Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

2012 Election: Lazy thoughts on the morning after…

 Fullscreen capture 1172012 75334 AM.bmp

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president

I could have slept for another hour, but laying in bed, listening to NPR, my head kept filling with sleepy thoughts about yesterday so I decided to jot them down…

Fullscreen capture 1172012 75735 AM.bmpFlorida.  You’re Fired.

Florida…  You are just like every woman I’ve known from Miami.  Crazy and sexy.  And crazy.  And, did I mention, because I want to be very clear about this, crazy. 

But still damn sexy.

Good job America. Probably a wise idea not to invite Florida to the party this year. Yeah, they look way hot, but then they Fullscreen capture 1172012 80106 AM.bmpshow up, get all sloppy, make out with the wrong guy, pass out, and stay too late.

Sometimes, at their worst, you get up the next day and find them still passed out on your carpet for the twenty plus mornings...

And she’s still sexy all down there on the floor like that.  Must have something to do with all that crazy.

I think both parties now have had enough of Florida and will pretty much not playing there any more.  There are other, more solid and predictable ways to win an election that getting caught in the swamp down there.Fullscreen capture 1172012 80016 AM.bmp

Speeches

Good speeches from everyone. Blown away by Obama's. Sure, it was more enthusiasm than content but its his night and it rocked. There will be time for nuts and bolts later.  Romney seemed to come in a little later than he should have, but from what I understand, part of this might have been because he had not prepared a concession speech. 

I am also sure they were taking a real close look at Florida and Ohio, but after Virginia went blue, all hope was lost. 

Apparently they had ground teams of lawyers ready to go in Ohio and Florida and a third team ready to pounce on a third state, but Obama’s lead was significant enough in enough states that it was clear that there would be no legal recourse that could snatch a victory from the ashes.

For the most part, though, I think we were all surprised by how early this was called last night.  I was amazed when CBS, our choice for the evening, called it around 8:30 our time.  I was guessing it would be around 10 pm our time before this happened.  Not the first blown call of mine about yesterday.

I think this is why it took so long for both candidates to make it to the stage last night. 

Red States Vs. Blue States

From here on out in presidential elections, I am feeling like we have some new blue states.  This was a partisan election and there really was little in the way of swing.  The Democrats won because they ran the better campaign, especially when it came to local organization.  Turn out was the deciding factor, and the Democrats won yesterday.

It is hard to tell and I am sure it will be close in these “swing” states next time around as well, but I think the blue state club is getting a little bigger.

This is going to be tough for the GOP the next time out.  Earlier I wrote about not inviting Florida to the party any more, but the GOP may have little choice.  It may be the only true big swing state left.

Though this is not entirely true.  In an election that is less closely contested, there is some room for swing.  But three out of the last four presidential elections have been partisan elections without a breakout front runner going into election day, and let’s remember, 2008 was pretty close too with McCain not completely out of the game as America headed out to the polls.

Fullscreen capture 1172012 81844 AM.bmpNate Silver

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/live-blog-the-2012-presidential-election/

I was wrong to ever doubt you, man.  Whoa.  He called this one.  Nailed it.  Still not sure about Florida, but he only put the odds of an Obama victory there at a little over 50%, so either way, I’d say he picked 50 out of 50 this year.

On the right are his last predictions from election day morning.

Election CoverageFullscreen capture 1172012 82041 AM.bmp

I stuck with CBS last night because it came in on our rabbit ears and the other option, ABC, kept cutting over to the local election coverage which, quite frankly, bored the heck out of me.  Plus, the ABC team was awful.  Diane Sawyer, off script?  Oh my.  My head hurts.

CBS seemed a little better. 

But, really, what just strikes me is how so many people were surprised by the results last night. 

These days everyone is looking for a narrative thread in their reporting.  They are focused on telling stories, not on reporting the facts.

So we had the narrative of Romney’s “momentum.”  This was fueled by the GOP talking heads trying to sell the story, which was never really backed up in the polls, and the media buying it.

Looking for facts to maintain this narrative arc, too much attention was put on the national polls, which have been worthless since the 2000 election. 

