The Geography of the 2008 Election

I've been thinking about the election a lot (of course) and which states can now be considered blue states, red states or purple states. It's a little bit more difficult than just looking at the 2008 election and seeing which states went for Barack Obama and which states went for John McCain. A lot of the reason why Barack Obama won was because he was the superior candidate, and that his opponent's party was suffering from a wave of unpopularity.

The map below shows the winner of each county in America and also the size of their victories, with a 15% or greater margin of victory shown in the fullest colors.


ELECTION 2008

The 2008 county-by-county map shows all of our entrenched American voting patterns: the west coast and the northeast all predominantly Democratic, the south and the central plains all predominantly Republican, red rural counties (except in the upper midwest), blue urban counties, a Democratic black belt in the south, etc. The map does seem to show more blue places than one would think, in particular in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. But this bluification goes deeper than just the counties that voted for Barack Obama.

2008-2004

When compared to the margins in 2004, almost every county delivered more votes for the Democratic candidate in 2008, even though most of those counties were still won by the Republican. This blue shift was obviously a very important reason why Barack Obama won. All he had to do was decrease the Republican margin of victory in rural areas and hold onto the usual overwhelming number of votes from urban areas. But the 2004-2008 blue shift doesn't necessarily tell a larger story of a shifting electorate. It just shows Barack Obama was a much better candidate than John Kerry. A better but still imperfect comparison would be to compare this election where a charismatic Democrat beat a war-crippled Republican senator to the last one in which a charismatic Democrat beat a war-crippled Republican senator: 1996, when Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole

2008-1996

This map is more balanced than the one for 2004, as it should be since Democrats won both elections. But one of the more amazing things about this map is that it looks remarkably similar to the 2008 county-by-county election map shown at the top. If there were no demographic or idealogical shift since the last time a Democrat won the presidency, then one would expect that most of the map would be in pale colors with some bright colors distributed in a random geographic pattern. This is not the case. The already-red South has gotten redder, the already-blue West Coast has gotten bluer, Democratic northern New Mexico and Colorado's Front Range are bluer, Republican Appalachia is redder. Democrats have increased their strangleholds on urban counties, Republicans have increased their strangleholds on rural counties.

If there is a demographic shift, it is not towards a more diverse and open society. It is towards entrenchment into communities with like-minded individuals. I mean, think about it. How many people you know voted for John McCain? No matter where you live, it probably wasn't 46%, which was his national popular vote share. It was probably somewhere between 0% and 10% (I'm assuming the fact that you're reading this indicates you are probably a Democrat).

This is the viewpoint of Bill Bishop on Slate.com, who is author of a book called The Big Sort about how we tend to migrate to communities full of people who look like us and think like us. I would agree with him. Is this better for our society? Probably not. But I'm not about to move away from my house in my neighborhood full of tall trees, older houses and Obama yard signs. I feel comfortable here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other interesting shifts from 1996 to 2008:

- Election-specific trends for this map would indicate that logically Arkansas and Arizona should be redder while Kansas and Illinois should be bluer since the specific candidates from Arkansas and Kansas (Clinton and Dole) are not present in 2008, while the candidates from Arizona and Illinois (McCain and Obama) are. Arkansas and Arizona are certainly redder, but Illinois and Kansas are not definitively bluer except in the Chicago region and the more urban areas of Kansas, as well as in Russell, KS, where the highway sign proudly displays "Home of Bob Dole". Russell county in 1996 went for Dole by a margin of 62%. That softened to a margin for McCain in 2008 of merely 54%.

- All but one county in Oklahoma has gotten any more Democratic since 1996. The one county is Oklahoma City's county, which moved from a Republican margin of 18% to a Republican margin of 17%. Only three other counties have increased the Republican margin by any less than 15%: Lawton, Norman and Tulsa. Everywhere else is a red explosion.

- Rio Arriba County has been passed by Taos County as the most Democratic county in New Mexico. This has long been expected due to Taos's liberal trinity: hispanics, indians and hippies.

- New York City and San Francisco have gotten even more Democratic than they were 12 years ago.

- The Southern Michigan vs Northern Michigan divide is more apparent than it was 12 years ago.

- The blue border counties of Texas have not gotten bluer over the last 12 years. But Austin, Dallas and Houston sure have.

- If you want to see how a blue area becomes red, shift the slider on nytimes.com from the 1992 election to the 2008 election and keep your eye on Louisiana, Arkansas, east Texas, east Oklahoma and southeast Missouri. It looks like water draining out of the Mississippi Valley.

(All fantastic maps from nytimes.com)

My Votes

I was thinking about Alyson's post about how for the first time she voted with the majority (or, I guess, the majority voted with her), so I thought about which candidates I've voted for in my 5 national elections.

2000
President - Al Gore (D) - Lost (but won the state)
Senator - Jeff Bingaman (D) - Won
Representative - Heather Wilson (R) - Won

2002
Governor - Bill Richardson (D) - Won
Senator - Pete Domenici (R) - Won
Representative - Heather Wilson (R) - Won

2004
President - John Kerry (D) - Lost (also lost the state)
Senator - Ken Salazar (D) - Won
Represenative - Stan Matsunaka (D) - Lost

2006
Governor - Brad Henry (D) - Won
Representative - Hal Spake (D) - Lost

2008
President - Barack Obama (D) - Won (but lost the state)
Senator - Andrew Rice (D) - Lost
Representative - Blake Cummings (D) - Lost

So, counting presidential votes as half for winning the state and half for winning the nation, I have voted with the majority 8/14 times, a ratio that will keep getting smaller the longer I live in this state.

