – I’ve seen no polling or any other indications about DE’s temperament. However, most pundits think that it will stay in the Democratic column.
Washington DC (3) – DC has never voted for a Republican candidate since first granted the right to vote in 1962.
Virginia (13) – VA has been trending more and more blue over the past four years. Wealthy Washington elites have moved into the northern suburbs of Alexandria and Fairfax while the percentage of military votes based in the Norfolk and Newport News region has declined. A high African-American turnout could swing Virginia, especially if rural western VA turnout is down. McCain will dominate in this region and among the military. Whether it is enough to keep the state in the red column is unknown.
West Virginia (5) – WV is a holdover from the conservative Democratic years. Local politicians tend to be Democrats who are more conservative while the state elects national politicians of a Republican stripe (Robert Byrd being the exception). Given Mr. Obama’s 40+-point loss in this state, it’s hard to imagine it turning blue in November.
North Carolina (15) – NC is somewhat similar to VA, except that its percentage of wealthy elites is not very high. It does have a larger African-American population and a high concentration of young, college-age people who might actually turn out in large numbers. I think NC is less likely to flip than VA, but there is an outside chance.
South Carolina (8) – While having a large African-American population, it is unlikely that this will overturn the large Republican advantage in the state. Having Governor Mark Sanford on the VP short-list is probably also helping Mr. McCain’s image in the state.
Georgia (15) – Left to its own devices, GA would easily stay in the Republican column. However, Libertarian Bob Barr is from the state (he used to be a Republican congressman) and he might draw a significant percentage of votes from Mr. McCain. Coupled with a high African-American turnout, it could be just enough to swing the state blue. But unless Mr. Barr consistently polls above 8 points, GA should stay red.
Florida (27) – Despite being neck-and-neck eight years ago, FL has become more and more, a solidly red state. A high military presence and a large pro-Republican Cuban population have nudged the state more and more to the right over the past few years. In addition, if Mr. Obama’s troubles with the Jewish community continue, Mr. McCain could win FL by more than 10 points in Nov.
Alabama (9) – This may be on of Mr. McCain’s safest states. He has consistently polled between 20 and 30 points ahead of Mr. Obama.
Mississippi (6) – MS has the highest African-American population of any state. This has kept the numbers a bit tighter than a Republican would like from a southern state, but the rural nature of the state and it’s still overwhelming white population, should keep the state red come election time.
Louisiana (9) – LA has been more likely to turn Democrat in years past, but Hurricane Katrina accelerated a changing tide. Not only have a significant number of African-Americans remained in Houston rather than return to New Orleans, but also those that have stayed, vented their rage on the established Democratic government. With a diminished Democratic base, it’s hard to see how LA does not stay in the red column.
Arkansas (6) – Had Ms. Clinton won the nomination, this would have been heavy fighting country. But, even though AR is generally considered the most liberal of the southern states, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama will be able to make serious inroads into this state.
Tennessee (11) – TN’s Democratic party hasn’t quite caught up with the party of the rest of the country and Republicans dominate most of the statewide offices. Mr. McCain has consistently polled very far ahead of Mr. Obama in this state.
Kentucky (8) – Mr. Obama’s poor performance in Appalachia, coupled with a relatively low African-American population should keep this state solidly in the Republican column this election.
Ohio (20) – Despite OH’s vaunted claims of importance, I think the true battleground will move to a different state this election. OH will be close and there is certainly a chance that Mr. Obama could take the state if he plays his cards right. However, aside from one outlier poll, Mr. Obama has not performed well in the state. Unless there is a massive sit out by conservatives or Mr. Obama convinces the poor working classes along the river in the eastern portions of the state to vote for him, OH will stay in the red column.
Michigan (17) – MI is a state that should go for Mr. Obama, but so far is refusing to bend that way. Detroit is solidly African-American and the UAW and Teamsters unions control the suburbs. In past elections, these have been enough to overcome the more conservative regions to the north and west. However, voter anger over the fate of MI’s votes in the Democratic primary and working-class trepidation over Mr. Obama has kept this state in play. Although it’s likely that the state will fall back into the blue column as the primary fades from memory, a good push from the Republicans (especially if headed by Mr. Romney) could keep things up in the air enough to slide it into the red column.
Indiana (11) – Mr. Obama’s domination of the media market in the north of the state will keep things interesting, but IN is probably still too dominated by the Republicans for Mr. Obama to have any real shot at the state.
Illinois (21) – Mr. Obama’s home state and already pretty blue. Enough said.
Wisconsin (10) – WI is a true enigma in this race. In the past two elections, WI has been decided by a difference of 0.22% and 0.38%, the third closest and closest margins respectively. Both were decided for the Democrats and Mr. Obama’s domination in the primary as well as the power of the Chicago media market over Milwaukee would suggest that he has a leg up in the state. Still, a history of tight elections and very independent thinking suggest that either side could take WI this time.
Minnesota (10) – Mr. Obama’s brand of populism should play well in MN. Although Republicans are holding their convention in St. Paul and the state has swung back and forth in the Governor’s mansion and the Senate, there is little reason to believe that Mr. McCain has a real chance to take this state.
Iowa (7) – IA will probably stay in the blue column due to Mr. McCain’s consistent opposition to farm subsidies (a big item in IA politics) and Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for door to door politicking. The numbers will probably swing back and forth, but I would expect IA to settle in the blue column.
Missouri (11) – MO has been trending Republican, but it sways back and forth depending on the race. Democrats dominate in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City as well as the college town of Columbia. Republicans then dominate the rural portions of the rest of the state, leaving the outer suburbs of the large cities to decide the state. Mr. McCain starts with an advantage in this state, but it is certainly possible for Mr. Obama to rally the open-minded voters to swing his way.
Texas (34) – Although Mr. Obama believes that he will make significant inroads into the Hispanic community; it is unlikely that he will do enough to swing TX into the blue column. Mr. McCain has decent standing with Hispanics as well and given that the core of the Bush White House is from TX, it would be seen as a personal insult if TX went the other way.
Oklahoma (7) – OK is one of the more conservative states and Mr. McCain champions the no-pork cause of OK’s two very popular senators.
Kansas (6) – If Mr. Obama selects the Democratic Governor of KS, it might give him an outside shot at this fairly conservative state. But the last poll I saw had Mr. McCain leading by 20 points so I think it will stay red come November.
Nebraska (5) – NE is like KS in that there is little chance that it will go blue without a major Republican meltdown. However NE, like ME, splits its electoral votes by congressional district. There is an outside chance that Mr. Obama could take one electoral vote from this state even if he can’t win the whole thing.
South Dakota (3) – SD folks aren’t jazzed about either candidate due to the strong desire to process the oil sands of the state in opposition to their green standings. However, the conservative nature of this state is more in line with most of Mr. McCain’s other views.
North Dakota (3) – Most of the state officials are Democratic, but in the conservative Democratic vein as seen in WV. It is unlikely that this state will switch from red to blue.
Montana (3) – Of all the Great Plains states, this is the one that Mr. Obama has a real shot in. It’s conservative like its neighbors, but MT is also home to a large green movement that trends liberal. Mr. McCain’s own green stance will help him with this crowd and should deliver the state to him, but it does give Mr. Obama an opening that he is lacking in other states.
Wyoming (3) – The least populous state is dominated by the oil industry. Although I’m sure they aren’t thrilled about Mr. McCain, they are terrified of Mr. Obama. Plus with Mr. Cheney working behind the scenes, it is very unlikely that this state will be anything but deep red.
Colorado (9) – Now we come to one of the main battlegrounds of this election. CO has been trending more and more Democratic in recent elections. There is a large Hispanic population and CO’s population is also becoming more and more wealthy. The percentage of military stationed in CO is also declining. Capping it all off, the Democrats are having their convention in Denver, which will give them a lot more exposure and an open platform to present themselves to the state. Mr. Obama has been polling ahead just outside the margin of error in this state. Whoever wins, the margin is going to be razor thin.
New Mexico (5) – Like WI, NM has been decided by razor thin margins in the past two elections, the first for Mr. Gore and the second for Mr. Bush. With Gov. Richardson strongly backing Mr. Obama (and putting him in line for a possible position – maybe VP) NM seems to be swinging back into the blue column. However, Mr. McCain being from neighboring AZ and his general good standing with Hispanics will prevent Mr. Obama from pulling away and should keep NM in the thin margin for at least one more election.
Arizona (10) – This is Mr. McCain’s home state. The last poll taken had him ahead 57-37.
Nevada (5) – NV is likely to be close as well. Mr. Obama is making a push in the state, but he’s not quite gotten as much traction as he would like. The service unions in Las Vegas will help him, but the rest of the state has a very liaise-faire attitude that favors Republicans. Some work could swing the state, but its natural inclination at the moment is to the red side of the aisle.
Utah (5) – UT is very conservative is probably one of the most reliable Republican states. It’s only competitor for that title might be…
Idaho (4) – One could make a good wager as to whether it will ID or UT that will give Mr. McCain the larger margin in November. (In 2004 UT won 71.5 to 68.4)
Washington (11) – WA is a very green state and the large liberal population outweighs the more conservative population on the eastern side of the Cascades. Mr. Obama should have little trouble carrying this state in November.
Oregon (7) – OR is almost exactly like WA in its liberal coast and conservative east divide. However, OR is not quite as sharply divided as WA is. Until fairly recently, OR was a genuine battleground state. However, I would be surprised if Mr. McCain can do better than token resistance against Mr. Obama.
California (55) – Mr. McCain has talked about trying to take CA and he will certainly get a lot of help from the Governor. However, the race will probably come down to whether the large population of Hispanics in southern CA believes Mr. McCain record that favors amnesty or his rhetoric about enforcement first that he is laying on thick for the conservative base. Mr. Obama is currently running about 14 points ahead. I do not serious expect CA to flip as the loss of CA means instant defeat for the Democrats.
Alaska (3) – Alaska has been safely conservative for a number of elections. However, there is a general thought that Democrats could take both the at-large congressional seat as well as one of the Senate seats in this election. That could make Alaska a little more in play than previous elections. Alaska’s female governor is rumored to be on Mr. McCain’s VP short list.
Hawaii (4) – HI is a fairly liberal state and Mr. Obama’s birth state. He should carry it without any trouble.
In conclusion, I would suspect that most of the battlegrounds will be limited to states that we have seen before with two or three new ones thrown in for interest (CO and VA most notably). Still, it is a long way to go and much could change in the near future.
Maine (4) – Despite having two Republican senators, ME is a fairly liberal state. Mr. McCain might have a chance at taking 1 electoral vote due to the second district being a little more conservative (ME divides its electoral votes). However, the Democrats are going to try very hard to capture Susan Collins’ senate seat and that will drive Democratic turnout up.
New Hampshire (4) – NH is the oddball state in New England as it is more conservative and independent than the rest. In the past few years, a number of residents of Massachusetts have moved into the southern region, trending the state more into the blue column. However, there is still a large enough independent streak that the state will remain in play until the end.
Vermont (3) – VT is solidly liberal and Mr. Obama should have no problem taking this state.
Rhode Island (4) – Like Vermont, RI is solidly liberal and should not be under any threat from Mr. McCain, although his Navy background might increase his numbers enough to force Mr. Obama to advertise a little bit in the state.
Massachusetts (12) – This will be Kennedy vs. Romney in the battle of the surrogates. However with Mr. Kerry running for reelection to increase turnout, there is no reason that Mr. Obama will not easily take this state.
