Why the Democrats are wrong and other meanderings

Name:
Location: Metro Phoenix, Arizona, United States

I'm too lazy to type anything about me. Read my blog and I'm sure you'll eventually learn a few things.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Stuff

More shenanigans are being undertaken by global warming alarmists. Are we really sure that science is on the side of those who fake data to make it match their preconceptions?

Karl Rove has some thoughts on what the Republicans should do to start working their way back to power.

The People's Temple mass suicide was 30 years ago. Dan Flynn tries to correct the historical revisionism that paints it as a religious movement (which implicitly would make it a movement of the right to many).

More problems in Russia.

This seems like an apt view of the new Star Trek movie: Star Trek 90210.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Michael Crichton, RIP

Michael Crichton has "died unexpectedly" (sorry for the ET link, but it's the one I was given). I've been enjoying his work since junior high, and I've read all of his novels (but none of his non-fiction, which I've heard isn't exactly thrilling). Also, I've never watched an episode of ER, strangely enough. He's the only author whose novels I really looked forward to. I even ended up with three copies of one of them (bought my own copy, my dad got me one for Christmas, and there was a book club selection I had neglected to say no to).

The Morning After

Wow, the night ended much sooner than I was expecting. I am a bit curious as to why the networks were so quick to call Ohio for Obama but slow to call Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona for McCain ...

There are still several races not called, but let's go with what we have. It looks like my predictions at the presidential level were off in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Indiana. The first four of those were easily the four I was least certain of giving to McCain, so I wasn't too terribly shocked, but with Indiana I had never really believed all the talk about it going Obama, it was too Republican, it just didn't make any sense. And it still doesn't. I'm thinking the Chicago political machine snuck across the border.

The Senate race still has three races not called. Well, CNN still hasn't called Georgia, either (what's up with that?). Going on what the CNN website has, Coleman (R) has a 762 vote lead in Minnesota with 99% reporting, Smith (R) has a 48-46 lead in Oregon with 75% reporting, and Stevens (R) has a 48-47 lead in Alaska with 99% reporting. If the Republicans hold on to all of these, they'll do two seats better than my projection, which would make me extremely happy. The Stevens part really surprises me, as he was recently convicted, but if I was an Alaskan, that might make me more likely to vote for him -- he'll get tossed in the clink, and Palin can appoint a replacement. The Oregon one is a bit maddening because, once again, Oregon is taking its sweet time counting its ballots. It really shouldn't take this long, as they mail out ballots to all voters before the election, and should be able to get the vast majority counted and the results ready for release at poll closing time.

Also on the bright side, the Republicans were able to take a few seats away from the Dems in the House after not being able to take a single one from them in 2006. Unfortunately, it was still a net loss of seats (exact total still to be determined).

Labels:

Monday, November 03, 2008

Final (Pre-Election) McCain vs. Obama Thoughts

I think this race will be considerably closer than most people seem to think.

Before RCP switched Ohio and Virginia from "lean Obama" to toss-up, I was saying that I liked McCain's chances to win all the states that they had as toss-ups. To clarify, I wasn't saying I liked his chances to win in each state; I was saying that I liked his chances to sweep the table and win all the toss-ups.

The problem McCain runs into is that even winning all of them (this time including Ohio and Virginia, but not any that might be added Monday night or Tuesday morning), he's still short of the 270 Electoral Votes necessary to win the election.

Working off of RCP's map linked above, I'm giving all the "solid Obama" to Obama and all the "solid McCain" and "leaning McCain" to McCain. I'll predict the others individually (I might not catch any that switch from one of those categories Monday night or Tuesday morning).

Before we get to those predictions, there are a few considerations. First, many polls are predicting a huge advantage for the Democrats in party ID, which I don't think will hold. I think they'll have the advantage, but not the 10-point one we're seeing in some of these polls (that's nationally, state results may differ). Second, it's interesting to compare early voting turnout this year to 2004. Obama seems to have little advantage over Kerry. Third, while it's just one state, Steve Nathan surveyed a massive number of Nevadan early voters (16,749), and while the 6.12% lead for Obama looks good for him at first glance, the early voting turnout is disproportionately Democrat. Unfortunately, Steve did not ask responders for their party ID, so it's not clear how representative the poll is. Assuming it is representative, this does not look like good news for Obama, as his lead is less than half that of Democrats who have voted. While I'm not sure offhand what the turnout numbers in the state were in previous elections, I know Bush won in 2000 and 2004, and there don't seem to be an inordinant number of Bush-supporting Democrats like you'd find in southern states, so I'd expect turnout much closer to even, probably a few points to the Dems advantage. But if Obama's running 7 points behind the dem advantage ...