2008 Electoral Vote Map

Most Conservative State in the Nation Award

There were six states that went for John McCain by a "filibuster-proof" 60% majority of the populace: Alabama, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho and Oklahoma. Here are McCain's totals in those states in ascending order:

Alabama - 60.5%
Idaho - 61.5%
Alaska - 61.5% (with 99% reporting)
Utah - 62.9%
Wyoming - 65.2%
Oklahoma - 65.6%

Wyoming had the larger margin of victory for McCain (32.5% for Wyoming compared to 31.2% for Oklahoma), but Oklahoma has the special distinction of being the only state in the union* where every single county voted for John McCain. Our state senate also finally completed it's flip over to Republican hands for the first time since statehood. Republicans already control the state house of reps. All our incumbent Republican U.S. Representatives won by huge margins (and yes, so did our one lone Democratic U.S. Representative, who happens to be the most conservative Democrat in the House and is helped by having the last name of Boren), and our incumbent Republican U.S. Senator won big as well.

In Wyoming, their two Republican U.S. Senators won by huge margins, but their U.S. Representative race was substantially tighter. Republicans in their state legislature vastly outnumber Democrats by a 3 to 1 margin.

Which state is more conservative then? Oklahoma or Wyoming? I'll throw my weight behind Oklahoma since there are far more people in Oklahoma, making it's Republican homogeneity more remarkable.




*among states with counties, which excludes Alaska.

Election Night Livish Blog

5:54 Coming to you from La Casa de Steve, its the Quibbling Potatoes "live blog"! This isn't exactly a "live blog" attempt, but it will be a "running diary". Also, the "quotation marks" will hopefully decrease from "this" point on. Also joining me are Zeke and Copper, dog analysts, as part of the "Worst Political Team".

5:55 I'm starting out on CNN for two reasons: 1) It's the only 24 hour cable news channel I get in HD, and 2) James Carville's amazing shiny head. I'll flip over to NBC, MSNBC and Fox News occasionally too. I'll ignore ABC and CBS and PBS. I only have so much attention.

___

6:00 Time to color! Kentucky to McCain, and Vermont to Obama. 8-3 lead for McCain. I wonder if Bill Kristol is now forecasting a McCain victory. Lets see.

6:01 Fox was supposed to bring me "You Decide '08" at this time, according to my hd tuner, but I'm getting Family Guy instead. Thats fine with me. Human analysts on CNN are breaking down the demographics in Vermont and Kentucky. Dog analyst Copper is breaking down some plush dog toys.


6:09 Joe Scarborough announces that the Republican party is now shattered. Chris Matthews appropriately calls him out on saying this 9 minutes after the first states are called. Chris matthews: the voice of reason.

6:12 Fox News forecasts good things for McCain because Lindsey Graham has been reelected. Let them have their graspable straws, I say.

6:13 I've always thought this, but I might as well say it: Fox News's Brit Hume sounds like the voice of Assy McGee.

6:18 Fred Barnes of Fox News and the Weekly Standard yells at early voters, for some reason. Apparently "absentee" voters aren't actually absentee enough for him.

6:22 Dog analyst Copper just got up in my lap and almost immediately farted. I may have to kick him off the "Worst Political Team".

6:24 Turd Blossom is on! Explains how awesome the socialistic policies of Henry Paulson are. So far its a really subdued night on Fox News.

6:29 John King: my hero. Explains how close margin in Indiana so far (3% for McCain) benefits Obama, since results from his base aren't even starting to show up.

___

6:31 CNN can't even make a projection on West Virginia. That is a fantastic sign for Obama! Dog analyst Zeke greets news with a mighty huff.

6:35 The "Worst Political Team" is going to have the first election night beer of the night, as Fox News puts WV in McCain's column.

6:46 CNN and NBC still refuse to call West Virginia, and refuse to talk about it. Suzanne Malveaux (sp?) of CNN is reporting from Grant Park in Chicago, but we can't hear a word she's saying because thousands of excited people are behind her screaming "Obama". Why doesn't she have a mic? Liberal bias, trying to show a bigger crowd than actually exists?

6:50 Just 10 minutes until polls close in Oklahoma! The question that's on everyone's mind is Will the networks be able to call Oklahoma for McCain at 7:00:01 or 7:00:02?

6:51 CNN analysts are breaking down the historic ramifications of this election. Dog analyst Zeke has now decided to break down a milk jug.

___


6:55 NBC raises Fox News by calling South Carolina for McCain. 16-3 McCain so far for them. Whoops, Fox News now has SC for McCain too. Make that 21-3.

6:57 CNN calls South Carolina for McCain. Still nothing from West Virginia. Still CNN and NBC not talking about it.

___

7:00 Big roundup #1 tonight! CNN projections: Mccain: Oklahoma and Tennessee. Obama: Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine (3/4), Delaware, Maryland, and DC. Obama takes the lead 77-39! Still up for grabs: AL, FL, MS, PA, NH, and MO. More interesting news for Mississippi and Alabama not already being able to be called for McCain. Fantastic stuff for Obama.

7:06 My first trip to ABC and they've got the score at 102-34 for Obama. Kapow! NBC is not in HD for me, but ABC and CBS are.

7:09 Okay, so everyone but CNN is calling PA for Obama already. That's half the puzzle (the other half is Virginia). Wonder if Slate.com has already called the race for Barack Obama.

7:10 Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann are pretty giddy right now. Joe - "the thread is getting really thin for McCain". Joe - Pennsylvania = "Fool's gold for Republicans". Keith - "How can McCain possibly win without Pennsylvania".

7:12 First Howard Dean sighting of the night on MSNBC. I'm hoping he starts screaming before the night ends. But he sounds really subdued right now. Those tranquilizers have been working quite nicely for him.

7:14 From newsok.com - Headline says "Voting Problems Reported in OKC Metro Area". First sentence says "They ran out of 'I voted' stickers at Midwest City's Restoration Church this morning." Sensationalist journalism?

___

7:27 Senator Jim Inhofe going to be speaking in about half an hour. With 1% reporting, its Inhofe - 56%, Rice - 40%. I will be happy if Rice can get more than 40%. The Oklahoma Democratic party, ladies and gentlemen.

7:28 Its a tight race for our first openly gay politician in the Corporation Commissioner's office, Jim Roth, the incumbent Democrat appointed by Brad Henry two years ago. Interesting race: Dana Murphy, his Republican opponent, campaigned on a platform of claiming she was more qualified than Jim Roth to be Corporation commissioner. Even though Roth actually is Corporation Commissioner. Bizarre.