Connecticut (7) – CT is a tricky nut. On the surface, Mr. Obama shouldn’t have any problems carrying this state, especially as he actually won this state in the primary. However, Mr. McCain has Mr. Lieberman at his side. There is an outside chance that if Mr. Lieberman campaigns his heart out, CT could flip. It’s very unlikely, but there is that chance. Enough so that Mr. Obama will probably have to make a stop or two in the state to keep it nailed down.
New York (31) – NY is a solidly liberal state. Mr. Giuliani will stump hard for Mr. McCain, but it’s unlikely to dent Mr. Obama’s numbers enough to put the state in peril. Besides, Mr. Giuliani will probably be a little more in tune with setting up a run at the governorship in 2010.
New Jersey (15) – NJ is difficult to gauge. People in the state do not respond to polls so taking the temperature of the state is usually fraught with errors. The Democratic base is also much more Union and blue collar than in the rest of the blue mass that is the eastern seaboard. I would expect Mr. Obama to carry New Jersey, but there is going to be a real question mark about the state until we get closer to the general election.
Pennsylvania (21) – Mr. Obama will crush Mr. McCain in Philadelphia, while Mr. McCain will slap Mr. Obama pretty hard in the northern reaches and the central portions of the state. That means the fate of the state will lie in the working-class enclaves of Bethlehem, Scranton, and the Pittsburgh suburbs. This is the first state with a danger zone for Mr. Obama. He has not performed well with these traditionally Democratic groups and Mr. McCain will work very hard for their votes. The enthusiasm of Democratic governor Ed Rendell (who was a Clinton supporter) is one of the major keys for Mr. Obama to hold the state. If his machine is on full power, I think Mr. Obama keeps it in the blue column. If he is tepid in his support, Mr. McCain could take enough traditional Democrats to steal the state.
Maryland (10) – MD’s high African-American population and wealthy DC suburbs should keep Maryland in the Democratic column, as these are Mr. Obama’s largest group of supporters.
Delaware (3) – I’ve seen no polling or any other indications about DE’s temperament. However, most pundits think that it will stay in the Democratic column.
Washington DC (3) – DC has never voted for a Republican candidate since first granted the right to vote in 1962.
Virginia (13) – VA has been trending more and more blue over the past four years. Wealthy Washington elites have moved into the northern suburbs of Alexandria and Fairfax while the percentage of military votes based in the Norfolk and Newport News region has declined. A high African-American turnout could swing Virginia, especially if rural western VA turnout is down. McCain will dominate in this region and among the military. Whether it is enough to keep the state in the red column is unknown.
West Virginia (5) – WV is a holdover from the conservative Democratic years. Local politicians tend to be Democrats who are more conservative while the state elects national politicians of a Republican stripe (Robert Byrd being the exception). Given Mr. Obama’s 40+-point loss in this state, it’s hard to imagine it turning blue in November.
North Carolina (15) – NC is somewhat similar to VA, except that its percentage of wealthy elites is not very high. It does have a larger African-American population and a high concentration of young, college-age people who might actually turn out in large numbers. I think NC is less likely to flip than VA, but there is an outside chance.
South Carolina (8) – While having a large African-American population, it is unlikely that this will overturn the large Republican advantage in the state. Having Governor Mark Sanford on the VP short-list is probably also helping Mr. McCain’s image in the state.
Georgia (15) – Left to its own devices, GA would easily stay in the Republican column. However, Libertarian Bob Barr is from the state (he used to be a Republican congressman) and he might draw a significant percentage of votes from Mr. McCain. Coupled with a high African-American turnout, it could be just enough to swing the state blue. But unless Mr. Barr consistently polls above 8 points, GA should stay red.
Florida (27) – Despite being neck-and-neck eight years ago, FL has become more and more, a solidly red state. A high military presence and a large pro-Republican Cuban population have nudged the state more and more to the right over the past few years. In addition, if Mr. Obama’s troubles with the Jewish community continue, Mr. McCain could win FL by more than 10 points in Nov.
Alabama (9) – This may be on of Mr. McCain’s safest states. He has consistently polled between 20 and 30 points ahead of Mr. Obama.
Mississippi (6) – MS has the highest African-American population of any state. This has kept the numbers a bit tighter than a Republican would like from a southern state, but the rural nature of the state and it’s still overwhelming white population, should keep the state red come election time.
Louisiana (9) – LA has been more likely to turn Democrat in years past, but Hurricane Katrina accelerated a changing tide. Not only have a significant number of African-Americans remained in Houston rather than return to New Orleans, but also those that have stayed, vented their rage on the established Democratic government. With a diminished Democratic base, it’s hard to see how LA does not stay in the red column.
Arkansas (6) – Had Ms. Clinton won the nomination, this would have been heavy fighting country. But, even though AR is generally considered the most liberal of the southern states, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama will be able to make serious inroads into this state.
Tennessee (11) – TN’s Democratic party hasn’t quite caught up with the party of the rest of the country and Republicans dominate most of the statewide offices. Mr. McCain has consistently polled very far ahead of Mr. Obama in this state.
Kentucky (8) – Mr. Obama’s poor performance in Appalachia, coupled with a relatively low African-American population should keep this state solidly in the Republican column this election.
Ohio (20) – Despite OH’s vaunted claims of importance, I think the true battleground will move to a different state this election. OH will be close and there is certainly a chance that Mr. Obama could take the state if he plays his cards right. However, aside from one outlier poll, Mr. Obama has not performed well in the state. Unless there is a massive sit out by conservatives or Mr. Obama convinces the poor working classes along the river in the eastern portions of the state to vote for him, OH will stay in the red column.
Michigan (17) – MI is a state that should go for Mr. Obama, but so far is refusing to bend that way. Detroit is solidly African-American and the UAW and Teamsters unions control the suburbs. In past elections, these have been enough to overcome the more conservative regions to the north and west. However, voter anger over the fate of MI’s votes in the Democratic primary and working-class trepidation over Mr. Obama has kept this state in play. Although it’s likely that the state will fall back into the blue column as the primary fades from memory, a good push from the Republicans (especially if headed by Mr. Romney) could keep things up in the air enough to slide it into the red column.
Indiana (11) – Mr. Obama’s domination of the media market in the north of the state will keep things interesting, but IN is probably still too dominated by the Republicans for Mr. Obama to have any real shot at the state.
Illinois (21) – Mr. Obama’s home state and already pretty blue. Enough said.
Wisconsin (10) – WI is a true enigma in this race. In the past two elections, WI has been decided by a difference of 0.22% and 0.38%, the third closest and closest margins respectively. Both were decided for the Democrats and Mr. Obama’s domination in the primary as well as the power of the Chicago media market over Milwaukee would suggest that he has a leg up in the state. Still, a history of tight elections and very independent thinking suggest that either side could take WI this time.
Minnesota (10) – Mr. Obama’s brand of populism should play well in MN. Although Republicans are holding their convention in St. Paul and the state has swung back and forth in the Governor’s mansion and the Senate, there is little reason to believe that Mr. McCain has a real chance to take this state.
Iowa (7) – IA will probably stay in the blue column due to Mr. McCain’s consistent opposition to farm subsidies (a big item in IA politics) and Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for door to door politicking. The numbers will probably swing back and forth, but I would expect IA to settle in the blue column.
Missouri (11) – MO has been trending Republican, but it sways back and forth depending on the race. Democrats dominate in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City as well as the college town of Columbia. Republicans then dominate the rural portions of the rest of the state, leaving the outer suburbs of the large cities to decide the state. Mr. McCain starts with an advantage in this state, but it is certainly possible for Mr. Obama to rally the open-minded voters to swing his way.
Texas (34) – Although Mr. Obama believes that he will make significant inroads into the Hispanic community; it is unlikely that he will do enough to swing TX into the blue column. Mr. McCain has decent standing with Hispanics as well and given that the core of the Bush White House is from TX, it would be seen as a personal insult if TX went the other way.
Oklahoma (7) – OK is one of the more conservative states and Mr. McCain champions the no-pork cause of OK’s two very popular senators.
Kansas (6) – If Mr. Obama selects the Democratic Governor of KS, it might give him an outside shot at this fairly conservative state. But the last poll I saw had Mr. McCain leading by 20 points so I think it will stay red come November.
Nebraska (5) – NE is like KS in that there is little chance that it will go blue without a major Republican meltdown. However NE, like ME, splits its electoral votes by congressional district. There is an outside chance that Mr. Obama could take one electoral vote from this state even if he can’t win the whole thing.
South Dakota (3) – SD folks aren’t jazzed about either candidate due to the strong desire to process the oil sands of the state in opposition to their green standings. However, the conservative nature of this state is more in line with most of Mr. McCain’s other views.
North Dakota (3) – Most of the state officials are Democratic, but in the conservative Democratic vein as seen in WV. It is unlikely that this state will switch from red to blue.
Montana (3) – Of all the Great Plains states, this is the one that Mr. Obama has a real shot in. It’s conservative like its neighbors, but MT is also home to a large green movement that trends liberal. Mr. McCain’s own green stance will help him with this crowd and should deliver the state to him, but it does give Mr. Obama an opening that he is lacking in other states.
Wyoming (3) – The least populous state is dominated by the oil industry. Although I’m sure they aren’t thrilled about Mr. McCain, they are terrified of Mr. Obama. Plus with Mr. Cheney working behind the scenes, it is very unlikely that this state will be anything but deep red.
Colorado (9) – Now we come to one of the main battlegrounds of this election. CO has been trending more and more Democratic in recent elections. There is a large Hispanic population and CO’s population is also becoming more and more wealthy. The percentage of military stationed in CO is also declining. Capping it all off, the Democrats are having their convention in Denver, which will give them a lot more exposure and an open platform to present themselves to the state. Mr. Obama has been polling ahead just outside the margin of error in this state. Whoever wins, the margin is going to be razor thin.
New Mexico (5) – Like WI, NM has been decided by razor thin margins in the past two elections, the first for Mr. Gore and the second for Mr. Bush. With Gov. Richardson strongly backing Mr. Obama (and putting him in line for a possible position – maybe VP) NM seems to be swinging back into the blue column. However, Mr. McCain being from neighboring AZ and his general good standing with Hispanics will prevent Mr. Obama from pulling away and should keep NM in the thin margin for at least one more election.
Arizona (10) – This is Mr. McCain’s home state. The last poll taken had him ahead 57-37.
Nevada (5) – NV is likely to be close as well. Mr. Obama is making a push in the state, but he’s not quite gotten as much traction as he would like. The service unions in Las Vegas will help him, but the rest of the state has a very liaise-faire attitude that favors Republicans. Some work could swing the state, but its natural inclination at the moment is to the red side of the aisle.
Utah (5) – UT is very conservative is probably one of the most reliable Republican states. It’s only competitor for that title might be…
Idaho (4) – One could make a good wager as to whether it will ID or UT that will give Mr. McCain the larger margin in November. (In 2004 UT won 71.5 to 68.4)
Washington (11) – WA is a very green state and the large liberal population outweighs the more conservative population on the eastern side of the Cascades. Mr. Obama should have little trouble carrying this state in November.
Oregon (7) – OR is almost exactly like WA in its liberal coast and conservative east divide. However, OR is not quite as sharply divided as WA is. Until fairly recently, OR was a genuine battleground state. However, I would be surprised if Mr. McCain can do better than token resistance against Mr. Obama.