Sure, those polls are an interesting piece of the puzzle, but they are a small piece.  But it was the piece that supported the narrative so they were given too much weight by the press going in.

Yesterday, glancing around most of the national news websites, the screaming headlines were that the race was too close to call and that anything could happen on election night.  Of course, if you drilled down a bit- quite a bit- it became clear that Obama pretty much wrapped this one up about ten days ago and had only been increasing his lead since then, around the time I made my first prediction.

So the media narrative last night concluded with Obama smashing through with an unexpectedly large victory in the electoral college, either coming from behind for a decisive 4th quarter victory, or breaking away from a tied game in the final seconds.

However, the facts never supported these narratives.  And, once upon a time, it was the press’ job to tell us the facts to the best of their ability, not to construct narrative arcs for us.

So 2012 is a big media fail in my book.  Not quite “Dewey Defeats Truman”, but close.

The real story of this election is the validation of modeling systems such as Nate Silver’s.  There were a number of intangibles heading into this election day and those of us following this part of the story through the last days of the campaign were all second guessing whether these models really considered and accounted for all of the “intangibles”.

I, myself, tried to “correct” Nate’s numbers with my own assumptions about over and under polling and turn out.  I did call that the GOP would have a harder time getting out their base, but I missed that the Democrats would do even better than they did in 2008 in getting the blue base out.

In the raw polls, in most states, there was an underperforming candidate, and it was Obama.

This the big story and surprise this morning.  Not that the President won the states he won, but the margins by which he won them.

Now, the right wing media…  Wow.  If the mainstream media failed to mention that Obama pretty much had the election locked up, well, the right was going not only with a Romney win but some were even going all the way to Romney landslide.

Were these people stupid?  No.  Well, some of them, but not all of them.  I’ve said it before, this was the only play left in the game book.  1% or 2% will just vote for who they think will win.  Those are votes you want.  If Obama lost, I would be bashing them this morning for NOT playing this card.  They might have been able to run the numbers up a little more if they had.

It is also about the base.  If our guy is going down, it is hard to get the motivation to go stand in line for minutes to hours to vote.  Hell, if you’re like me, sometimes its even hard to get the ballot in the mailbox, even when you are fired up!  But when you are already demoralized?

So this was pretty much a calculated move to get their base up out of their lazy boys.  Be a part of something big!

What shocks me is that it looks like a lot of people who should have known better fell for it.  Including, it appears, Romney himself.  I think he really expected to win last night.  Maybe not by a lot, but by enough.

I know not everyone at the top level of his campaign felt this way or else he wouldn’t have been wasting time and treasure in Pennsylvania the last few days.  That was a pure desperation move, born from irretrievably losing Ohio in the final days.

A lot of his supporters drank the kool-aid.  The buzz I’ve seen from the other side is not, shucks, we lost a close one but, rather, “What the hell happened?  We were supposed to win.”

The word Mandate is as meaningless as the word Momentum

Kudos, so far, to the Dems for not going here, but I am hearing a lot of talking heads trying to use the word mandate this morning.  In 2004, the GOP was using this word after winning one of the narrowest presidential victories of the last 50 years, but since it was a larger margin than they had in 2000, they took a swing at claiming a mandate and got a little traction in the press for their efforts.

This year, since Obama won by a narrower margin than 2008, every one is saying that there is no mandate…  Okay.  I won’t argue.

Because it is a meaningless word.

There are many factors that will determine the level of bipartisanship through the next congressional term.  The president’s margin of victory was never going to be one of them.  Mostly, because of historical patterns, the GOP should know that they do not have the luxury of being a do nothing congress heading into 2014. 

It will be a repeat of 2010 unless they do something.  Anything.  And since they are stuck with Obama for two years past 2014, they should be aware enough to know that he holds all the cards now.

And it has nothing to do with 2012 margins.

