The Post in Which I Gloat About my Political Prowess, or, How I Got it More Right Than Karl Rove
We are now a week removed from the historic presidential election of 2008. So far I have refrained from discussing the election results here because I am waiting for the dust to settle before I speculate about what this change movement actually means.
But, I would be remiss not to point out that on the eve of the election I called the election results more accurately than evil mastermind/overlord Karl Rove. First the predictions and results.
Karl Rove’s Prediction: Obama 338 vs. McCain 200
My Prediction:Obama 367, McCain 171
Actual Results: Obama 364 vs. McCain 173
How Rove Got it Wrong: Rove’s predictions were generous by a conservative’s standards, but he still managed to miss the final tally in Obama’s favor by 27 electoral points. His mistakes, calling Indiana and North Carolina for McCain while also overlooking the 1 electoral vote picked up by Obama in Nebraska (a state that awards its electoral votes by congressional district rather than all-or-nothing).
How I Got it Wrong: I overestimated Obama’s final win by 3 electoral points, even though I called three states incorrectly. I predicted that Obama would pick up North Dakota and Missouri, while doubting a victory in Indiana.
My North Dakota prediction was fueled by wishful thinking. A Democrat has not significantly won in the center of our nation (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas) since 1964 (In fact the only Democratic win in that section since 1964 was Carter’s Texas win in 1976). Polling in North Dakota in the last two weeks of the campaign showed a surge of Obama support and I wrongly hoped that support would be enough to flip the state.
Missouri was always a toss-up, and the state is still technically uncalled (with both Obama and McCain garnering 49% of the popular vote). The result of this state came down to well under 1% of the vote.
The true surprise in this election is the ultra-white, conservative state of Indiana which awarded 11 electoral points to Obama. This is the first Democratic win in Indiana since 1964. I am proud of this change, and certainly never imagined that a black Democrat with progressive roots would be the man to finally flip that state.
I also overlooked the 1 electoral point awarded to Obama in Nebraska, so I guess, technically, Obama did make some progress in that “red core” of the heartland.
So, Now What? The game of political polling is over—at least for two more years. I have greatly enjoyed this election and I’m optimistic about the voter turnout and enthusiasm that Obama’s campaign has fostered, but now the time has come to lay down the campaign cards and get to work.
The change that Obama wants to bring about will be countered by a crumbling economy, three wars (why does everyone forget the global ‘War on Terror’?), the falling dollar, America’s lost prestige on the world stage, crumbling infrastructure, and many more unfavorable parting gifts of the Bush regime.
I only hope that ‘we the people’ remain engaged in the political process the way that we have been throughout this campaign. Afterall, it isn’t seeing your team to the playoffs that’s most gratifying. It’s seeing your team win the game. With his election Obama is now in the championship game, and he has 4-8 years to win this for us all.
Final thought: When you look at the election results by county rather than state, it becomes clear that Democrats made significant gains in almost every state of the union this year. And THAT is truly worth celebrating.
Comment?
Presidential Predictions, an Update
We’re one week out from the presidential election and it’s time for an update on my predictions. I made my last round of prediction three weeks ago and a lot has changed since then.
Luckily, the tide seems to have turned in Obama’s favor after the presidential debates. Based on recent polling, primarily from Pollster but also from other sources online, I am now predicting an Obama victory of 367 to 171 in the electoral college.
Moving into the Obama category since my predictions three weeks ago: North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and North Dakota. Three weeks ago North Carolina, Ohio, and Missouri were toss-up states with a slight lean toward McCain, but since those predictions Obama has widened his lead. His most significant gains have been in Ohio and Nevada where he now has a solid lead over McCain. His lead in Missouri and North Carolina are very close and could still tilt either way.
The surprise in these additions to the Obama map is the addition of North Dakota, a state that was solidly red three weeks ago but is now showing a three point lead toward Obama. Polls in North Dakota show a sharp and rapid decline of support for McCain following the debates. If Obama wins North Dakota, it will be the first time the state has gone blue since 1964.
Following this trend there are three more states which are now considered “toss-up” states that were solidly red just three weeks ago: Georgia, South Dakota, and Montana. Obama’s gain in these three states is most impressive. Recent polls show him gaining sharply in these states, but in my unprofessional opinion I can’t see him closing the remaining gap in the next week. If he stands a chance with one of these states, I would predict he ‘might’ flip Montana—which is on the verge of having two democratic senators and a democratic governor.