California (55) – Mr. McCain has talked about trying to take CA and he will certainly get a lot of help from the Governor. However, the race will probably come down to whether the large population of Hispanics in southern CA believes Mr. McCain record that favors amnesty or his rhetoric about enforcement first that he is laying on thick for the conservative base. Mr. Obama is currently running about 14 points ahead. I do not serious expect CA to flip as the loss of CA means instant defeat for the Democrats.
Alaska (3) – Alaska has been safely conservative for a number of elections. However, there is a general thought that Democrats could take both the at-large congressional seat as well as one of the Senate seats in this election. That could make Alaska a little more in play than previous elections. Alaska’s female governor is rumored to be on Mr. McCain’s VP short list.
Hawaii (4) – HI is a fairly liberal state and Mr. Obama’s birth state. He should carry it without any trouble.
In conclusion, I would suspect that most of the battlegrounds will be limited to states that we have seen before with two or three new ones thrown in for interest (CO and VA most notably). Still, it is a long way to go and much could change in the near future.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Electoral College Fun
Despite the various espousements from both campaigns, the electoral map is unlikely to change much from the two that we have seen in 2000 and 2004. In fact, I was checking a couple of things out and came up with a vary amusing scenario.
The various state polls are currently showing an electoral map very similar to that of the kind that Mr. Bush beat Mr. Gore with:
Mr. Bush beat Mr. Gore 271-267. If one applied the current electoral college breakdown to that map, Mr. Bush would have beaten Mr. Gore 278-260.
Now, there are three small differences in the current polling from the above map. Mr. McCain is currently leading (within the margin of error) in Michigan while Mr. Obama is leading just outside the margin of error in New Hampshire and Colorado. For amusement (and to reflect my own inklings on how the race will go), lets say that that Michigan swings to Mr. Obama and New Hampshire swings to Mr. McCain. This would make the electoral map exactly like the one in 2000, except that Mr. Obama wins Colorado:
Colorado has 9 electoral votes so the net result is a 269-269 tie. This would push the election into the hands of the House of Representatives where every state delegation gets one vote. In the House, I believe that Democrats control the majority of the state delegations: 26-22 with 2 states split evenly.
Now, adding another fun wrinkle is the fact that Nebraska and Maine do not award their electoral votes winner take all. Two votes go to the overall winner and then one vote is awarded based on who wins each congressional district (3 for Nebraska and 2 for Maine). While there is little chance that Nebraska and Maine will switch overall, it has been noted that Mr. McCain is polling ahead in Maine's second district and Mr. Obama is only a little behind in Nebraska's third district. So it is not out of the question that the race could seem to be tied, only to find out that one candidate has taken a stray vote available to them and has won the contest 270-268.
Such are the fun and games of electoral college math. Of course, much will probably change as we get closer to November, but its fun to see where we could go.
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Board is Set
Now that Mr. Obama has officially claimed the Democratic nomination, we can officially gauge his chances against Mr. McCain. On the surface, this would seem to be a no-brainer. Democrats may come close to winning 60 or more seats in the Senate while the House will become a deeper shade of blue as well. There is no reason that the Democratic nominee should bully his way to the Presidency without too much trouble.
However, things are not quite as they seem. Mr. Obama is starting to see a bit of a bounce in the polls as Ms. Clinton’s supporters begin bowing to the inevitable. However, for as bad a climate as it is for the Republicans, Mr. Obama is not surging to levels that one should expect.
What’s more, Mr. Obama is not surging in states that he needs to carry if he wants to win. Yes, Mr. Obama is ahead in states that Mr. Bush carried in the past (Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada), but not by overwhelming margins. What’s more, he’s not surging in Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin (though he is polling slightly ahead in Wisconsin as well as Pennsylvania). Michigan and Ohio represent 38 electoral votes while Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa only represent 26 electoral votes.
To give this scenario the proper lighting, if Mr. Obama flips these four western states while Mr. McCain flips Michigan and New Hampshire (a state that Mr. McCain has practically made his second home) while all other states remain as they were in 2004, Mr. McCain wins 273-265. Mrs. X, who has a better bead on the mood of Ohio politics than I do, remains quite certain that Ohio will go for Mr. McCain. Ohio staying in the Republican column will put additional pressure on the working class, conservative Democrats of Michigan and western Pennsylvania.
Mr. Obama must make peace and bring these voters back into the Democratic fold if he wants to win, or else pray that he can hold Pennsylvania through overwhelming African-American and youth turnout and that there will be enough conservative defection to Libertarian Bob Barr that he can steal Virginia or Georgia.
However, things are not quite as they seem. Mr. Obama is starting to see a bit of a bounce in the polls as Ms. Clinton’s supporters begin bowing to the inevitable. However, for as bad a climate as it is for the Republicans, Mr. Obama is not surging to levels that one should expect.
What’s more, Mr. Obama is not surging in states that he needs to carry if he wants to win. Yes, Mr. Obama is ahead in states that Mr. Bush carried in the past (Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada), but not by overwhelming margins. What’s more, he’s not surging in Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin (though he is polling slightly ahead in Wisconsin as well as Pennsylvania). Michigan and Ohio represent 38 electoral votes while Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa only represent 26 electoral votes.
To give this scenario the proper lighting, if Mr. Obama flips these four western states while Mr. McCain flips Michigan and New Hampshire (a state that Mr. McCain has practically made his second home) while all other states remain as they were in 2004, Mr. McCain wins 273-265. Mrs. X, who has a better bead on the mood of Ohio politics than I do, remains quite certain that Ohio will go for Mr. McCain. Ohio staying in the Republican column will put additional pressure on the working class, conservative Democrats of Michigan and western Pennsylvania.
Mr. Obama must make peace and bring these voters back into the Democratic fold if he wants to win, or else pray that he can hold Pennsylvania through overwhelming African-American and youth turnout and that there will be enough conservative defection to Libertarian Bob Barr that he can steal Virginia or Georgia.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Clouds in the Rust Belt
Forty-one points.
Ms. Clinton defeated Mr. Obama by this amount in the West Virginia primary last night. In the short term it gives Ms. Clinton a little boost and certainly more than enough reason to stay in the race until June 3. Ultimately though, it won’t prevent Mr. Obama from being named the Democratic nominee in August.
Long term, there are small rippling problems because of this result. Mr. Obama was not going to win West Virginia in the general election. West Virginia is solidly Democratic on a local level (much like North Carolina), but it has too much distrust of coastal elitists that it tends to vote Republican on a national level. However, West Virginia is reflecting trends that have been glimpsed in other states that might be worrying for Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama is still not performing well in the white, working-class vote. That might not worry him in states like West Virginia and North Carolina, but it should worry him in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and even Virginia.
In Pennsylvania, it’s a given that Mr. Obama will destroy Mr. McCain in Philadelphia, while Mr. McCain takes it to Mr. Obama in the central portion of the state (referred to as the T). This means that the state will be won or lost in the working class districts around Pittsburgh. If Mr. Obama loses these areas by anywhere near the numbers he is losing similar counties, Mr. McCain will win Pennsylvania.
Likewise in Ohio. The African-American and more educated, liberal votes centered in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati are simply not enough to win the state if Mr. Obama cannot run up margins in Toledo, Akron, and other blue-collar cities.
Mr. Obama has made a claim that he can put Virginia in play due to the growing liberal suburbs in Alexandria and by increased African-American turnout. Perhaps, but again, if Mr. Obama loses the western regions of the state by the some of the numbers that he is showing (Mr. McCain will probably win the counties overall), he will lose the state.
Loses in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia could lead to loses in Michigan and Wisconsin as well, to say nothing of Missouri and North Carolina. These would heavily offset Mr. Obama’s potential wins in Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico. There is a long way to go yet and either candidate may make a fatal mistake that renders all these arguments moot, but for as strong a year as this is to be for the Democratic Party, Mr. Obama is starting with far less of a lead than should be available to him.
Ms. Clinton defeated Mr. Obama by this amount in the West Virginia primary last night. In the short term it gives Ms. Clinton a little boost and certainly more than enough reason to stay in the race until June 3. Ultimately though, it won’t prevent Mr. Obama from being named the Democratic nominee in August.
Long term, there are small rippling problems because of this result. Mr. Obama was not going to win West Virginia in the general election. West Virginia is solidly Democratic on a local level (much like North Carolina), but it has too much distrust of coastal elitists that it tends to vote Republican on a national level. However, West Virginia is reflecting trends that have been glimpsed in other states that might be worrying for Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama is still not performing well in the white, working-class vote. That might not worry him in states like West Virginia and North Carolina, but it should worry him in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and even Virginia.
In Pennsylvania, it’s a given that Mr. Obama will destroy Mr. McCain in Philadelphia, while Mr. McCain takes it to Mr. Obama in the central portion of the state (referred to as the T). This means that the state will be won or lost in the working class districts around Pittsburgh. If Mr. Obama loses these areas by anywhere near the numbers he is losing similar counties, Mr. McCain will win Pennsylvania.
Likewise in Ohio. The African-American and more educated, liberal votes centered in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati are simply not enough to win the state if Mr. Obama cannot run up margins in Toledo, Akron, and other blue-collar cities.
Mr. Obama has made a claim that he can put Virginia in play due to the growing liberal suburbs in Alexandria and by increased African-American turnout. Perhaps, but again, if Mr. Obama loses the western regions of the state by the some of the numbers that he is showing (Mr. McCain will probably win the counties overall), he will lose the state.
Loses in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia could lead to loses in Michigan and Wisconsin as well, to say nothing of Missouri and North Carolina. These would heavily offset Mr. Obama’s potential wins in Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico. There is a long way to go yet and either candidate may make a fatal mistake that renders all these arguments moot, but for as strong a year as this is to be for the Democratic Party, Mr. Obama is starting with far less of a lead than should be available to him.
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Slow Road
Slowly, bit-by-bit, Mr. Obama has been adding Superdelegates to his list. He is now ahead of Ms. Clinton and is clearly moving to ensure that he has all that he needs when he declares victory (strongly suspected to be May 20th after he wins the Oregon primary). Ms. Clinton will probably not concede that victory until after the Puerto Rico primary and the meeting of the rules committee regarding Florida and Michigan’s delegates.
One interesting thing to watch will be how the media and the Obama Campaign spin his loss in West Virginia tomorrow. It’s no real secret that he is going to lose and lose by a significant margin. However, I don’t think many people are fully prepared for how large a loss it could be. Based on both the demographics of the state relative to those in surrounding states and current polling, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Mr. Obama could lose to Ms. Clinton by 40 points. A number this high is probably unlikely, but a loss of more than 30 points is certainly likely. This result would only serve to bring embarrassing focus on Mr. Obama’s inability to secure working-class white voters.
Now, Mr. Obama has many months to get his house in order. Mr. McCain is certainly trying to make inroads, but he is still not overwhelmingly popular among conservatives. It is possible that Mr. McCain will make a fatal mistake trying to reach out to both sides at once. Then, it is likely that Mr. Obama will start seeing those lunch-pail Democrats come back to him. But they are still mistrusting of a perceived white-collar, coastal elitist asking for their vote. Only time will tell if he will rally the party to a crushing Democratic victory or oversee a split that will sink Democratic hopes in November.
One interesting thing to watch will be how the media and the Obama Campaign spin his loss in West Virginia tomorrow. It’s no real secret that he is going to lose and lose by a significant margin. However, I don’t think many people are fully prepared for how large a loss it could be. Based on both the demographics of the state relative to those in surrounding states and current polling, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Mr. Obama could lose to Ms. Clinton by 40 points. A number this high is probably unlikely, but a loss of more than 30 points is certainly likely. This result would only serve to bring embarrassing focus on Mr. Obama’s inability to secure working-class white voters.