7:31 Alabama and Arkansas go to McCain, but the bigger news is that John Sununu and Elizabeth Dole are going down in flames! Like, huge numbers for the Dems Kay Hagan and Jeanne Shaheen (sp?). If these numbers stretch across to other states, we may actually see a 60-seat senate for the Dems, which would be about as surprising as their 2006 victory.

___

7:37 Georgia goes to John McCain, according to NBC. Mitch McConnell is in an incredibly close race still with half the precincts reporting in Kentucky. If that seat flips, just, wow. John King says if McConnell loses, its a Democratic wave. Then he actually made a waving hand motion. Love that guy!

7:41 CNN finally calls Pennsylvania for Obama 41 minutes after all the other networks. A lot of shots of celebration in Grant Park, Chicago. Haven't seen too many shots of the Biltmore in Phoenix.

7:47 Brit Hume at Fox News is always perplexed by green screens. Earlier he had to explain to people that the picture behind Juan Williams was a computer image, and now he's amazed by the green screen behind this dude running down the House races. Actual conversation after he finished his analysis:

You call it a board, is that right?
Yeah, Brit.
But theres no wood there, right?
No, it's ...
So you can't see where you're pointing? It just looks green to you, right?
Yeah, I don't see anything but green, and I ...
So we can see what you do better than you can?
Yeah!
Wow, I love it! What's next, oh, were going to take a break. I love it! Back in a few!

7:51 Voter fraud coverage, thanks to Fox News! In Cuyahoga County, OH, apparently absentee ballots are breaking heavily to Obama 71% to 29%. And a high number of provisional ballots that the correspondant is holding in his hands and resisting the urge to rip them up. He also reports 9000 people have emailed Fox News complaining about voter fraud. Scandals!

7:55 Big roundup #2 coming up in 5 minutes. Dog analysts Zeke and Copper are preparing for the onslaught by going outside and peeing on stuff.

____

7:59 Roth vs. Murphy - corporation commissioner - with 5% reporting, its still 50%-50%. Andrew Rice has to fondle the numbers, or something, before he'll officially speak and concede.

8:00 Big roundup #2: Obama gets New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Rhode Island. McCain gets Kansas, North Dakota (already?), Wyoming. Not projecting Texas(!), Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Louisiana, Nebraska (!!), South Dakota (!). Millions of votes already tallied, and like 1% of the precincts are in in Texas. But everythings bigger in Texas. Obama leads 174-76 (ABC projection).


___

8:15 Our dog analysts, immune to daylight savings time ending, are requesting a platform of 9:00 walkies.

8:22 With 20% in, McCain's up in Oklahoma 61%-39%. We're going to need to do better than that if we're going to have a chance at beating Utah and Idaho as most conservative state.

8:26 Huge! NBC is calling Ohio for Obama! CNN calls West Virginia for McCain (duh!), but remains silent on Ohio. Instead, we get a live view of Hank Williams Jr at the Biltmore in Phoenix. Now that's journalism! Wolf throws it to commercial, but teases us with "a very big projection after the break". Hank Williams Jr: still born to boogie.

8:28 Okay, if Ohio goes Obama, it means he doesn't have to have Virginia, which is trending McCain. An aside - Florida is also trending Obama. But with Ohio in the bag for Obama, it means I lose the NY times 3 pick teaser on their Economix blog. It was a risk, I know.

___

8:49 Markey's up huge in Musgrave's Colorado House seat! 61%-39% with 31% reporting.

8:55 New Mexico for Obama! My dad fumes! Louisiana for McCain! The south shall rise ... some other time!

____

10:45 Barack Obama, as commonly predicted, was projected the winner at precisely 10:00:01, when California put the race over the top with their 55 electoral votes. From that point on, it was nothing but hyperbolic coverage from every journalist with a microphone! But seriously, this is pretty big stuff, I guess. My dad hasn't called, which is actually fine because I'm sure he's crying over losing New Mexico's Republican senate seat as well as their two house seats.

10:55 Sorry about the big gap, but they wouldn't call it the "Worst Political Team" for anything. Actually M___ and R___ joined the team, and blogging and socializing became two mutually exclusive things.

___

11:01 Obama speaks, and its moving enough. Very poised. Very calm! A good contrast moment from John McCain's concession speech came when Obama made reference to McCain and Obama's audience clapped, unlike McCain's audience who booed Obama.

11:30 Hearing the excuses from Fox News. "This campaign was all about personality." "He outspent McCain by a large margin." But you know, it's actually refreshing to not hear the histrionics of the MSM. It's fine that we can acknowledge what Obama means to the black cause, but at the end of the day he can't just be defined as a "black" president if he's ever going to be truly successful.

But I'm really glad he won!

___

11:54 Turd Blossom says Republicans can't abandon the social issues and uses the Florida gay marriage ban to point this out. But he neglects to point out that the good people of Colorado voted down a proposal to define life at the point of conception (by a 3:1 margin), the medical marijuana proposal passing in Michigan, the rejection of limits to abortion in South Dakota, etc. In other words, plenty of swing state voters rejected social conservative issues.


11:59 Fox News throws support behind Bobby Jindal's 2012 candidacy.

12:00 I've been monitoring the Red Race to see which state is the most conservative, as defined by which state elected John McCain by the widest margin. Oklahoma and Wyoming have been going neck-and-neck, and we're both totally trouncing expected-frontrunners Utah and Idaho. It's 66%-34% in Oklahoma, 66%-32% in Wyoming. Wyoming's probably going to win, all because Oklahoma had no third party candidates or write-in abilities.

12:05 Jacob, after hearing Barack Obama's 2004 DNC speech: "Ladies and gentlemen, the 44th President of the United States of America." Steve, in November 2007 or so: "I guarantee a Republican will win the presidency." Let's just say I should owe Jacob a lot more than a six-pack of beer for how much his prescience kicked my prescience's ass.