Another couple of things to keep in mind, but more in watching election returns than in predicting the outcomes: many states tabulate the early/absentee voting and release those results soon after the polls close as part of their tally; with the Democrats having the advantage there, those early returns will skew in Obama's favor (also the favor of their candidates for Senate, House, and whatever else). Secondly, Obama supporters appear to be much more willing to participate in exit polling, so the exit polls will be skewed in Obama's direction (also useful info to know should those numbers leak early, as they have a habit of doing); part of a survey commission by Fox News showed Obama supporters with about a 12- or 13-point edge (something like 77-64 likely to participate and 34-22 not likely to participate, with Obama supporters leading the former and McCain supporters the latter).

One odd note: If McCain sweeps his solids, leaners, and the toss-ups, plus wins Colorado, we will have a 269-269 tie.

And now, on to the states:

Allocating them as I already did yields a 228-132 Obama electoral edge.

McCain will win his home state (228-142). I don't think this is necessarily the one state not previously covered that he's most likely to win, but if he loses here, I can almost guarantee a blowout.

North Dakota will go to: McCain (228-145)

Montana will go to: McCain (228-148)

Indiana will go to: McCain (228-159)

Georgia will go to: McCain (228-174)

Missouri will go to: McCain (228-185)

Minnesota will go to: Obama (238-185)

North Carolina will go to: McCain (238-200)

Florida will go to: McCain (238-227)

New Mexico will go to: Obama (243-227)

Pennsylvania will go to: Obama (264-227)

Ohio will go to: McCain (264-247)

Virginia will go to:
McCain (264-260)

Colorado will go to: Obama (273-260)

Nevada will go to: Obama (278-260)

So, to sum it up, I think Obama will win, but it will be close, and there's a greater chance of a McCain victory than many seem to think.

Labels:

The Coming Bloodbath

No, not the presidential race -- I'm talking about the Senate.

The Democrats are trying for a filibuster-proof 60 seats. If you had told me this at the beginning of the year, I would have laughed at you. In fact, I did laugh at such claims early this year. Unfortunately, it has become less funny.

Currently, the Dems have 51 seats (counting Lieberman and Sanders). A pickup of nine seats is ... highly unusual. The field is shaping up that way, however.

Republican open seats in Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico can be kissed goodbye. The corrupt Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has been found guilty, and now trails badly in the polls. I will be glad to be rid of him, but I will not be glad to have his seat in Democrats' hands for six years. John Sunnunu in New Hampshire seems nearly a lock to be defeated as well. Gordon Smith (Oregon) and Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) both trail in the polls. Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota) both have leads that are a little too close for comfort. Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the top Republican in the Senate, hasn't put away his opponent. There's also talk of the election in Mississippi, where appointee Wicker is trying to win election in his own right to finish the rest of Trent Lott's term, but Dem hopes there seem misplaced. Coming into this election cycle, Republicans only really had hopes of taking one seat from the Dems (mary Landrieu's seat in Louisiana, which she won by narrow margins in 1996 and 2002), but those hopes have been dashed.

Basically, the toss-ups of the race come down to Oregon, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Georgia. A sweep of these will give the Democrats 60 seats. I'm currently predicting a split, with the former two being lost. It does worry me that toss-ups tend to break one way or the other across the nation, though (not always unanimously, but it does tend to be lop-sided).

Some pundits have noted that 60-40 isn't everything, that some senators will break with their party. This is true, but I don't for a minute believe that it will be remotely equal. Republicans have several senators that might break with their party against a filibuster. The Democrats, however, are lacking in candidates who will break with their party to support a filibuster, with the possible exception of Lieberman for War on Terror issues. There's an expanded field of Democrats who might not support their party on this issue or that, but I doubt that they'll support a filibuster against it.

One side note: whoever wins the White House, we're going to have at least one vacant Senate seat. McCain's seat will be vacated if he wins, and Obama's and Biden's if they win. While I haven't verified the laws, the former two states have Democrats as governors, so it seems likely that they will appoint like to the Senate. Delaware currently has a Dem governor, but the seat is up for election, with another Dem the prohibitive favorite, which is all a roundabout way of saying that the appointment here would also be a Dem.

Looking ahead to the 2010 elections, the Republicans have little hope to take back the chamber. Possible targets for pickup include Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Indiana, but as you move across the list, a retirement becomes more necessary to Republican chances. Unless 2010 is a horrible year for Democrats, Republicans don't hold a glimmer of hope until 2012, and, right now, I don't think the Republicans will take back the chamber until the 2014 elections at the earliest.

Labels: