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)

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.

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!

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.

Kid Gloves and Non-Traditional Constituencies

A few weeks ago, Bill Clinton chided the media for what he thought was the media's kid glove treatment of Barack Obama. Never fond of criticism, the media retorted with several news cycles worth of "Why Can't Hillary Control Husband?" and "Bill to Innocent Reporter: 'Shame On You!'". But like many things the media overblows, there is actually a kernel of truth to the former President's accusations.

Today news analysts have been talking about John McCain's multiple decisive victories in yesterday's primaries, but they have been withholding their declaration of McCain's inevitability as the Republican Party presidential nominee, citing that he won most of his big victories in blue states, or states that would not support a Republican nominee in the general election no matter how many tax cuts he voted against. This is seen as a negative against McCain, the thinking goes. He'll get blown out in states where he's actually popular in the primaries, and people won't vote for him in states where he's not popular in the primaries. But the same analysts have said that Barack Obama is the most electable candidate on the Democratic side because he is popular in traditionally red states.

While Hillary Clinton was dancing last night with the big shining jewels of the Democratic party such as California, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, Obama was slumming it with the red state puu-puu platter of Alaska, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota, Utah and Idaho. Of the 27 states that have had Democratic primaries or caucuses so far*, 17 voted for Bush in 2000, and Obama has won 10 of them to Clinton's 7. If you look at the electoral votes of those states with Democratic primaries and caucuses so far, there are 143 red state electoral votes and 178 blue state electoral votes, if you count red states as "States that voted for George W. Bush in 2000". While Clinton and Obama have nearly evenly split the red state electoral votes (73 for Obama, 70 for Clinton), Hillary Clinton has an overwhelming total of blue state electoral votes (130 to 48). If you define red state / blue state by the 2004 election, the split is even more lopsided (134 to 41).

Using the same analysis for the Republican side, McCain has won 67 red state electoral votes (most of which come from Florida), compared to Huckabee's 46 and Romney's 31. McCain however has won a ton of blue state electoral votes, 132, compared to Huckabee's 7 and Romney's 43.

So if winning 132 blue state electoral vote equivalents hurts Republican McCain, why doesn't losing 130 of them hurt Democrat Obama in the media's eyes? Is it kid gloves? Or am I just doing way too much math on things that don't actually matter?



*Not counting New Mexico, where yet another hangup in the vote counting had delayed results. There's always a problem with voting in New Mexico for some reason *cough corruption cough cough*, but that's a post for another time.

Super Tuesday Came, and I Brought My Coat

I love election nights! It mixes three of my favorite things all together: arithmetic, politics and maps. Last night may have only been a jumble of state primaries, but there were so many of them that it felt like a national election, with states being falsely projected for candidates and analysts struggling with delegate math. And like the 2000 national election, it wasn't decisive at all.

Nationally, it is a tight race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with the Democratic Party nomination entirely up for grabs. But in Oklahoma, Hillary Clinton won fairly decisively. Analysts have chalked it up to the fact that Oklahoma borders Arkansas, one of Hillary's many home states, and therefore Hillary would be a regional favorite. This may be partially true, especially as to why Hillary was on top of the polls before anyone started campaigning, but I think a factor just as important to that was that Barack Obama not only avoided campaigning here in person, but Oklahoma was also one of only two Super Tuesday states where he didn't run television ads. Hillary may have won big, but Obama certainly didn't try to woo any Sooners to his side.

Analysts also chalked up the reason Obama did so poorly here to our closed primary, which shuts out independents and left-leaning Republicans, an important demographic for Obama. What analysts didn't notice was that this effect was magnified by the demographics of the Democratic party in this state. Like many southerners, most Oklahomans were registered Democrats before the 70s, even though they still voted very conservatively. During the 70s and after, a change occurred so that most Oklahomans started registering Republican. This means that most of Oklahoma's registered Democrats are now over 65, a demographic that tends to vote in this election for Hillary. 42% of the Democratic primary voters were 60 and over, and they voted overwhelmingly for Clinton (64% to 23%).

Analysts were also surprised that John Edwards, a candidate who dropped out of the presidential race last week, did so well here in Oklahoma and speculated that the reason was that Oklahomans still remembered him fondly from his close 2nd place in the state in 2004. I think the real reason Edwards was able to pull more than 10% and even beat Obama in some counties was that he actually campaigned here. No other democratic candidate actually set foot in the state, although Bill Clinton did drop by OU's campus. Of course, maybe Oklahoma democrats just don't pay attention to current events and didn't realize that Edwards had left the building. After all it is monster truck season; voters may have had other things on their minds.

On the Republican side, John McCain won a close race over Mike Huckabee, as predicted by the polls. I'm not exactly sure why, though. It would seem that Oklahoma should have been Huckabee country, what with all our Baptist churches and light-up crosses on the sides of our tall buildings. But I guess there is a limit to how far evangelical votes can go. Although, like all the southern states, had there been a candidate named Romnabee, a Baptist minister with business experience, he would already be the next unified Republican party presidential candidate.

Slate's Primary Prediction Competition

Okay, so I've got Edwards and Huckabee in the pool for tonight caucus in Iowa, with Obama and Romney to place and Clinton and McCain to show.

Huckabee's Run Is No Surprise

The media shouldn't be at all surprised about the surgence of Mike Huckabee in many polls, including in Iowa, where this poll says he's leading all Republican candidates. The first indications of this surge was after the Iowa straw poll back in August, and even though it's a made-up contest where candidates get to give money to people to vote for them and the richest guy in the race won, it seemed to mean a lot to Huckabee. But even besides this, the media should have recognized that voters at large and especially Iowa Republicans dislike four things in candidates: being a senator, being a putz, being a bullshitter, and being a New Yorker / New Englander.