12:07 Alaska - Too close to call! Still out: NC, MO, MT and the first state to close their polls tonight, Indiana, amazingly.

12:08 I already colored in Alaska an hour ago. I disenfranchised Aleutians!

___

12:10 Jim Roth lost his Corporation Commissioner seat. I bet if more people knew he was gay, he would have lost by a lot more.

12:12 Bernalillo county - 60% to 39% for Obama! Larimer County, CO - 55% - 44% for Obama! Cleveland County, OK - 60% - 40% ... for McCain. Like 2004, no Oklahoma county went for Obama. The closest county, Oklahoma County, was 58%-42% for McCain.

12:16 Breaking news! Bill Richardson has shaved! BILL RICHARDSON HAS SHAVED!

___

12:21 Bill Richardson and Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, president of Spain = BFF. Keith Olbermann has to ask him why he shaved. It showed white, it required maintenance, it cleans him up (to be an acceptable candidate for Secretary of State ...).

Okay, I've stayed up way too long. I loooooove elections!

When the Polls Close

Happy November!

Here are my predictions for the election night score:

7:01 - VT - Obama
7:01 - KY - McCain
7:31 - WV - McCain
7:50 - SC - McCain
8:01 - ME, MA, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC, IL - Obama
8:01 - TN, MS, AL, OK - McCain

(Obama leads 78-54)

8:10 - GA - McCain
8:20 - NH - Obama
8:31 - AR - McCain
8:45 - VA, PA - Obama (kaBOOM!)
9:01 - NY, RI, MI, WI, MN - Obama
9:01 - SD, 4/5 of NE, KS, TX, WY - McCain

(Obama leads 188-125)

9:20 - IN - McCain (this will plant the "why wasn't Obama's victory more decisive" storyline)
9:40 - LA - McCain
10:01 - UT - McCain

(Obama leads 188-150)

10:10-10:40 - Mindnumbingly boring half-hour of TV coverage featuring interviews with Bill Richardson's beard on at least 3 different networks.
10:40 - IA - Obama
10:45 - ND, MT, 1/5 of NE, AZ, FL - McCain, in preparation for 11 pm onslaught
11:01 - ID - McCain
11:01 - WA, OR, CA, HI - Obama

(Obama declared projected winner, leads 272-198)

The remaining states will sort themselves out sometime.

Running diary of the Big Prime Time Barack Obama Election Extravaganza!

He just lost votes in Philadelphia by delaying the World Series game even more.

7:01 "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message." I feel more inspired already.

7:02 Hey, this isn't in hi-def! Maybe it can be interpreted as a dig against McCain, champion of hi-def conversion. But almost definitely not.

7:02 Let's see how many battleground states he can feature and/or name drop tonight.

7:03 Lovely warm wood paneled office-type background. Coupled with the warm acoustic guitar music, it's obviously very reassuring. Like a barbecue restaurant.

7:04 Telling a story about a woman from North Kansas City (Missouri) with approximately 20 kids.

7:05 The family with 20 kids just can't make enough money to get by, especially with hubby's knee injury. Try having fewer kids.

7:07 Obama explains why everything is bad with the economy by talking about the skyrocketing deficit. The next sentence, he's talking about tax cuts and spending increases. Ron Paul, meet Lyndon Johnson.

7:08 "Tax cut for families making less than $200,000"? Uh oh. The republicans will see that number shrinking by $50,000 and grab a hold of it. Is this $50,000 difference from previous policy his October surpise?

7:10 BB King's house is in trouble? Noooo!

7:11 Larry (BB King) puts on a Wal Mart name tag to avoid foreclosure, but he doesn't make enough money as an "Associate salesman". There's your liberal wal mart jab.

7:12 So much wood! And that's not just Chris Matthew's leg thrill.

7:13 Natural gas reserves! He sends a yippie kiy yay T Boone's way.

7:15 Energy policy leads to Iraq policy pretty seamlessly.

7:16 Big ups to the 505!

7:17 Nice albuquerque scenes during the special needs segment. Maybe he'll shoot a scene in Oklahoma. Oh wait, he has yet to set foot in this state this year.

7:18 Ooh, Barack Hussein Obama Sr sighting! "He's not like us!!!!" say the Republicans. But it's okay, because the family history stuff is backed by warm acoustic guitar. Feel secure, America.

7:19 Lots of scenes from the Barackropolis from the Denver convention. On a prime time infomercial. Before a Daily Show appearance. What ego!

7:20 Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico ... Wonder where he's aiming his message.

7:20 Talking about the death of his mom to segue from health care policy. Sad piano tinkles.

7:21 "My mother never saw her grandchildren. That breaks my heart!" Hugs to 44.

7:22 First time we see Michelle, Malia, and Sasha. "He read Harry Potter to her". Yeah! Pissing off the social conservatives!

7:23 Dick Durbin. And uplifting woodwinds.

7:24 "I watched him incisively question Condoleeza Rice ... This guy's good" - J. Biden. Incisively?

7:24 Story time with fat guy. He's from Kentucky. Wow, if Kentucky's now a battleground state, its a landslide against McCain.

7:25 You know what word I havent heard yet? Maaaverick.

7:25 See, Appalachians living near Kentucky. White people can vote for black people too.

7:26 National security policies: renew tough diplomacy, refocus on Al Qaeda, rebuild military. Yeah, um, the differences with McCain are striking...

7:26 Holy shit! They dug up John Adams to endorse Obama! Well, if the second president thinks he's worthy...

7:27 Okay, now entering the uplifting inspiring stump speech part of the show. And lots of major chords and long airy tones.

7:27 Bill Richardson's beard makes an appearance at the uplifting part of the show. That sort of brought me down a little, I have to admit.

7:28 Live from Florida! Wait, how's he going to make it to the Daily Show on time?

7:29 Okay, so this Florida Rallly is filmed in hi-def, but not in 16:9 ratio. Still 4:3

7:29 Denver, Cincinatti, Ft lauderdale all named dropped. "All across this nation" ... if you live in a swing state.