Zombie Parties

During the 1980s, the Democratic Party was declared dead.  In the 1990s, the Republican party was declared dead.  In the aughts, the Democratic Party was declared dead.  In the teens, starting last night, I’ve been hearing, guess it, guess it…

No party is dead.  Yes, the Democrats have figured out how to win presidential elections, I will give them this.  This is the first knock down, drag out, get your base to the polls or you are going to lose partisan election that they have won in a very long time, perhaps in my lifetime, and it is good to see.  It is healthy. 

And I think the GOP needs to solve it’s little Tea Party problem before it can get back in that game.

But they are not dead. Like I said, I think we’ve got a couple new blue states in the presidential elections.  This is a story really told when you look at the county by county red v. blue maps.  But it does not mean that the GOP is out “for a generation” as people are always saying about one party or another.

The House

The flip side is the House.  A true sign of how close this election really was is the House races.  It took everything, EVERYTHING, the Dems had to hang onto the presidency and there was not much left for the House.

I really think if more effort had been put into it, they could have taken the House this year.  But it took so much effort to keep Obama in office that there was nothing left.

I know, myself, I barely paid any attention to the Congressional races this year.  Partly that is due to the fact that I live in a solidly blue district where our incumbent usually only has token competition from year to year, but it is also because everyone was working so hard on the presidential campaign that we just didn’t have much left for the House this year.

2014?  That is a different story.  If the new Democrat machine targets the house, it is theirs, unless the Republican caucus really makes some big strategic changes over the next two years.  If they do, then they might actually hang on to it.  The ball is very much in their hands.

I think the GOP will start working with Obama.  They’ll have to if they want to survive in the House.

Up through last night the GOP caucus has been saying they want to negotiate with Obama, but their definition of negotiate is, “Give us what we want, exactly as we want it, or we will say you are playing partisan politics and shred you in the next election.”

We’ll see if the current crop of Reps is smart enough to figure out that this game is played out.  They will need to change strategies or they are going down hard in the midterms.

When functioning well, I actually think having some party splits between the executive and legislative branches of government can be a healthy thing.  When it works, it works by getting the best ideas through from each party, and blocking the more sketchy ideas.  But what we’ve had for awhile, coming to a head with the current Congress, is far from that.  There is nothing healthy about the state of Congress right now at all.

Can they change?  That is the real question.  They may not be able to unless the entire Republican Party grows a pair and quits being held hostage by the Tea Party.  It cost them the presidency this year and will cost them the House in 2014 unless the party grown ups man up and take a stand for sanity.

Post-Election Silence

I’m not going away permanently, but now that the election is over, I’ll be posting to this blog on a much less frequent basis.  I’ll still be checking in from time to time, but probably not much until December. 

Finally, now that this long national debate is over, I can focus on writing the NaNoWriMo novel that I should have been working on this morning instead of writing this post!

This blog has been around since 2004, though.  Sometimes I drift away, but I always come back, eventually.

I Love This Speech

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/06/us/politics/06-obama-election-night-speech.html

 

Related Posts

Friday, October 26, 2012

2012 Election: Polls & Predictions… A narrow and divided victory for Obama?

It’s getting close to the end now and I am starting to get some gut feelings about this one.  Still, overall, I wouldn’t be surprised by either outcome in the presidential race.  However, I would be slightly less surprised if Obama won. 

November 6 is going to be an interesting night.

Game Changers

A little over a week out… Is it too late for any game changers? 

Probably, but a few things do come to mind.  First, Florida looks like it is tightening up again.  If it tilts blue, done.  Early night a week from Tuesday and we all get a good night’s sleep.

Also, as we get a little closer, there is always the possibility that the press starts paying more attention to the fact that it is really going to be tough for Romney to win the Electoral Vote unless the polls are as far off as Dewey / Truman in 1948.  If the media starts talking about Obama’s Electoral Vote Firewall instead of Romney’s questionable momentum (basically manufactured by GOP talking heads, not recent polls), then this could break more in Obama’s direction.

Why?  Because 1% to 2% of these idiotic, undecided swing voters are going to vote for whoever is in the lead because they want to vote for the winner.  Usually this segment is small enough that it does not effect the outcome of the election, but in super tight races?  Who knows?  Usually when super tight races head into election day, they are too close to call and these folks stay home.  But if Obama is looking solid heading into election day, these folks might show up and vote for him, increasing his possible margin of victory.  