For some reason, there are always several members of the U.S. Senate who believe that being a U.S. Senator is a stepping stone to the presidency. You senators in this presidential race are only fooling yourselves. The only person to ascend to the office of the President directly from being a member of the Senate since Warren G. Harding was John F. Kennedy, and, well, as the Lloyd Bentsen famously said, you're no Jack Kennedy. Fortunately for Mike Huckabee, he happens to be a governor.

No one likes a putz, which is the reason Bill Richardson is slipping in polls. Being a putz is hard to define, but being overweight and tongue tied in debates are two key indicators. Fortunately for Mike Huckabee, he is perhaps best known for getting his lard butt in shape through diet and exercise, and no longer carries any visible putz-like qualities. Huckabee is certainly less putzy than Fred Thompson, which is the other candidate most like him in his views.

Being a bull-shitter may work for some, but its usually best to save all your best bullshitting for when you have already achieved the highest office you're gunning for. This will hurt Mitt Romney when the primaries come around, and it may even hurt Rudy Giuliani, one of our generations finest bullshitters (and I mean that mostly as a compliment). Fortunately for Mike Huckabee, he is viewed as a straight-talker, even though somebody else already stole that idea for their bus.

Lastly, New Yorkers and New Englanders are always viewed more scrutinizingly by Republicans and Independents. It's generally the opinion of the rest of the country that those guys are obnoxious, a viewpoint reinforced by ESPN's incessant coverage of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry and the existence of Ben Affleck. It's why John Kerry lost the last election (we didn't realize how much of a putz he was until we thought about it later), it's why Michael Dukakis never stood a chance, and it's why Hillary Clinton won't win the general election. Okay, that and the bullshitting thing. Iowa Republicans have been looking for a candidate with flyover country cred, but without being too twangy (Thompson) or Strangeloveian (Tom Tancredo). And now, as John Madden would say, boom! Mike Huckabee hits the hole and keeps his feet moving!

Obligatory Debunking of Supply Side Economics by Liberal Blogger

Jacob mentioned something last week that I had never heard of before: the Laffer Curve. Alas, if only I had been taught economics by Ben Stein, like Ferris Bueller was. The Laffer Curve theorizes that at some rate of taxation, the revenue from taxation will reach a maximum. It is derived from this information:

1. Going up from a tax rate of 0%, the revenue from taxation will increase.
2. Going down from a tax rate of 100%, the revenue from taxation will increase (people will actually have a reason to work and invest).
3. The rest of the function is a continuous, second order equation with one and only one maximum (this is probably not true).

Those emphasizing supply-side trickle-down economics always assume that our nation operates on the high side of the curve. This was the rationale for the series of tax cuts that Ronald Reagan proposed in the early '80's, and you can still hear echos of this sort of thinking from conservative presidential candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Unfortunately, they say it is impossible in real life to empirically determine this magic tax rate, if it even exists (many think it does not). The position of the maximum revenue will be at a different rate depending on the state of the economy and government involved. But assuming the Laffer Curve is an appropriate model, we can see where on the Laffer curve we are by tracking the years where income taxes are cut and seeing if income tax revenue goes up or down as a function of gross domestic product (in order to normalize the data for good and bad economic periods). Or at least, that's what I'm going to try to do right now, with data from my favorite source as of recent, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Tax Foundation.

Methodology: I identified 8 times since 1962 where the tax policy changed from one year to the next. I tried to look at all statuses and all incomes to determine if the intent of the policy was to generally raise taxes or generally lower taxes. I then compared the income tax slash or hike with the change in income tax revenue from the effective policy year to the next.

• Bush had two tax cut bills, in '01 and '03, effective in '02 and '04. In both '02 and '04, income tax revenue went down, by 1.6% and 0.3% of the GDP, respectively.

• In '90 and '93, Elder-Bush and Clinton raised taxes. Income tax revenue went up in '94 0.1% of GDP, but went down in '91 by 0.2%.

• Reagan slashed taxes seemingly every year from '81 to '84, which resulted in a 1.5% decrease in GDP-normalized revenue from '82 to '84.
  

• In '78, taxes were raised, and the revenue increased 0.5% the following year.

• In '69, taxes were lowered, and the revenue decreased 0.3% the following year.

• In '64, taxes were lowered quite a bit, and revenue decreased 0.5%.
  

Thus, in every event (except for Elder-Bush's tax hike on the rich in 1990), economic data showed that we were in fact operating on the low side of the Laffer Curve, since tax rate increases always yielded more revenue, and tax rate decreases always yielded less revenue. This even occurred in '64, when those in the top tax bracket were taxed at an astounding 91%. Why is this important? If any presidential candidate tries to insist that they can pay for their tax cuts by the economic gains created for businesses, we should all know now that this is hog-wallop.

- QP

My Presidential Guarantee

I've been telling my dad this for months, so I'll go ahead and say it here. I'm going to guarantee that a Republican will win the 2008 presidential election.

I think it's really a pipe dream that we Democrats cling to that the Democratic nominee could really appeal to the majority of the country. It seems to me that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be seen as too liberal by the center of the country. Barack Obama actually is too liberal, while Edwards and Clinton are merely perceived as too liberal. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is loved by all who remember September 11, even if he is a New Yorker. McCain is always called "the maverick", even though he's the hawkiest candidate of the bunch. Even political hack Mitt Romney has gone from one side to the other and might be seen as some kind of centrist to people who don't pay attention to things, i.e., Americans.

In other words, the Democratic candidates are mostly perceived as "too liberal", even if they're not, while the Republican candidates are mostly perceived as "centrist", even if they're not. Like my dad has frequently said, if it comes to a choice between "Hillary Clinton" and "Satan", he'd rather choose Satan himself. I fear that he's not alone in his viewpoint.

- QP