7:30 Good job with the uplifting string arrangement that sounds suspiciously like the Olympics theme.

7:31 Cuts nicely to the uplifting Fox Sports music before the World Series. Elections and baseball. Man, if only I was eating an apple pie.

7:36 First negative ad of the night. Aw, that's just a buzzkill, McCain. Didn't you hear that uplifting music?

The Failed Policies of George W. Bush

According to almost every news source in America, the Democratic Party will win big on November 4. Presidential candidate Barack Obama is far from the only Democrat who will ride into Washington on the coattails of bad feelings for President George W. Bush. Almost every Democratic candidate for office in America, fairly or not, has enjoyed a bounce in popularity by campaigning on a platform of being anti-Bush, or by linking his/her opponent to the "failed policies of the Bush administration". Indeed, George W. Bush has never had a lower approval rating than right now, partly because of the recent financial crisis. But what these Democratic candidates are not doing is reminding people what it is that is so bad about the "failed policies of George W. Bush" in the first place. If the American public remembers that it can't stand that Bush guy but can't remember why, then the "failed policies" will surely be repeated by elected members of the Government. So to serve as a reminder mostly to myself, I've jotted down 33 "failed policies" that I think have made our country worse off thanks to the 43rd President of the United States of America.

1) "The United States doesn't torture." Except when it does. George W. Bush vetoed anti-torture bills, watered down water-boarding by referring to it as an interrogation technique (like how rape is just a sexual technique), and flauted the Geneva Conventions time after time when confronted in interviews or press conferences.

2) Unfounded wars on sovereign nations. Bad intelligence that should have been ignored about WMD and yellow cake fissile material led to a war against Iraq. The previous sentence was the best-case, most P.C. explanations for George W. Bush's intentions in the Middle East. Speculation abounds as to his real reasons for war with Iraq, most of which would be inconceivable if you told it to anyone eight years ago.

3) Secrecy. Over-classification of classified documents.

4) The Patriot Act

5) Bullying. Bullying of foreign nations for support for the above unjust Iraq war. Bullying of congressional leaders for support. Bullying of the U.N. to pass the war resolution, or else. It's called negotiating when there's a give and a take, and it's called persuasion when there's a well-explained and well-grounded rationale for action. It's called bullying if threats are made and fear is induced in entities that should be our allies.

6) Over-simplification of foreign viewpoints. You don't have to be either "for us or against us".

7) "Axis of evil". Well so much for negotiation.

8) Isolating North Korea to the point that they needed to build an atomic weapon to get any bilateral negotiation with the U.S.

9) War on terror. How does one win a war against extremism? You can't kill 'em all. There are always fringe elements in even the most tightly regulated societies, like gay people in Iran, bloggers in China, and terrorists in America.

10) Pre-emptive wars. The "Bush Doctrine", I think. Even police *should* have to wait until a crime is committed to detain people. And speaking of detaining people...

11) Guantanamo Bay. And more importantly, the lack of trials for prisoners there. (I hesitate to call them "detainees".)

12) Oh wait, not "prisoners" or "detainees". "Unlawful Combatants".

13) "Extraordinary renditions". They lead to "erroneous renditions" in the absence of the law.

14) Over-reaching of executive power to facilitate illegal wiretapping. FISA courts are just not necessary anymore.

15) The Alberto Gonzales Department of Justice. Attorney firings for partisan reasons, mealymouthed testimony by most Department of Justice officials including the Attorney General himself on several occasions, the approval of warrantless wiretapping, and the attempted repeal of Habeas Corpus.

16) Incompetent "loyal Bushies" like "heckuva job" Brownie.

17) Highly competent yet highly evil "loyal Bushies" like Dick "Overlord" Cheney.

18) Anti-choice-ism

19) Anti-intellectualism

20) Anti-Europeanism.

21) Right-wing judicial nominees. I'm not talking about Roberts or Alito, which almost any other Republican president would have nominated. I mean all the other judicial appointments to lower courts that add unfounded legitimacy to an extreme right-wing judicial viewpoint by giving high-level careers to cronies. This will lead to future right-wing judicial nominees to the Supreme Court who should have gotten rejected long ago for their lack of objectivity being seen as legitimate. These juditial nominees also nearly tore up the rules of the Senate.

22) Federal Marriage Amendment. So glad that one didn't get anywhere.

23) Stem cell research. Not so much for the position (federal funds only for "existing" stem cell lines) but for the process of letting the church's viewpoint into a science decision.

24) Not signing the Kyoto protocol for anti-UN reasons.

25) While we're at it, John Bolton.

26) Sabotaging the EPA to the point where entities are now suing the EPA because it's not strict enough in regulating emissions.

27) Trying to privatize social security. How's that stock market idea looking now?

28) Increasing the national debt from about $5 trillion to about $10 trillion. This riles me up so much, I'm going to need some more bullet points about the budget.

29) Tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest of our society at a time when we were finally getting Reagan's debt under control.

30) Massive non-mandatory spending increases primarily benefitting the military industrial complex. We've got loads of money for super advanced fighter jets, but we're losing wars against people who make explosives out of pvc pipe and wire.

31) Making war spending separate from the budget. This would make sense only if the expenses were unforseeable.

32) Not addressing health care at all. Seriously, during a decade in which health care spending rose faster than any other industry, how was health care almost completely ignored by the Bush administration?

33) Well, he did address one thing. He vetoed SCHIP.

I'm sure there are plenty more policies I dislike, and I know there are plenty more policies that others dislike (No Child Left Behind, immigration). But none of this stuff gets specifically talked about by any of the Democratic candidates. We need to remember this so that we can hold future administrations accountable.

Electoral Vote Map

Click here for a downloadable pdf so's you can color along with me on November 4th!.

Another Election Breakdown! Because Maps are Fun!

Analysis of the November 4th election? Why, I don't think anyone else has predicted and analyzed the upcoming election yet.