Now, Mr. Obama has many months to get his house in order. Mr. McCain is certainly trying to make inroads, but he is still not overwhelmingly popular among conservatives. It is possible that Mr. McCain will make a fatal mistake trying to reach out to both sides at once. Then, it is likely that Mr. Obama will start seeing those lunch-pail Democrats come back to him. But they are still mistrusting of a perceived white-collar, coastal elitist asking for their vote. Only time will tell if he will rally the party to a crushing Democratic victory or oversee a split that will sink Democratic hopes in November.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
End of the World As We Know It? (I Feel Fine)
Swirling around the Internet over the past couple of weeks has been the observations of a pastor from a church in Washington. This pastor was perusing the NASA website on eclipse data when he noticed something significant. He noticed that in the years 2014 and 2015 there are going to be 6 eclipses (2 solar, 4 lunar) that all coincide with significant days on the Jewish calendar. In 2014, there will be lunar eclipses on Passover (Nisan 14) and the Sukkot (Tishri 15). In 2015, there will be lunar eclipses on Passover and Sukkot again as well as solar eclipses on the religious new year (Nisan 1) and Rosh Hashanah (Tishri 1).
Adding additional intrigue to this discovery is the fact that the Jewish year lasting from Rosh Hashanah 2014 to Rosh Hashanah 2015 is a Sabbatical Year (the final year of the seven-year cycle). There is a strong belief among many Christian scholars that the Tribulation will occur during an entire Sabbatical cycle. This leads to the supposition that the Rapture could occur in the Sabbatical Year just before the start of the new cycle (2008, 2015, 2022, etc.). While the pastor who made this discovery is not saying anything definitively, there is an air of excitement breeding around that these signs may be the signs preceding Jesus’ return at the end of the Tribulation. Obviously this means that the Rapture would have to occur prior to October 2008 for this to be true.
I am impressed by the pastor’s scholarship and I certainly agree with him that these signs are definitely pointing to something significant, but I am a bit skeptical that they point to the end of the Tribulation. There are a few questions that would seem to preclude the chance of the Tribulation kicking off six months from now.
First, Israel does not control Judea. Judea is mostly the land that is now controlled by the Palestinians and referred to as the West Bank. Prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekiel refer to Israel controlling these lands at the onset of the Great Tribulation. While it is possible that they might gain control of this region at the beginning of the Tribulation, it seems to me that there should be a firmer measure of Israeli control in preparation of full control of these territories prior to the signing of the treaty with Antichrist.
Second, the Gog Alliance. The alliance of nations set to attack Israel in the War of Gog and Magog is not yet set. While Russia and Iran are growing more and more aligned, they are still in the early stages of their pact with Libya and Sudan. There also has been very little movement towards bringing Turkey into the alliance, aside from a few negotiations about oil and gas pipelines passing through Turkish territory. Things are still not quite set for a war that many believe will occur either before the Tribulation or in the early stages of it.
Third, the initial position of the Antichrist. Most theories on Antichrist have been that he will rise to become Secretary-General of the United Nations and then take over everything from there. This is certainly possible. But I, and a few others like me, have begun to suspect something a little more subtitle. Europe recently signed a treaty that has created a new post overseeing foreign policy and security. In 2009, this post will be combined with the post for the Commissioner for External Relations. This new office is called the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and would effectively act as the Secretary of State for all of Europe. In this capacity, the occupier would sign and oversee all treaties signed by Europe as well as negotiate matters within the overall European government. It is probably the best place for a single person to confirm a treaty with Israel (given that the UN does not sign many treaties as all nations are supposed to be equal members) and then use the position to vault himself to greater prominence. However, given that the full powers of this position will not take effect until next year, it is unlikely that this person would be in a position to sign a great treaty by October/November 2008.
Fourth, the timing of the last two eclipses. If the eclipses are intended to bracket the return of Jesus, two of them are oddly out of place. Many scholars suspect that Jesus’ return will occur on Yom Kippur (Tishri 10), yet the solar eclipse occurs ten days prior to this, on Rosh Hashanah, when no great events are suspected during the Tribulation. Also, the final lunar eclipse will occur on Sukkot, the day that Jesus will officially take up rule of Earth for 1,000 years. For a period of great celebration, that seems a rather odd day to have an eclipse that will include a period of the moon becoming red like blood.
Weighing all things in the balance, though I will not preclude the possibility that the Tribulation might start in late 2008, I think it rather unlikely. Far more likely to me, is that these signs point to the beginning of something significant in 2015. Perhaps this is meant as a warning that the Tribulation will kick off in that year. But it might not. We are counseled to be watchful, but we are also warned that most people will be taken completely by surprise by the destruction that comes upon them. I would certainly love to be wrong, but I would strongly dissuade anyone with thoughts of selling their possessions and going to sit on top of a mountain to wait things out.
Adding additional intrigue to this discovery is the fact that the Jewish year lasting from Rosh Hashanah 2014 to Rosh Hashanah 2015 is a Sabbatical Year (the final year of the seven-year cycle). There is a strong belief among many Christian scholars that the Tribulation will occur during an entire Sabbatical cycle. This leads to the supposition that the Rapture could occur in the Sabbatical Year just before the start of the new cycle (2008, 2015, 2022, etc.). While the pastor who made this discovery is not saying anything definitively, there is an air of excitement breeding around that these signs may be the signs preceding Jesus’ return at the end of the Tribulation. Obviously this means that the Rapture would have to occur prior to October 2008 for this to be true.
I am impressed by the pastor’s scholarship and I certainly agree with him that these signs are definitely pointing to something significant, but I am a bit skeptical that they point to the end of the Tribulation. There are a few questions that would seem to preclude the chance of the Tribulation kicking off six months from now.
First, Israel does not control Judea. Judea is mostly the land that is now controlled by the Palestinians and referred to as the West Bank. Prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekiel refer to Israel controlling these lands at the onset of the Great Tribulation. While it is possible that they might gain control of this region at the beginning of the Tribulation, it seems to me that there should be a firmer measure of Israeli control in preparation of full control of these territories prior to the signing of the treaty with Antichrist.
Second, the Gog Alliance. The alliance of nations set to attack Israel in the War of Gog and Magog is not yet set. While Russia and Iran are growing more and more aligned, they are still in the early stages of their pact with Libya and Sudan. There also has been very little movement towards bringing Turkey into the alliance, aside from a few negotiations about oil and gas pipelines passing through Turkish territory. Things are still not quite set for a war that many believe will occur either before the Tribulation or in the early stages of it.
Third, the initial position of the Antichrist. Most theories on Antichrist have been that he will rise to become Secretary-General of the United Nations and then take over everything from there. This is certainly possible. But I, and a few others like me, have begun to suspect something a little more subtitle. Europe recently signed a treaty that has created a new post overseeing foreign policy and security. In 2009, this post will be combined with the post for the Commissioner for External Relations. This new office is called the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and would effectively act as the Secretary of State for all of Europe. In this capacity, the occupier would sign and oversee all treaties signed by Europe as well as negotiate matters within the overall European government. It is probably the best place for a single person to confirm a treaty with Israel (given that the UN does not sign many treaties as all nations are supposed to be equal members) and then use the position to vault himself to greater prominence. However, given that the full powers of this position will not take effect until next year, it is unlikely that this person would be in a position to sign a great treaty by October/November 2008.
Fourth, the timing of the last two eclipses. If the eclipses are intended to bracket the return of Jesus, two of them are oddly out of place. Many scholars suspect that Jesus’ return will occur on Yom Kippur (Tishri 10), yet the solar eclipse occurs ten days prior to this, on Rosh Hashanah, when no great events are suspected during the Tribulation. Also, the final lunar eclipse will occur on Sukkot, the day that Jesus will officially take up rule of Earth for 1,000 years. For a period of great celebration, that seems a rather odd day to have an eclipse that will include a period of the moon becoming red like blood.
Weighing all things in the balance, though I will not preclude the possibility that the Tribulation might start in late 2008, I think it rather unlikely. Far more likely to me, is that these signs point to the beginning of something significant in 2015. Perhaps this is meant as a warning that the Tribulation will kick off in that year. But it might not. We are counseled to be watchful, but we are also warned that most people will be taken completely by surprise by the destruction that comes upon them. I would certainly love to be wrong, but I would strongly dissuade anyone with thoughts of selling their possessions and going to sit on top of a mountain to wait things out.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Obama Accending
Is it over? Well, if you wanted to get technical, it has probably been over for a while, but Ms. Clinton’s last best hope is fading quickly. The numbers I predicted and those that her camp had hoped for would have registered some sort of backlash against Mr. Obama from his supporters over the flap with Rev. Wright, Mr. Ayers, etc. Instead, Mr. Obama got a victory in North Carolina that went right down the demographic lines we have come to expect and a better than expected showing in Indiana.
Held in a vacuum, Ms. Clinton probably would have won Indiana by closer to 5 points as it’s demographics are similar to Ohio. However, Ms. Clinton lost voters who she would normally carry from South Bend and Gary. Mr. Obama’s popularity with younger voters and the strong influence of the Chicago media market seem to be the primary reasons for Mr. Obama’s strength in these areas.
With that twist put on things, it appears that the same divide that has appeared in the Democratic electorate a number of weeks ago are still there. However the numbers are now such that Ms. Clinton is very unlikely to convince the remaining 270+ Superdelegates that she should be the nominee. Mr. Obama has guaranteed that he will win the pledged delegate battle (his estimated lead is 165 delegates) and he is likely to win the popular vote as well. He is currently leading by over 700,000 votes and even if one factors Florida and Michigan in, Ms. Clinton only narrows the gap to about 100,000 votes.
Now, Ms. Clinton is going to rack up a very substantial victory in West Virginia next week and she’ll hold serve in Kentucky while losing moderately in Oregon. However, unless she couples a West Virginia annihilation with a similar bloodfest in Puerto Rico, it is unlikely that Ms. Clinton will make a credible argument even in the popular vote totals.
I’m guessing that Ms. Clinton will stick around until all the contests are over and maybe even until after the rules committee makes their formal decision on the Florida and Michigan question, but I think there is little doubt that Mr. Obama will be recognized at the Democratic nominee by July 4th at the latest.
Held in a vacuum, Ms. Clinton probably would have won Indiana by closer to 5 points as it’s demographics are similar to Ohio. However, Ms. Clinton lost voters who she would normally carry from South Bend and Gary. Mr. Obama’s popularity with younger voters and the strong influence of the Chicago media market seem to be the primary reasons for Mr. Obama’s strength in these areas.
With that twist put on things, it appears that the same divide that has appeared in the Democratic electorate a number of weeks ago are still there. However the numbers are now such that Ms. Clinton is very unlikely to convince the remaining 270+ Superdelegates that she should be the nominee. Mr. Obama has guaranteed that he will win the pledged delegate battle (his estimated lead is 165 delegates) and he is likely to win the popular vote as well. He is currently leading by over 700,000 votes and even if one factors Florida and Michigan in, Ms. Clinton only narrows the gap to about 100,000 votes.
Now, Ms. Clinton is going to rack up a very substantial victory in West Virginia next week and she’ll hold serve in Kentucky while losing moderately in Oregon. However, unless she couples a West Virginia annihilation with a similar bloodfest in Puerto Rico, it is unlikely that Ms. Clinton will make a credible argument even in the popular vote totals.