So where does this leave McCain? The McCain camp is focusing most heavily on Pennsylvania and Virgina, both former toss-up states that are leaning toward Obama. For McCain to survive, he must win three out of four of these states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.
So, should you vote in this election given where the polls are? YES! Of course you should! The only way Obama will lose this election is if his supporters become overly confident and just stay home next Tuesday. Though he is currently leading McCain in states by a ration of 3:2, many of these states are holding by just a couple of percentage points. Obama supporters must turn out the vote in order to make this election a reality.
And now, a brief history lesson:
Comment? [1]
Biden and Palin: Unlikely Bedfellows in the Fight for Gay Rights
Perhaps one of the more surreal moments of Thursday night’s Vice Presidential debate was the nervous, jittery agreement between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin on the issue of gay marriage.
The question, posed first to Biden by moderator Gwen Ifill, was this “Do you support, as they do in Alaska, giving same-sex benefits to couples?”
Biden’s rambling response was careful but enthusiastic. He affirmed that the Obama/Biden ticket supports the rights of homosexual couples to share ownership of property, secure life insurance, and share visitation rights while using the Constitution to support his claims. The floor then turned to Governor Palin, who also affirmed that she would not prohibit visitation or ownership rights for same-sex couples, before launching a defense against “redefining the definition of marriage.” Biden countered that he and Obama are also against redefining marriage, saying that the definition of marriage should be left to individual faiths to decide.
This moment in the debate was one of the only points where the two candidates came to an agreement, though it is worthy to discuss the differences in their rhetoric.
Some in the gay community , including some of my dearest friends, have been quick to paint both candidates as fundamentally homophobic. To them, the candidates’ refusal to support gay marriage is a sign of how far we still have to go before gaining mainstream acceptance. I beg to differ.
Four years ago we saw an unpopular incumbent President defeat a respectable fourth-term Senator and Vietnam War hero by electrifying the conservative Republican base with controversial wedge issues. “Guns, God, and Gays” pundits screamed at the time.
Now, only four short years after that divisive election, Governor Palin and Senator Biden seem to agree on gay rights. Whether the gay community likes the terms of the agreement or not, it’s hard to deny that this consensus is a sign of progress.
My husband and I were married in San Diego, California in August of 2007. There was no ceremony, priest, or family present. In lieu of these formal traditions, we simply stood on the side of the Pacific Ocean, exchanged vows and rings, kissed, and ran into the water. Our marriage is not “legal,” though we behave more like an “old married couple” than most of our heterosexual friends. I would, of course, welcome the recognition of our marriage on a national level. But I am also a pragmatic realist, and I recognize that the gay marriage issue is still deeply divisive in many parts of the country.
I stand firmly with Joe Biden on this issue, and I see Governor Palin’s tepid response as a sign of progress. “Marriage” is a religious institution and because there is a separation of Church and State in this country, the government does not have the right to force religious institutions to wed gay couples if those institutions do not believe homosexuality is right with God.
The progressive community needs to steer away from the religious institution of marriage and focus instead on the issue of civil rights. Marriage allots heterosexual couples an enormous number of rights and benefits that gay couples are currently denied. The government has a responsibility to ensure equal civil rights for all of its citizens. Civil Unions would give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, and that is the only battle we can constitutionally wage in the government.
Marriage needs to be left to individual religious institutions to decide, and I firmly believe that Joe Biden is on the correct side of this issue. More progressive congregations already offer gay marriage, and with government-backed support of civil unions these marriages would be indistinguishable from heterosexual marriages.
What is important to my partner and I are equal rights. We want the ability to legally consolidate our finances and to receive the tax breaks that heterosexual couples take for granted. We want hospital visitation rights, family leave, shared pensions, social security benefits, nursing home visitation, and joint retirement savings. The issue is about rights, and personally I could care less if those rights are secured under a banner of “civil unions” or “gay marriage.”
It’s hard not to believe that many in the gay community, though their intentions may be noble, are leading us down a dead end road by insisting on this war for “gay marriage.” Even my conservative, fundamentalist mother in Eastern Kentucky can agree that my partner should have the right to carry out my end of life wishes, but she will never tolerate the government dictating that her church legitimizes gay marriage.
With a progressive Democrat in the Oval Office and an ideological balance restored to the Supreme Court, the very real possibility of national civil unions can become a reality in the next four years. But if the gay community stubbornly continues to push the marriage issue without allowing room for compromise, then we will find ourselves in a battle we will not win. For the sake of my own union, I certainly hope that doesn’t happen.
Comment?