Okay, so, if you live in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming, or the District of Columbia, well, I hope you have a competitive senate race or a gay marriage initiative to vote for (or against) because your electoral votes have already been allotted to one candidate or another for months years now. This results in a "Definite" Obama baseline of 183/270 electoral votes, and a "Definite" McCain baseline of 152/270 electoral votes, while generously leaving 19 states up for grabs.

Barring some electoral miracle or sudden adult-onset racism, Barack Obama will "Likely" gain an additional 55 electoral votes by winning Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire, bringing his "Likely" baseline all the way up to 238/270. Thank you, upper midwest sensibilities. John McCain doesn't have states that can be called "Likely"; hence, his "Likely" baseline is still 152/270. If he was still the same John McCain beloved by the press and campaigning cleanly, he could have won New Hampshire. But he'd probably have a huge electoral deficit elsewhere.

The next tier of states ("Probable") break down as such: Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia for McCain (163/270); New Mexico and Pennsylvania for Obama (264/270). Montana and North Dakota continue flirting with the Democrats, and polls show anywhere from a 1 point Obama lead to a 5 point McCain lead, but in two states dominated by ranchers and without large urban areas, I don't see them turning blue just yet (ranchers = libertarian tendencies = Ron Paul voters = begrudging John McCain voters). As for West Virginia, I expect the Republican base to show up and the Democratic base to, I don't know, die of black lung. Bush beat the poll predictions by 5% in 2004.

Pennsylvania is a blue state. Pennsylvania has been a blue state for awhile. It was one of the few states where Kerry finished stronger in 2004 than polls would have indicated. John McCain is practically hanging his campaign on Pennsylvania, a state that last voted for the Republican candidate in 1988 (when only 11 states voted for Dukakis). This is not a winning strategy. If Philadelphians turn out to vote in large numbers, McCain's presidential run will be practically over.

New Mexico is bananas. It always has been. It's just that the nation is only now realizing it. The national exposure New Mexico has received from having Bill Richardson as governor has elevated my stomping grounds to the national consciousness, and I see PBS specials and candidates making frequent trips to Albuquerque and NPR hosts walking around wondering what makes these people tick. Polls show a 10+ point lead for Obama, but I don't believe them. Here's my prediction: Obama will win by 2 or 3 percent, long lines will form at polling places, election officials will be unprepared, and my dad will call me on election night to bitch about voting irregularities from Doña Ana County.

So, the "Probable" baseline for each candidate is Obama - 264/270 and McCain - 163/270. I think eight states are truly "Questionable" or "Toss-ups" or "Swing States" or "Undecided" or "Unswayed by two frickin' years of non-stop election coverage": Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and (of course) Florida. McCain must win all eight of these states to win the presidency. This is unlikely. I think it's a 0.4% chance assuming a random distribution of these states. Each state has a nuanced electorate with different voting patterns, any and all of which can affect the outcome of the election, but it's way more fun to describe states as dichotomies. In Nevada, it's Californian emigrants versus the military; in Missouri it's rural versus urban; in North Carolina it's black versus white; in Indiana it's Chicagoland versus farmland; in Virginia it's sweet tea versus unsweet tea; in Ohio it's racists versus white guilt; in Florida it's old people from the northeast versus old people from the midwest; and in Colorado its young ski bums and a developing liberally-minded Denver versus ranchers and military and Focus on the Family.

My predictions are that McCain will be able to hold onto both Florida and Ohio, as well as states that should never have been in question like North Carolina and Indiana. I predict that the perpetual bellwether Missouri will get it wrong for the first time since 1956, because they will go for McCain. I predict perpetual bellwether Nevada (which voted for Ford in 1976 and before that William Jennings Bryan in 1908) will get it right and elect Obama. I predict Obama will also carry Virginia and Colorado by at least 5%. Obama will win 291-247.

Of course, I also thought Kerry and Gore were going to win.

P.S. I think I'll live-blog on November 4th. Should be fun! For only me!

In Lieu of Flowers...

Yeah, and you thought Barack Obama's fundraising totals were high for September? Wait until he releases his fundraising totals for October, after everyone in America gives him $10 'cause of his grandma.

Red State Debate

The big debate occurred last night. No, not that "town hall" debate from Memphis we sat through between two guys hammering talking points on a round stage with extraordinarily crimson carpet. I'm talking about the one and only debate between two-and-a-third term U.S. senator and biblical literalist Jim Inhofe and one-term state senator and former John Mayer impersonator Andrew Rice. This debate sounded like any debate in the country between a Republican and a Democrat right now, as the Democrat Rice hounded the Republican Inhofe about the current state of the economy and attempted to tie him to the failed policies of George W. Bush. In most states, this would mean that Andrew Rice would have won the debate. In Oklahoma, it just showed how out-of-touch Andrew Rice is with Oklahoma voters.

Jim Inhofe wore his voting record on his sleeve. While John McCain was landing punches with his proclamation that Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate, Jim Inhofe himself proudly found several watchdog groups that called him the most conservative senator in the U.S. Senate. He's proud of it. His support for Israel's occupation of the West Bank comes from a chapter in Genesis. He wants to openly discriminate against gay people. He voted against banning torture. He voted to make it harder to repay student loans. As the second largest recipient of oil company campaign contributions, he wants to make sure oil companies can drill directly into the skulls of polar bears. He compares environmentalism to Naziism. I only made one of those things up. After proclaiming himself the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate, he stated that there wasn't a race in the country with more idealogically opposed candidates. This would probably be true no matter who the opponent was. And yet, Inhofe leads in the polls by 15-20 points. Oklahomans adore conservatives.

At one point during the debate, Andrew Rice successfully compared Jim Inhofe to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Since I only read about the debate in the paper, I have no way of knowing whether Inhofe's response was "Thanks for the compliment!", "Oh, you're too kind!" or "No way! My family doesn't have a single gay or lesbian member unlike Dick Cheney's family!" Bush may be unpopular everywhere else in the country, but I guarantee you that George W. Bush would win a reelection in this state were it to be constitutionally possible.