I’m guessing that Ms. Clinton will stick around until all the contests are over and maybe even until after the rules committee makes their formal decision on the Florida and Michigan question, but I think there is little doubt that Mr. Obama will be recognized at the Democratic nominee by July 4th at the latest.
Monday, May 05, 2008
This is the Song that Never Ends
Despite the incessant drumming, tomorrow’s results will no overt effect on either campaign. Mr. Obama is still in the lead and while two losses would be a nasty punch in the ribs, it won’t kill him. Likewise for Ms. Clinton. She’ll hear screaming for her to get out of the race if she loses both Indiana and North Carolina, but she will soldier on with good tidings just over the horizon.
My own feeling is of a split. Ms. Clinton will win Indiana. I think somewhere in the 5-7 point range is likely based on the polling I’ve seen and trends in the late-breaking deciders. Mr. Obama will win North Carolina as well. I see an 8-10 point win for him. Realistically, if he wins by any less than that, it will be seen as a sign that he is starting to bleed heavily. He should be winning this state by upwards of 12-15 points given the demographics, but there is no question that he is wounded at the moment.
Meanwhile, Ms. Clinton is looking at a couple of good contests in the next two weeks. She may win West Virginia by over 20 points if the demographics of the bordering states are any key to the nature of the state and she should cruise to a better than 10 point win in Kentucky. Mr. Obama will take Oregon, but if he wins by less than 5 it is likely to be more bad news for him.
I envision Mr. Dean and his associates to be close to pulling their hair completely out by the end of the month of May. We’ll have to see what tidings the month of June begins.
My own feeling is of a split. Ms. Clinton will win Indiana. I think somewhere in the 5-7 point range is likely based on the polling I’ve seen and trends in the late-breaking deciders. Mr. Obama will win North Carolina as well. I see an 8-10 point win for him. Realistically, if he wins by any less than that, it will be seen as a sign that he is starting to bleed heavily. He should be winning this state by upwards of 12-15 points given the demographics, but there is no question that he is wounded at the moment.
Meanwhile, Ms. Clinton is looking at a couple of good contests in the next two weeks. She may win West Virginia by over 20 points if the demographics of the bordering states are any key to the nature of the state and she should cruise to a better than 10 point win in Kentucky. Mr. Obama will take Oregon, but if he wins by less than 5 it is likely to be more bad news for him.
I envision Mr. Dean and his associates to be close to pulling their hair completely out by the end of the month of May. We’ll have to see what tidings the month of June begins.
Friday, May 02, 2008
One of the more interesting things about following the horserace that is the Presidential Election is looking at polling trends within the individual states. Things are still in the embryonic stage since the Democrats don't have a nominee yet and its only May so many people are still not paying attention. But, certain trends are emerging which seem to suggest where the major battles will take place this year.
Unfortunately, only one polling firm has been conducting state vs. state polling: Rasmussen. Their polling is fine, but only having one source can give you skewed results. Since the Democratic nominee has not been decided upon, they divide things up into three categories: Obama vs. McCain, Clinton vs. McCain, and the Balance of Power Calculator. In the last one, they factor in the historic trend of the state, the current polling, and market predictors as to how to rate the state. They also have to average the results between both Obama and Clinton, which offers its own little skew on things. The results are shown graphically bellow:
Obama vs. McCain:
Clinton vs. McCain:
Balance of Power:
The Balance of power is probably the most reliable because of other little problems in polling this early. I don't believe that anyone believes that Mr. McCain is going to win New Jersey despite his polling ahead by a small margin against both Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton. I personally don't believe that Mr. McCain will win Iowa no matter who he faces unless there is a complete meltdown by the Democratic candidate. Likewise, Mr. Obama will probably not carry North Carolina despite his being tied in the polls with Mr. McCain.
At this stage in the game, its best to watch. However, I would point out that historically the anti-incumbent party is usally far ahead in polling at this stage. This has been staved off due to the continued fighting between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton. We shall have to see by how much the winner breaks ahead of Mr. McCain initially. If it's by less than 10 points with not many swings in states like Michigan, Colorado, Ohio, and Florida, Mr. McCain could have a very serious chance at winning.
Unfortunately, only one polling firm has been conducting state vs. state polling: Rasmussen. Their polling is fine, but only having one source can give you skewed results. Since the Democratic nominee has not been decided upon, they divide things up into three categories: Obama vs. McCain, Clinton vs. McCain, and the Balance of Power Calculator. In the last one, they factor in the historic trend of the state, the current polling, and market predictors as to how to rate the state. They also have to average the results between both Obama and Clinton, which offers its own little skew on things. The results are shown graphically bellow:
Obama vs. McCain:
Clinton vs. McCain:
Balance of Power:
The Balance of power is probably the most reliable because of other little problems in polling this early. I don't believe that anyone believes that Mr. McCain is going to win New Jersey despite his polling ahead by a small margin against both Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton. I personally don't believe that Mr. McCain will win Iowa no matter who he faces unless there is a complete meltdown by the Democratic candidate. Likewise, Mr. Obama will probably not carry North Carolina despite his being tied in the polls with Mr. McCain.
At this stage in the game, its best to watch. However, I would point out that historically the anti-incumbent party is usally far ahead in polling at this stage. This has been staved off due to the continued fighting between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton. We shall have to see by how much the winner breaks ahead of Mr. McCain initially. If it's by less than 10 points with not many swings in states like Michigan, Colorado, Ohio, and Florida, Mr. McCain could have a very serious chance at winning.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Starting to Bleed
Last fall, I posted about the selection Ms. Clinton should be making for her running mate because Mr. Obama seemed to have seriously hurt his campaign with a case of foot-in-mouth disease. Several months later, Mr. Obama has propelled himself to within sniffing distance of the Democratic nomination, but he is still suffering from foot-in-mouth.
Unlike many of the media poobahs, I never expected Mr. Obama to defeat Ms. Clinton in Pennsylvania. I seriously expected him to challenge her, outspend her in the state, bring the polls to within 3-5 points and then stall out with Ms. Clinton ending up with the 7-8 point win. Essentially, I expected the same result as Ohio just over a longer stretch. However, Mr. Obama’s comment threatens to expand what was already an expected loss, into a nasty pitch off the handlebars.
Framed from the perspective of bitterness, there is a nugget of truth to what Mr. Obama has said. In bad economic times, people do become bitter and seek explanations outside themselves (hence the constant blaming of NAFTA for the loss of industrial jobs). However, his examples of what people use as a crutch to get through this bitterness have potentially hobbled him. To frame the idea that people use hunting, racism, or even religion as a crutch against not being like the wealthy elite, smacks of a “poor, impoverished masses” mentality. Worse, Mr. Obama’s dismissal of the faith of the middle-class as a crutch skirts him dangerously close to the philosophy that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” I doubt Mr. Obama wants his face placed next to Karl Marx in too many campaign ads.
It will be interesting to see how Mr. Obama recovers from this. He is already trying to spin this thing, but the absolutism of his statements does not lend themselves too much spin. Eventually the media will tire of the story, but if Ms. Clinton is able to parse this into a greater than 10-point victory in Pennsylvania and a better than 7-point win in Indiana, she will be sowing that many more seeds of doubt in the minds of the remaining 300+ Superdelegates.
Regardless, Mr. Obama will still win North Carolina, probably Oregon, and maybe South Dakota and Montana as well. Ms. Clinton will win Kentucky, West Virginia, and probably Puerto Rico. Mr. Obama will win more pledged delegates and probably the majority of the popular vote. But even with these, we are now seeing the possibility that he might be seriously hobbled. Many polls and predictions will be made regarding viability, especially if Ms. Clinton comes into June with more perceived momentum than him.
At least 6 more weeks of debate are before us, maybe more. Enjoy the ride.
Unlike many of the media poobahs, I never expected Mr. Obama to defeat Ms. Clinton in Pennsylvania. I seriously expected him to challenge her, outspend her in the state, bring the polls to within 3-5 points and then stall out with Ms. Clinton ending up with the 7-8 point win. Essentially, I expected the same result as Ohio just over a longer stretch. However, Mr. Obama’s comment threatens to expand what was already an expected loss, into a nasty pitch off the handlebars.
Framed from the perspective of bitterness, there is a nugget of truth to what Mr. Obama has said. In bad economic times, people do become bitter and seek explanations outside themselves (hence the constant blaming of NAFTA for the loss of industrial jobs). However, his examples of what people use as a crutch to get through this bitterness have potentially hobbled him. To frame the idea that people use hunting, racism, or even religion as a crutch against not being like the wealthy elite, smacks of a “poor, impoverished masses” mentality. Worse, Mr. Obama’s dismissal of the faith of the middle-class as a crutch skirts him dangerously close to the philosophy that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” I doubt Mr. Obama wants his face placed next to Karl Marx in too many campaign ads.
It will be interesting to see how Mr. Obama recovers from this. He is already trying to spin this thing, but the absolutism of his statements does not lend themselves too much spin. Eventually the media will tire of the story, but if Ms. Clinton is able to parse this into a greater than 10-point victory in Pennsylvania and a better than 7-point win in Indiana, she will be sowing that many more seeds of doubt in the minds of the remaining 300+ Superdelegates.
Regardless, Mr. Obama will still win North Carolina, probably Oregon, and maybe South Dakota and Montana as well. Ms. Clinton will win Kentucky, West Virginia, and probably Puerto Rico. Mr. Obama will win more pledged delegates and probably the majority of the popular vote. But even with these, we are now seeing the possibility that he might be seriously hobbled. Many polls and predictions will be made regarding viability, especially if Ms. Clinton comes into June with more perceived momentum than him.
At least 6 more weeks of debate are before us, maybe more. Enjoy the ride.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Fallout
By now, much has been said both pro and con regarding Mr. Obama and his connections to Rev. Wright. Many on the intellectual Left have praised Mr. Obama’s speech while many on the Right have criticized it as Mr. Obama has tried to refute the nastiness of Rev. Wright’s words while keeping connections with the man himself. Meanwhile, it is still unclear as to how badly this hurts Mr. Obama’s chances of securing the Democratic nomination and winning against Mr. McCain in November.
At the moment, there is a great deal of anger in the white, blue-collar community (and in some ethnic communities) over Mr. Obama’s refusal to fully denounce Rev. Wright. What some are starting to realize is that Mr. Obama can’t fully denounce Rev. Wright because it would conflict with his overall theological beliefs. Mr. Obama may not care for the vitriolic hatred through which Rev. Wright spreads his message (although a 19-year membership in this church does seem to even call this into question), but ultimately Mr. Obama is a believer in the Black Liberation Theology to which Rev. Wright ascribes and preaches. Ultimately, it is about struggle, the restitution of past wrongs and an interpretation of the Gospel that fits with this socially conscious method. Unfortunately, it is easily given over to victimhood, which can in turn lead to anger, as given in the person of Rev. Wright.
What will probably not go away in the minds of many Democratic and Independent voters is this transformation of Mr. Obama from a candidate who happens to be African-American, to the African-American candidate, potentially hitting all the necessary buttons and baggage that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton hit.
It may be that it is too late for this to affect the Democratic race. Ms. Clinton is most likely going to win Pennsylvania and by large margins. That the numbers have increased in the wake of the Rev. Wright controversy is lost in the fact that they were already pretty high to begin with. If Mr. Obama goes on to win North Carolina and Oregon as people thing he will, and if he makes Indiana close (maybe even winning it) then he will be the nominee. However, if North Carolina goes to the wire and Ms. Clinton is able to pull it out, only then will the Superdelegates start to reevaluate their position. Any retention of the status quo with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama getting wins on their “turf” will only benefit Mr. Obama as the party elders will be too reluctant to overturn the perceived will of the people.