Andrew Rice also made a reverse-voter-pledge by urging those whose lives are better off than they were 8 years ago to go ahead and vote for Jim Inhofe. This would be a small voter pool indeed in most other states, but probably not in Oklahoma. Over the past 8 years, our oil-based economy has boomed due to the skyrocketing price of oil. House prices still haven't fallen. Our state budget has been filled with surplusses for years. Unemployment is roughly the same as it was in 2000, and (through August) unemployment has been down from last year. We had a GM plant close in that time period, but who hasn't? We have mostly been able to offset those manufacturing jobs with higher paying jobs. Oklahoma has received a boon from the base realignment commission, which called for increases in the levels of soldiers at our Oklahoma military bases. Our colleges and universities have seen increased enrollment even with tuition rising sharply over the past 8 years. Our state even landed its first professional sports team. All in all, if everyone really thought about it, I'm almost positive a majority of voters in Oklahoma truly are better off than they were 8 years ago. But even those whose lives are not better off probably are going to vote for Inhofe anyways.

Let's face it. No matter what Andrew Rice said, he would never have had a chance against the entrenched and well-funded Jim Inhofe. But he spoke at the debate as if he was talking to favorable audience members in his poor urban Oklahoma City senate district. He should have been more like Brad Henry, our two-term Democratic governor who is more of a moderate on most issues and points out his openness to Republican issues like tax cuts and abortions in debates (even if he doesn't follow through on passing them) and who enjoys substantial rural support.

Biden Knows Toasted

Don't know for sure if it's going to be Joe Biden yet, but I created this side-by-side comparison of the senator from Delaware versus the Ritz chips pitchman and the gay blade himself George Hamilton, just in case.

Oklahomans Not Happy About Armageddon

Poll: Obama Support Low in State

(Tulsa World)

A new poll found little support among Oklahoma voters for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The Oklahoma Poll found that Republican John McCain has broad support in the state to lead Obama by 32 percentage points, 56 percent to 24 percent. Seventy-one percent of those questioned said they are firm in their decisions.

...

"I would rather have had somebody different than John McCain on the Republican side, but I can't even believe who the Democrats picked," said poll respondent Billy Garrison, a registered Democrat who often votes Republican.

"I know our country will be in bad shape if Barack Obama is elected president," said Garrison, of Tulsa.

Another erstwhile Democrat, Charles Ogdon of Muldrow, said he believes Obama will be the next president, in part because Ogden believes an Obama presidency would fit biblical prophesies concerning Armageddon and the Second Coming.

But Ogdon isn't happy about it.

...

So, bad times for the Obama for Oklahoma campaign.

Monthly Harumph - July

As more national polls come out showing Barack Obama's projected popular vote lead over John McCain by anywhere from one to six percentage points, and as more NY Times opinion columnists make claims such as "The election remains Mr. Obama's to lose," and "Mr. Obama will win," I feel it is necessary to throw cold water on everyone.

1. It's still July. Most people still haven't put much thought into the November election. October is when things can change and polls will perhaps matter more.

2. The popular vote is never how we elect presidents. If it was, we never would have had George W. Bush as president. Therefore the national projected popular vote polls are as meaningless as if we polled people on their favorite celebrity.

3. Swing state polls are fraught with potential error. Barack Obama's projected electoral college lead depends on polls that put him one or two percentage points up for the time being in states such as Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Montana. I will bet any amount of money that there will be polls in these states between now and the election that will claim that John McCain leads Barack Obama. These too will be meaningless except as indicators saying its a close election.

4. Polls can and are often wrong anyways.

Why is No One Challenging This Notion That the Surge is a Success?

So the new thing in the McCain campaign is to retort Barack Obama's claims of superior judgment about the disaster of starting the Iraq War with claims of superior judgment about the success story the "surge" turned out to be. And this story of campaign talking points gets passed around in the surficially non-partisan election-year coverage from the media without any analysis. What gets lost in this traditional election year back-and-forth is that the fiction about the surge's success remains unchallenged.

It's like everyone has forgotten why we had this surge of troops in the first place. We were tired of getting our asses kicked, so congress set up the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group to come up with some things we could do to stop the hurtin'. When their report came out, Bush ignored most of the recommendations and keyed in on a footnote developed by some of the more hawkish members which suggested that the U.S. increase the number of soldiers in Baghdad by lengthening tours and whatnot. Strategy was developed to give purpose to these extra brigades, and the White House came up with the overarching goals, including reducing the violence enough to allow the Iraqis to come up with and enforce their own laws, training Iraqi security and law enforcement more quickly, and in general guiding Iraqis towards stable democracy. Good points certainly, but it required Iraqi leaders to take up the initiative. This is why the strategy was flawed.

The surge started in January of 2007 and would last through this month, July 2008. The new Democrat-controlled Congress gritted its teeth and passed many non-binding resolutions in full awareness of their lack of constitutional oversight into the executive branch's war powers. But they did manage to pass what would turn out to be completely irrelevant benchmark legislation that required the military to evaluate itself. They did evaluate themselves, dishonestly but still poorly, and the surge bumbled along. After the reporting frenzy of September 2007, the media started not caring about Iraq anymore, choosing instead to start Election 2008 coverage.

It wasn't until about November 2007 that violent attacks finally started to decline, which mostly went unnoticed at first. Eventually the media caught on to the fact that merely dozens of Americans instead of hundreds of Americans were being killed every month and reported it unequivocably as a success story, even though about a thousand Iraqi civilians still die every month from sectarian gunfire and suicide bombers. But since the whole stated purpose of the Surge was dependant on the Iraqis developing a functioning civil society, can we really call it a success? Have the Iraqis properly dealt with their problem of training militia members who turn around and become loyal to sectarian leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr? Are the national police loyal to the state? Are the Iraq Security Forces able to take our place yet? Do the people recognize the Iraqi parliament as the creator of laws? Are there oil-revenue sharing laws yet (I actually don't know about this one)? If these benchmarks of the surge aren't met, how can we call the surge a success? Someone needs to call John McCain's bluff.

Paul Krugman Jinxes It!