Then it would come down to the question of if Democratic anger over the policies of Bush can keep Mr. Obama afloat or whether his flaws ultimately sink him in the face of the Republican onslaught.
At the moment, there is a great deal of anger in the white, blue-collar community (and in some ethnic communities) over Mr. Obama’s refusal to fully denounce Rev. Wright. What some are starting to realize is that Mr. Obama can’t fully denounce Rev. Wright because it would conflict with his overall theological beliefs. Mr. Obama may not care for the vitriolic hatred through which Rev. Wright spreads his message (although a 19-year membership in this church does seem to even call this into question), but ultimately Mr. Obama is a believer in the Black Liberation Theology to which Rev. Wright ascribes and preaches. Ultimately, it is about struggle, the restitution of past wrongs and an interpretation of the Gospel that fits with this socially conscious method. Unfortunately, it is easily given over to victimhood, which can in turn lead to anger, as given in the person of Rev. Wright.
What will probably not go away in the minds of many Democratic and Independent voters is this transformation of Mr. Obama from a candidate who happens to be African-American, to the African-American candidate, potentially hitting all the necessary buttons and baggage that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton hit.
It may be that it is too late for this to affect the Democratic race. Ms. Clinton is most likely going to win Pennsylvania and by large margins. That the numbers have increased in the wake of the Rev. Wright controversy is lost in the fact that they were already pretty high to begin with. If Mr. Obama goes on to win North Carolina and Oregon as people thing he will, and if he makes Indiana close (maybe even winning it) then he will be the nominee. However, if North Carolina goes to the wire and Ms. Clinton is able to pull it out, only then will the Superdelegates start to reevaluate their position. Any retention of the status quo with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama getting wins on their “turf” will only benefit Mr. Obama as the party elders will be too reluctant to overturn the perceived will of the people.
Then it would come down to the question of if Democratic anger over the policies of Bush can keep Mr. Obama afloat or whether his flaws ultimately sink him in the face of the Republican onslaught.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Democratic Calendar of Events
Mr. Obama won Mississippi as expected last night. He will gain at least 17 delegates to Ms. Clinton’s 11. There are 5 more delegates who will be allotted once all the votes are fully counted and documented in each congressional district. In absolute hard pledges, Mr. Obama leads 1274-1166 with 5 outstanding. Factoring in the estimated allotments in caucuses, Mr. Obama increases his lead to 1388.5-1240.5 with 32 outstanding and 26 still pledged to Mr. Edwards. Ms. Clinton still holds a lead of about 30 Superdelegates, leaving her roughly 110 total delegates behind.
Now we are in for the long slog where we wait for Pennsylvania. The media will probably spend most of this time going over the deliberations over what to do with the Florida and Michigan votes. At the moment, it seems that Florida’s plan to revote by mail is moving forward, despite dissent from the House Florida delegation and the large holes for lawsuits that could be opened up. There is no word yet if Michigan is going to follow the same parameters.
To give and idea of the upcoming calendar, here are the remaining important dates:
April 12 – Democrats Abroad will formally select their delegates. Mr. Obama is expected to receive 4.5 and Ms. Clinton 2.5 (There are 14 delegates with a half vote each).
April 22 – Pennsylvania Primary – 158 delegates
April 26 – Iowa District Conventions – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 10 delegates, Ms. Clinton 10, and Mr. Edwards 9. It is unknown if Mr. Edwards will keep his delegates or release them to the other candidates.
May 3 – Guam Caucus – 6 delegates (0.5 votes each for 3 votes)
May 6 – North Carolina and Indiana Primaries – 115 and 72 delegates
May 13 – West Virginia Primary – 28 delegates
May 17 – Colorado State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 19 delegates and Ms. Clinton 9. There are an additional 27 delegates that will be assigned to candidates at the convention.
May 18 – Nevada State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 13 delegates and Ms. Clinton 12.
May 20 – Kentucky and Oregon Primaries – 51 and 52 delegates
May 24 – Alaska State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 9 delegates and Ms. Clinton 4.
June 1 – Puerto Rico Primary – Puerto Rico has petitioned to move up one week to June 1 and switch from a caucus to a primary as part of the Florida and Michigan negotiations. Puerto Rico has 55 delegates.
June 3 – Montana and South Dakota Primaries – 16 and 15 delegates
June 7 – Texas State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 38 delegates and Ms. Clinton 29.
June 14 – Idaho and Iowa State Conventions – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 15 delegates and Ms. Clinton 3 from Idaho. Mr. Obama is expected to receive 6 delegates, Ms. Clinton 5, and Mr. Edwards 5 from Iowa. It is unknown if Mr. Edwards will keep his delegates or release them to the other candidates.
Any makeup primaries in Florida and Michigan will likely take place after June 3 but prior to July 1.
Now we are in for the long slog where we wait for Pennsylvania. The media will probably spend most of this time going over the deliberations over what to do with the Florida and Michigan votes. At the moment, it seems that Florida’s plan to revote by mail is moving forward, despite dissent from the House Florida delegation and the large holes for lawsuits that could be opened up. There is no word yet if Michigan is going to follow the same parameters.
To give and idea of the upcoming calendar, here are the remaining important dates:
April 12 – Democrats Abroad will formally select their delegates. Mr. Obama is expected to receive 4.5 and Ms. Clinton 2.5 (There are 14 delegates with a half vote each).
April 22 – Pennsylvania Primary – 158 delegates
April 26 – Iowa District Conventions – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 10 delegates, Ms. Clinton 10, and Mr. Edwards 9. It is unknown if Mr. Edwards will keep his delegates or release them to the other candidates.
May 3 – Guam Caucus – 6 delegates (0.5 votes each for 3 votes)
May 6 – North Carolina and Indiana Primaries – 115 and 72 delegates
May 13 – West Virginia Primary – 28 delegates
May 17 – Colorado State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 19 delegates and Ms. Clinton 9. There are an additional 27 delegates that will be assigned to candidates at the convention.
May 18 – Nevada State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 13 delegates and Ms. Clinton 12.
May 20 – Kentucky and Oregon Primaries – 51 and 52 delegates
May 24 – Alaska State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 9 delegates and Ms. Clinton 4.
June 1 – Puerto Rico Primary – Puerto Rico has petitioned to move up one week to June 1 and switch from a caucus to a primary as part of the Florida and Michigan negotiations. Puerto Rico has 55 delegates.
June 3 – Montana and South Dakota Primaries – 16 and 15 delegates
June 7 – Texas State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 38 delegates and Ms. Clinton 29.
June 14 – Idaho and Iowa State Conventions – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 15 delegates and Ms. Clinton 3 from Idaho. Mr. Obama is expected to receive 6 delegates, Ms. Clinton 5, and Mr. Edwards 5 from Iowa. It is unknown if Mr. Edwards will keep his delegates or release them to the other candidates.
Any makeup primaries in Florida and Michigan will likely take place after June 3 but prior to July 1.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Likely Bitter Pill
Much ink and drama are going to be played out over the next few months, but the end result is probably going to be pretty predictable barring a major mistake by one candidate or the other. At the end of the day, neither Mr. Obama nor Ms. Clinton is going to have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination and it will become a beauty contest between the Superdelegates.
Ms. Clinton has been talking up how she wins big states while Mr. Obama talks about bringing in new voters and can make traditional red states competitive. Both of these are fallacies. In a primary, there are no red and blue states. There are only Democratic contests and your appeal is determined how well you organize and what constituencies you appeal to. Ms. Clinton wins big states because she appeals to the traditional blue collar, union Democrats who make up the majority of the voting blocs in those states. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is winning African-Americans, young voters, and liberal intellectuals. This gives him power in states where the traditional Democrats have been weeded out. The Democrats may win states like Ohio and West Virginia, but who takes those now will have no bearing on the final outcome against Mr. McCain.
The biggest worry for Democratic operatives when one looks at this analysis is what happens once the folks in the backroom pick one candidate over the other. If Ms. Clinton is selected, she’ll maintain her blocs and will pick up the intellectual liberals. However young voters may evaporate, as their motivation is lost. Likewise, African-American voters may be angry enough to either stay home or give Mr. McCain a look. If Mr. Obama is selected, he’ll maintain his voting blocs, but he may lose some of the working class Democrats. These are the “Reagan Democrats” who pay close attention to National Security and may be turned off by Mr. Obama’s aggressive spending plans that could result in higher taxes.
On top of all this is how the landscape looks once the primary season is over. Knowing that Mr. Obama will almost certainly finish in the lead with pledged delegates, many Democrats would probably prefer him to also finish with the popular vote lead and more states in his column (Mr. Obama currently leads 25 states + DC to 16 states for Ms. Clinton, so he will have won more contests at the end of the day). However, 57% Democratic voters have openly stated that if no one wins the nomination due to pledged delegates then the winner of the popular vote should be the nominee. This is the one avenue still open for Ms. Clinton as she trails Mr. Obama by about 600,000 votes not including Michigan and Florida. If these states get seated or she wins in somewhat similar numbers in the do-overs, Ms. Clinton could take the popular vote lead from Mr. Obama. Then the party elders are back where they started and will have to torque off one constituency or the other.
The choice might come down to which side is more willing to forgive the other or which side is the one that Democrats decide they can sacrifice for the common good. Neither choice is particularly appetizing.
Ms. Clinton has been talking up how she wins big states while Mr. Obama talks about bringing in new voters and can make traditional red states competitive. Both of these are fallacies. In a primary, there are no red and blue states. There are only Democratic contests and your appeal is determined how well you organize and what constituencies you appeal to. Ms. Clinton wins big states because she appeals to the traditional blue collar, union Democrats who make up the majority of the voting blocs in those states. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is winning African-Americans, young voters, and liberal intellectuals. This gives him power in states where the traditional Democrats have been weeded out. The Democrats may win states like Ohio and West Virginia, but who takes those now will have no bearing on the final outcome against Mr. McCain.
The biggest worry for Democratic operatives when one looks at this analysis is what happens once the folks in the backroom pick one candidate over the other. If Ms. Clinton is selected, she’ll maintain her blocs and will pick up the intellectual liberals. However young voters may evaporate, as their motivation is lost. Likewise, African-American voters may be angry enough to either stay home or give Mr. McCain a look. If Mr. Obama is selected, he’ll maintain his voting blocs, but he may lose some of the working class Democrats. These are the “Reagan Democrats” who pay close attention to National Security and may be turned off by Mr. Obama’s aggressive spending plans that could result in higher taxes.
On top of all this is how the landscape looks once the primary season is over. Knowing that Mr. Obama will almost certainly finish in the lead with pledged delegates, many Democrats would probably prefer him to also finish with the popular vote lead and more states in his column (Mr. Obama currently leads 25 states + DC to 16 states for Ms. Clinton, so he will have won more contests at the end of the day). However, 57% Democratic voters have openly stated that if no one wins the nomination due to pledged delegates then the winner of the popular vote should be the nominee. This is the one avenue still open for Ms. Clinton as she trails Mr. Obama by about 600,000 votes not including Michigan and Florida. If these states get seated or she wins in somewhat similar numbers in the do-overs, Ms. Clinton could take the popular vote lead from Mr. Obama. Then the party elders are back where they started and will have to torque off one constituency or the other.
The choice might come down to which side is more willing to forgive the other or which side is the one that Democrats decide they can sacrifice for the common good. Neither choice is particularly appetizing.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The Road to Denver Will Be Paved with Blood
Now things are interesting again. I had correctly speculated that Ms. Clinton would win Rhode Island and Ohio while Mr. Obama would win Vermont. I went back and forth on Texas (as did Texas itself) but the trend of the Monday polls suggested to me that she could squeak out a one or two-point win. I was actually thinking that the early votes would put her over the top, but apparently Mr. Obama won the early votes by nearly 150,000. Instead she vaulted up on her own, although her numbers were inflated a small bit by Republican crossover. Mr. Obama won crossover Republicans as well, but his numbers would have been higher among this segment if there hadn’t been an active push in some circles to keep Ms. Clinton in the race.
Anyway, where do we go from here? Well, as I postulated earlier, the combined wins in Ohio and Texas easily keep her in until Pennsylvania and probably through Puerto Rico in June. A statistic that keeps getting flashed by the Clinton people is that if you include the voter turnout in Michigan and Florida, she and Mr. Obama are now tied for popular votes, with several large states that may go to Ms. Clinton in the future. What’s more, both Florida and Michigan are talking openly of holding their primaries again in June or July. Ms. Clinton should naturally do well in both states (and her championing of them over the past three months will only have helped her standing there) and substituting substantial wins in those states for the pseudo-wins she has will only make her stronger.
Mr. Obama will trumpet his delegate lead, which will remain essentially unchanged (not including the Texas caucus, Ms. Clinton had a net pick up of 15 delegates). However, Mr. Obama now has to win over 75% of the Democratic electorate to get the 2025 delegates he needs to win prior to the convention. This is not going to happen. Since both candidates will not have the majority, the race will be decided by the Superdelegates and the idea of being “in the lead” comes down to momentum and appeal rather than hard math. Mr. Obama will pick up some momentum again assuming he wins Wyoming and Mississippi next week, but she could blunt that with a solid win in Pennsylvania.
Ironically, one thing happened last night that may prove a strong argument for Ms. Clinton. She has argued that Mr. Obama’s success in caucuses do not accurately reflect the electorate. We may get a microcosm of this argument in Texas. Ms. Clinton won the state primary by 3 points, but Mr. Obama may end up winning the Texas caucus by 7 points or better. Obviously, the two results are not harmonious and allows Ms. Clinton to state that if all the electorate were involved, she would have beaten Mr. Obama in important swing states like Iowa and Colorado. This may not necessarily be true, but she can make a good argument at least.
Ms. Clinton will probably ignore Wyoming, although she might send Bill down to try to pump up turnout a little in Mississippi so she doesn’t get completely blown out (highest African-American population in any state by percentage). But she will focus on Pennsylvania, especially to try and blunt a potential big victory for Mr. Obama in North Carolina in early May. If she wins Pennsylvania by any decent margin, she will have a good shot to take West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana, while also making a push for Oregon. Wins in these states will build a strong case for her to present to the Superdelegates that she is the one to beat.
Mr. Obama on the other hand is going to have to learn how to hit back in a proper manner. His style has been more deflection than counterpunch at the moment. The longer he allows Ms. Clinton to hang around and bleed him with paper cuts, the potentially weaker he gets. A win in Pennsylvania would be ideal, but the demographics of the state currently favor Ms. Clinton. He must stay close there and then pound her with a big win in North Carolina. If he could tie that win a win in Indiana, he would be in good shape to take Oregon and maybe even Kentucky (I don’t think he has a realistic shot at West Virginia).
I find it rather amusing that with the mad scramble of states to become the first in the nation and keep pushing up their primaries, it could the one-two punch of Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th that determine who has the momentum heading into the convention.
FYI, for those keeping track, Ms. Clinton now leads 6-4 in the 12 swing states of 2004 with Pennsylvania and Oregon remaining.
Anyway, where do we go from here? Well, as I postulated earlier, the combined wins in Ohio and Texas easily keep her in until Pennsylvania and probably through Puerto Rico in June. A statistic that keeps getting flashed by the Clinton people is that if you include the voter turnout in Michigan and Florida, she and Mr. Obama are now tied for popular votes, with several large states that may go to Ms. Clinton in the future. What’s more, both Florida and Michigan are talking openly of holding their primaries again in June or July. Ms. Clinton should naturally do well in both states (and her championing of them over the past three months will only have helped her standing there) and substituting substantial wins in those states for the pseudo-wins she has will only make her stronger.
Mr. Obama will trumpet his delegate lead, which will remain essentially unchanged (not including the Texas caucus, Ms. Clinton had a net pick up of 15 delegates). However, Mr. Obama now has to win over 75% of the Democratic electorate to get the 2025 delegates he needs to win prior to the convention. This is not going to happen. Since both candidates will not have the majority, the race will be decided by the Superdelegates and the idea of being “in the lead” comes down to momentum and appeal rather than hard math. Mr. Obama will pick up some momentum again assuming he wins Wyoming and Mississippi next week, but she could blunt that with a solid win in Pennsylvania.
Ironically, one thing happened last night that may prove a strong argument for Ms. Clinton. She has argued that Mr. Obama’s success in caucuses do not accurately reflect the electorate. We may get a microcosm of this argument in Texas. Ms. Clinton won the state primary by 3 points, but Mr. Obama may end up winning the Texas caucus by 7 points or better. Obviously, the two results are not harmonious and allows Ms. Clinton to state that if all the electorate were involved, she would have beaten Mr. Obama in important swing states like Iowa and Colorado. This may not necessarily be true, but she can make a good argument at least.
Ms. Clinton will probably ignore Wyoming, although she might send Bill down to try to pump up turnout a little in Mississippi so she doesn’t get completely blown out (highest African-American population in any state by percentage). But she will focus on Pennsylvania, especially to try and blunt a potential big victory for Mr. Obama in North Carolina in early May. If she wins Pennsylvania by any decent margin, she will have a good shot to take West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana, while also making a push for Oregon. Wins in these states will build a strong case for her to present to the Superdelegates that she is the one to beat.
Mr. Obama on the other hand is going to have to learn how to hit back in a proper manner. His style has been more deflection than counterpunch at the moment. The longer he allows Ms. Clinton to hang around and bleed him with paper cuts, the potentially weaker he gets. A win in Pennsylvania would be ideal, but the demographics of the state currently favor Ms. Clinton. He must stay close there and then pound her with a big win in North Carolina. If he could tie that win a win in Indiana, he would be in good shape to take Oregon and maybe even Kentucky (I don’t think he has a realistic shot at West Virginia).
I find it rather amusing that with the mad scramble of states to become the first in the nation and keep pushing up their primaries, it could the one-two punch of Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th that determine who has the momentum heading into the convention.
FYI, for those keeping track, Ms. Clinton now leads 6-4 in the 12 swing states of 2004 with Pennsylvania and Oregon remaining.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Last Best Chance?
Is this really Mr. Obama’s third and last best chance to deliver a crushing blow to Ms. Clinton? It has been argued that Mr. Obama has had two previous chances to knock her out: New Hampshire and Super Tuesday. I don’t believe that Ms. Clinton would have withdrawn has she lost New Hampshire, but it might have set in motion the loss in the first four primaries that I discussed earlier, which might have forced her to consider withdrawing if the momentum made it look like she could lose New York. Of course, she came back and won New Hampshire.
Super Tuesday also probably wouldn’t have forced Ms. Clinton to withdraw but had Obama won California or New Jersey (even making them very close), he could have undercut her at her base and argued that he was well established in Democratic circles. That might have been enough to ensure a comfortable win in Ohio that would have clearly forced her to withdraw.
So now we’re on Mr. Obama’s supposed third opportunity to force Ms. Clinton out. Despite the Media and the Party talking about it, if Ms. Clinton wins Ohio, she will stick it out until at least Pennsylvania. It is really only a statement by Bill Clinton that has put this notion out there that she should withdraw if she loses both primaries. Obama might win Texas, but if the vote is close and she wins decent majorities in Hispanics and Women (which she is polling well in), she will argue that Texas is still a Red State and that she is the stronger person in the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. Ohio, being one of the strongest Purple States, probably matters more in terms of prestige than Texas does, despite Texas having more delegates.
If Ms. Clinton loses Ohio, she probably won’t be able to recover and will be hard pressed to make the argument that she represents the soul of the Democratic Party. A win in Ohio but not Texas will amplify the calls for her to withdraw, but I think there will be some creative spin and a wait-until-Pennsylvania attitude to decide things. If she wins both Texas and Ohio, she will probably stick it out until the Puerto Rico primaries.
Two things that have operated below the public radar are the simple fact that although Mr. Obama raised more money, Ms. Clinton did bring in $35 million. That is a lot of money and there is a large portion of the Democratic base behind her. Also, there are whispers that a large segment of the Jewish population is growing increasingly wary of Mr. Obama and his rather weak refutations of the anti-Semitic stances of some of his supporters.
If there is any significant defection of the Jewish population to Mr. McCain (Kerry won Jews 75-25), that could take certain states out of play and put other states in the maybe column. Certainly Florida would be lost to Mr. McCain and it would hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of swinging Ohio and Virginia into the Democratic column. It could also make things very uncomfortable for Mr. Obama in Connecticut and New Jersey (states that he should win by significant margins). It might even sap away the Democratic advantage in Pennsylvania and that would be disastrous for Mr. Obama.
Either way, there are too many loose strings at the moment. It does not seem that Mr. Obama will be quite able to deliver the killing blow to Ms. Clinton’s campaign, though he may deal a blow that she won’t get up from. Expect more spin and talks of seeing how Pennsylvania falls while Mr. Dean starts pulling his hair out.
Super Tuesday also probably wouldn’t have forced Ms. Clinton to withdraw but had Obama won California or New Jersey (even making them very close), he could have undercut her at her base and argued that he was well established in Democratic circles. That might have been enough to ensure a comfortable win in Ohio that would have clearly forced her to withdraw.
So now we’re on Mr. Obama’s supposed third opportunity to force Ms. Clinton out. Despite the Media and the Party talking about it, if Ms. Clinton wins Ohio, she will stick it out until at least Pennsylvania. It is really only a statement by Bill Clinton that has put this notion out there that she should withdraw if she loses both primaries. Obama might win Texas, but if the vote is close and she wins decent majorities in Hispanics and Women (which she is polling well in), she will argue that Texas is still a Red State and that she is the stronger person in the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. Ohio, being one of the strongest Purple States, probably matters more in terms of prestige than Texas does, despite Texas having more delegates.
If Ms. Clinton loses Ohio, she probably won’t be able to recover and will be hard pressed to make the argument that she represents the soul of the Democratic Party. A win in Ohio but not Texas will amplify the calls for her to withdraw, but I think there will be some creative spin and a wait-until-Pennsylvania attitude to decide things. If she wins both Texas and Ohio, she will probably stick it out until the Puerto Rico primaries.
Two things that have operated below the public radar are the simple fact that although Mr. Obama raised more money, Ms. Clinton did bring in $35 million. That is a lot of money and there is a large portion of the Democratic base behind her. Also, there are whispers that a large segment of the Jewish population is growing increasingly wary of Mr. Obama and his rather weak refutations of the anti-Semitic stances of some of his supporters.
If there is any significant defection of the Jewish population to Mr. McCain (Kerry won Jews 75-25), that could take certain states out of play and put other states in the maybe column. Certainly Florida would be lost to Mr. McCain and it would hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of swinging Ohio and Virginia into the Democratic column. It could also make things very uncomfortable for Mr. Obama in Connecticut and New Jersey (states that he should win by significant margins). It might even sap away the Democratic advantage in Pennsylvania and that would be disastrous for Mr. Obama.