You should never talk about a no-hitter while it's happening. You should never plan your victory parade before your team's won the Super Bowl. You should never declare a state won for a particular candidate before the polls close. And you should never declare an election over before August. But Paul Krugman has.

If you ask me, there isn’t much suspense in this year’s election: barring
some extraordinary mistakes, Mr. Obama will win.

This is an attitude felt by blue-state-dwellers like Mr. Krugman about the upcoming election, as I noticed on my recent train trip to New York. But there are large swaths of the country that don't necessarily feel that way, and the way-too-important swing states of Ohio, Florida and Missouri are, as usual, quite swingy still. Yes, it's looking good for Obama. But it's July.

Hillary Clinton Wishes She Was a Republican

There's less than a minute left on the game clock in the primary season game of hoops, and Hillary Clinton is down by 200. She's still trying, still reacting to things Barack Obama does and says, and organizing protests at DNC meetings; in other words, she's fouling like crazy in order to extend the game. After all, Obama is only a mediocre free-throw shooter. But after the last primaries on June 3, the shot clock will be off, and she should be able to call off the horses and let Obama dribble the clock out until the convention in August.

If only Hillary Clinton was a Republican, she would have already locked up the nomination.

I had heard that if the Democrats used the delegate-selection system that Republicans use, then Clinton would be ahead in delegates, but I couldn't find any numbers to tell me exactly by how much. So I charted the delegates won by Obama and Clinton on a primary by primary basis in real life and as if they were apportioned using whichever rules the GOP was using in that contest. In most states, the Republicans use winner-take-all or winner-take-most, but there are a few (e.g. Iowa, North Carolina) where the splits are more proportional to the popular vote. I had to guess on some contests (particularly the winner-take-almost-all primaries), but I have come up with (I think) a fairly reasonable estimate of the difference between the number of pledged delegates Clinton would have and the number of pledged delegates Obama would have if the Democrats copied the Republican's rules, shown below.

Hillary Clinton is down by around 162 pledged delegates in real life, but she's up by around 429 pledged delegates in the GOP-style fantasy situation. Her chances are slim at best, and people are calling for her to quit campaigning and step aside at a deficit of 162. But if Obama had a deficit of more than 2.5 times that, he'd already have had to quit and yield to the mathematical certainty of a Clinton nomination.


So why fuck around with delegates, respective political parties? This is supposed to be a government where people directly elect representatives. Yet even the general election we have the electoral college, not the people, deciding who the next commander-in-chief will be, and sometimes the result can be very different. Why should the political parties mimic this inane system? Since a 600-delegate swing exists when different rules are in play, why must we mess around with unnecessary layers of representative amalgamation that serve only to distort the will of the people?

Who's the Real Democrat?

This post is probably written a week or two late but I've been a bit busy recently.

Hillary Clinton has been making the absolutely ludicrous argument that she makes a better general election candidate because the traditionally blue states have selected her as their Democratic nominee rather than Barack Obama. This is insane for three reasons.

1. The Democratic primary has very little bearing on how the states will elect the president in November. Somehow I just don't see California, New York, New Jersey and most of New England voting for John McCain in November. Blue states don't turn into red states just because their shade of blue didn't prevail. Just ask Vermont.

2. If the democratic primary did have anything to do with the general election, wouldn't it be better if a candidate showed broad appeal from independents and some Republicans rather than narrow appeal from the hard-core leftist party members who would be more likely to vote a straight party ticket anyways? In general elections, the moderate voters will always determine the outcome of an election, since it is almost inconceivable to attract support from both the far-left and the far-right with no support from the middle (unless you're Ron Paul). Therefore, it would seem to me that the candidate the voters in the middle prefer should be the most viable candidate in November. Typically Democrats in red states tend to me more moderate than their blue state brothers, so if you're trying to pick off a few reddish swing states to win an election (Colorado, Missouri), you want to get in good with those Democrats. Admittedly, winning hard-core red states like Utah or Montana doesn't really say anything about the viability of the candidate in the general election, but it's for the same reason that winning Massachusetts and California doesn't say anything about the viability of the candidate.

3. Clinton could be arguing that not being able to win blue states means that Obama is not a true Democrat and does not share Democratic values. But take a look at these maps:

If these were general election maps, which color do you think would represent the Democratic nominee? Would it be blue which is found mostly in small rural communities, or would it be green which is found in large numbers in the big cities? In Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri and Texas, Barack Obama (green) won the cities, which almost always go Democratic. In Pennsylvania, he won Philly big. The man won in San Francisco for god's sake! And yet, Hillary Clinton thinks that Barack Obama can't win these blue states. I hate to tell her, but Obama's support in these states came from the same people that will be voting for the Democrat in November, while Hillary's came from the rural towns and counties that will colored bright red on CNN's maps in November.

So, this is a really dumb argument that could favor either candidate.


(Thanks for the maps, NY Times)

White Guilt

Earlier this week, Geraldine Ferraro was trying to make a point about the motivating power of white guilt by stating that Barack Obama would not be in the position he is today were it not for the fact that he happens to be black. She was subsequently railed against by both the mainstream media and the blogosphere, with numerous calls for her resignation from her informal position on Hillary Clinton's campaign. After trying to defend herself instead of apologizing to the Gods of Umbrage like so many Democrats before her, she was cornered into a resignation.

White guilt certainly exists, and it is definitely a benefit to Barack Obama's popularity especially among liberals, but it is by no means the singular reason Obama is held in such a favorable position by the Democrats. That would be equivalent of saying that the EEOC is the number one reason that black people can have good jobs. I believe that an individual's own competence and ambition plays a much larger role in his or her own life than any external factor. You could say that Barack Obama couldn't be where he is now if he were white, but he also wouldn't be where he is now if he didn't have a presidentially-accepted resume like a Harvard degree, experience in local, state and federal governments, and an ability to give a fantastic speech. Much more important to his ability to become President are the fact that he is over 35 and born in the U.S. And besides, any advantage he has from certain voters who vote for him because he is black is probably outweighed by the disadvantage from certain other voters who vote against him because he is black. We'll see that more in the general election.