Either way, there are too many loose strings at the moment. It does not seem that Mr. Obama will be quite able to deliver the killing blow to Ms. Clinton’s campaign, though he may deal a blow that she won’t get up from. Expect more spin and talks of seeing how Pennsylvania falls while Mr. Dean starts pulling his hair out.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Bill Cunningham is a Fool (But we already knew that)
There has been a small kafuffle over the remarks that Bill Cunningham made while warming up the crowd at a John McCain rally down in Music Hall. Those of us who live around Cincinnati are familiar with Mr. Cunningham’s style. Essentially, he is an elitist blowhard who will say just about anything to drive up his name recognition. Mrs. X thinks that his ultimate goal is to get his own talk show on Fox News. But at the moment he is stuck doing a local radio show that is broadcast nationally on occasion.
Anyway, Mr. Cunningham talked in a rather disparaging manner about Mr. Obama. That in and of itself is not surprising. However, Mr. Cunningham also referred to Mr. Obama as Barak Hussein Obama at least three times. Yes, Hussein is Mr. Obama’s legal middle name, but the use of this name in a repeated message was clearly intended as an attack. People only use middle names if they need to differentiate between people with similar names, they are being excessively formal, or they are trying to make a point about something. In this case, most people agree that Mr. Cunningham (despite his denials) was intending to call attention to Mr. Obama’s Muslim roots through his father. Mr. Cunningham and many people like him have attempted to use this in an attempt to portray Mr. Obama as an Islamic Trojan Horse that will sell the American People to the jihadists after he is sworn into office. Quite frankly, the jihadists are making inroads into this country well enough that they don’t need a Presidential Trojan Horse even if Mr. Obama was one (and I’m quite sure he is not).
Mr. McCain quickly refuted Mr. Cunningham’s intro, much to Mr. Cunningham’s chagrin. Whatever one thinks of Mr. McCain, this was the best course of action to take. Mr. Obama’s record indicates that he would be the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. However, he also has the speaking ability and charisma of John F. Kennedy. If Mr. McCain is able to keep the campaign relatively smear free and focus on the issues, he is likely to win. The general public is not going to accept nearly $300 billion in additional spending in addition to the growing social security debt without a method to pay for it. Mr. Obama’s proposed methods would bring in $170 billion at best and that is a very optimistic view of the situation.
However, if the campaign devolves into issues of character and an appeal to people’s emotions, Mr. Obama will win. Mr. Obama will try to make it about character. He’ll throw enough information about his proposed programs in there to keep away the claims that he doesn’t know what he is doing, but he’ll be able to sit there and promote vision and new direction against a curmudgeony old man and clean his clock.
There’ll be a little pain for Mr. McCain in the short run, but in the long run, it’s a better move to keep things clean. Let’s just see how long things can stay that way on both the Right and the Left.
Anyway, Mr. Cunningham talked in a rather disparaging manner about Mr. Obama. That in and of itself is not surprising. However, Mr. Cunningham also referred to Mr. Obama as Barak Hussein Obama at least three times. Yes, Hussein is Mr. Obama’s legal middle name, but the use of this name in a repeated message was clearly intended as an attack. People only use middle names if they need to differentiate between people with similar names, they are being excessively formal, or they are trying to make a point about something. In this case, most people agree that Mr. Cunningham (despite his denials) was intending to call attention to Mr. Obama’s Muslim roots through his father. Mr. Cunningham and many people like him have attempted to use this in an attempt to portray Mr. Obama as an Islamic Trojan Horse that will sell the American People to the jihadists after he is sworn into office. Quite frankly, the jihadists are making inroads into this country well enough that they don’t need a Presidential Trojan Horse even if Mr. Obama was one (and I’m quite sure he is not).
Mr. McCain quickly refuted Mr. Cunningham’s intro, much to Mr. Cunningham’s chagrin. Whatever one thinks of Mr. McCain, this was the best course of action to take. Mr. Obama’s record indicates that he would be the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. However, he also has the speaking ability and charisma of John F. Kennedy. If Mr. McCain is able to keep the campaign relatively smear free and focus on the issues, he is likely to win. The general public is not going to accept nearly $300 billion in additional spending in addition to the growing social security debt without a method to pay for it. Mr. Obama’s proposed methods would bring in $170 billion at best and that is a very optimistic view of the situation.
However, if the campaign devolves into issues of character and an appeal to people’s emotions, Mr. Obama will win. Mr. Obama will try to make it about character. He’ll throw enough information about his proposed programs in there to keep away the claims that he doesn’t know what he is doing, but he’ll be able to sit there and promote vision and new direction against a curmudgeony old man and clean his clock.
There’ll be a little pain for Mr. McCain in the short run, but in the long run, it’s a better move to keep things clean. Let’s just see how long things can stay that way on both the Right and the Left.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Woodstein They Are Not
There was a time in American politics where reporters employed by major newspapers knew how to research a story and present their argument in a direct manner with lots of facts to back things up. Most people forget that Woodward and Bernstein spent more than seven months researching their story before they could even crack a whisper of what happened at the Watergate Hotel. However, many reporters today do not have the patience of the famed 70’s duo. They want the notoriety and fame without having the patience or work ethic to actually achieve it properly. Some of that is due to fear that someone is going to scoop them on an important story (especially in the days of New Media), but most is due to a certain laziness fostered by a deep desire to truly believe the content of the story rather than risk finding it to be not true.
Having read the salient points of the NY Times article on John McCain and the New Republic’s article on why the story was held on to, provides a stark contrast to those media glory days of the mid-1970’s. Some quick background: a NY Times reporter received a hot tip in November regarding special influence that a telecommunications lobbyist may have had with Mr. McCain in the late 90’s and early part of his first Presidential campaign. This reporter got help from his editor in the form of three other reporters. They dug around and managed to get statements from two former McCain staffers who had not left on the best of terms. The Times reporters wrote up their piece and submitted it for publishing. The editor balked and told them to do more work, as it was too airy and speculative. Anger and resentment followed, as the reporters believed “they had nailed it.” They did contact the McCain campaign and submitted a set of written requests. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain and the lobbyist, Ms. Iseman, both retained council and vehemently denied (on the record) both the special treatment and the innuendo that they had engaged in an affair. Matt Drudge got a hold of the story (possibly from one of the Times reporters themselves, angry at the foot-dragging), allowing the McCain camp to act quickly, gathering records and evidence countering the Times’ claims. Whispers continued until the New Republic decided to run a story showing the backbiting and politics of the NY Times newsroom regarding the story. Faced with this embarrassment, the Times published the article.
In the three months that the NY Times has worked this story, they have not managed to show any concrete evidence that the story is true. Any record of Mr. McCain showing favorable treatment to the telecommunications companies represented by Ms. Iseman would have an obvious paper trail in the form of letters and recommendations filed by him to the chairman of the FCC. All letters known in the public archives show no such favorable treatment and the Times had not produced any other documents stating otherwise. Regarding the suggested affair, no staffers have come forward suggesting the two were engaging in such a manner, nor does the Times offer any evidence that the two were seen in any manner other than at public functions or in a business environment.
The bulk of the article is actually devoted to the Keating-5 scandal, which occurred nearly 20 years ago. In that event, five senators were found to have accepted campaign donations from Charles Keating, who was being investigated following the collapse of the Savings and Loan industry. All five senators were brought before the Senate Ethics committee. Although they were all cleared of anything illegal, the panel reprimanded four of them and censured Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA). Only two of the senators, John Glenn (D-OH) and John McCain (R-AZ) returned to the Senate when their terms came up. It was this incident that lit a fire under Mr. McCain’s butt regarding campaign finance reform.
Given that this incident has been a matter of history and public record for over 15 years, it seems odd that the NY Times would devote the majority of its article to this incident in an attempt to buttress the more recent allegations. Rather than providing background and clarity, it adds an additional odor to what is already giving off the air of a poorly researched hack job.
Now, there is always the possibility that the allegations are true. But the ineptitude and lack of devotion to research renders any point that they attempt to make moot as it is washed away in a bath of perceived partisan vitriol. Dan Rather, to his dying day, will probably swear that the allegations of Mr. Bush’s conduct while in the Texas Air National Guard were true even if the memos were proven to be false (fake but accurate). However, that does not change the fact that this appears to be driven by faith in the rightness of his convictions rather than any solid facts. Faith should be left to the confines of religion. Any foray into the world of politics only makes the speaker look foolish and untrustworthy.
Having read the salient points of the NY Times article on John McCain and the New Republic’s article on why the story was held on to, provides a stark contrast to those media glory days of the mid-1970’s. Some quick background: a NY Times reporter received a hot tip in November regarding special influence that a telecommunications lobbyist may have had with Mr. McCain in the late 90’s and early part of his first Presidential campaign. This reporter got help from his editor in the form of three other reporters. They dug around and managed to get statements from two former McCain staffers who had not left on the best of terms. The Times reporters wrote up their piece and submitted it for publishing. The editor balked and told them to do more work, as it was too airy and speculative. Anger and resentment followed, as the reporters believed “they had nailed it.” They did contact the McCain campaign and submitted a set of written requests. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain and the lobbyist, Ms. Iseman, both retained council and vehemently denied (on the record) both the special treatment and the innuendo that they had engaged in an affair. Matt Drudge got a hold of the story (possibly from one of the Times reporters themselves, angry at the foot-dragging), allowing the McCain camp to act quickly, gathering records and evidence countering the Times’ claims. Whispers continued until the New Republic decided to run a story showing the backbiting and politics of the NY Times newsroom regarding the story. Faced with this embarrassment, the Times published the article.
In the three months that the NY Times has worked this story, they have not managed to show any concrete evidence that the story is true. Any record of Mr. McCain showing favorable treatment to the telecommunications companies represented by Ms. Iseman would have an obvious paper trail in the form of letters and recommendations filed by him to the chairman of the FCC. All letters known in the public archives show no such favorable treatment and the Times had not produced any other documents stating otherwise. Regarding the suggested affair, no staffers have come forward suggesting the two were engaging in such a manner, nor does the Times offer any evidence that the two were seen in any manner other than at public functions or in a business environment.
The bulk of the article is actually devoted to the Keating-5 scandal, which occurred nearly 20 years ago. In that event, five senators were found to have accepted campaign donations from Charles Keating, who was being investigated following the collapse of the Savings and Loan industry. All five senators were brought before the Senate Ethics committee. Although they were all cleared of anything illegal, the panel reprimanded four of them and censured Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA). Only two of the senators, John Glenn (D-OH) and John McCain (R-AZ) returned to the Senate when their terms came up. It was this incident that lit a fire under Mr. McCain’s butt regarding campaign finance reform.
Given that this incident has been a matter of history and public record for over 15 years, it seems odd that the NY Times would devote the majority of its article to this incident in an attempt to buttress the more recent allegations. Rather than providing background and clarity, it adds an additional odor to what is already giving off the air of a poorly researched hack job.
Now, there is always the possibility that the allegations are true. But the ineptitude and lack of devotion to research renders any point that they attempt to make moot as it is washed away in a bath of perceived partisan vitriol. Dan Rather, to his dying day, will probably swear that the allegations of Mr. Bush’s conduct while in the Texas Air National Guard were true even if the memos were proven to be false (fake but accurate). However, that does not change the fact that this appears to be driven by faith in the rightness of his convictions rather than any solid facts. Faith should be left to the confines of religion. Any foray into the world of politics only makes the speaker look foolish and untrustworthy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