Hell, they might even win Obama the popular vote, but more on that later.

Another possibility, especially if the press starts giving more time to Obama’s Electoral Vote advantages…  Romney starts making some last minute, desperate Hail Mary swings through the silly zone.  When this guy goes big, he starts getting strange. 

At this point, though, can any further goofy headlines effect Romney?  Who knows?  But if he is feeling desperate, we may see some interesting moments a la John McCain’s “See, I’m Not To Old To Be President” marathon bus tour on the eve of the election.

Most likely… I predict we might see things firming up a little bit more for Obama in the state by state races, but I think we are pretty much heading into the popular vote within the margin of error, therefore tied.

So yes.  I am going ahead and posting my predictions for November 6. 

I reserve the right to change my mind later if something crazy happens.

Numbers & Predictions: All Hail Nate Silver

2012-10-26. 02.First of all… Let’s jam through the who’s, what’s, and what’s everyone saying…

Five Thirty Eight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus: Oct. 25: The State of the States - NYTimes.com:

Thursday was a busy day for the polls, with some bright spots for each candidate. But it made clear that Barack Obama maintains a narrow lead in the polling averages in states that would get him to 270 electoral votes. Mr. Obama also remains roughly tied in the polls in two other states, Colorado and Virginia, that could serve as second lines of defense for him if he were to lose a state like Ohio.

The day featured the release of 10 national polls, but there was little in the way of a consistent pattern in them.

Nate Silver's Newest Prediction: 73% Obama!:

Although the race is still close in several swing states, statistical guru Nate Silver’s newest prediction is 73.1% Obama to 26.9% Romney

Nate Silver’s track record on election predictions is pretty solid, so much so that the GOP is going after him, apparently.

Republicans Desperate to Spin Romney as the Front-Runner Are Becoming 'Nate Silver Truthers' | Alternet:

…in recent days, the Romney-Ryan campaign has claimed that it's moving ahead. As Jonathan Chait noted, “This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.” Despite zero evidence that Romney has made any gains since receiving a healthy bounce from the first debate, reporters appear to be buying it, with a raft of lazy stories about Mitt Romney's supposed “momentum.”

A significant problem for conservatives bent on spinning this alternate reality is New York Times ' polling guru Nate Silver and his 538 forecast model, which called 49 out of 50 states accurately in 2008 and is considered the industry's gold standard (the model also pretty much nailed the 2010 mid-terms).

Yeah, don’t even get me started on the “raft of lazy stories about Mitt Romney's supposed ‘momentum.’”  I called that one back before the first debate.

Democracy In Distress: How Mitt Romney will win the first debate:

…what happens next really depends on media spin.  Not the partisan talking heads, but the producers, writers, editors, reporters and directors out there.

The media wants a story to tell.  If the election is pretty much settled a month out, that leaves four weeks of dead air time…  Which they will fill by trying to create the feeling that the race is much closer than it really is.  The problem?  People will start believing it, and everyone loves a come from behind underdog, right?

Sorry, got distracted there for a second.  The press is dead to me and I mourn them from time to time…

Numbers & Predictions: Nate Silver vs. My Gut

So, Nate’s current prediction... 

2012-10-26. 03.

This map brings the Electoral Vote in with Obama winning 303 to 235.  Even if he only calls 49 out of 50, it is a happy night for Team Obama. 

Unless, of course, Nate blows the Ohio call for Obama. 

Oh.  Oops.  Sorry, that was the conventional wisdom I’ve been hearing from press outlets hungry for a story. 

If only one of Nate’s Obama states go for Romney instead, pulling off the 49 out of 50 prediction from 2008, then Obama still wins “easily.”

Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio pretty much ALL have to shift over to Romney for the U.S. to elect its first Mormon president with a final electoral count of  275 Romney to 263 Obama.  (P.S.  I have no problem with a Mormon President and, I fear, that might be the coolest thing about a Romney Administration…)

Of course, there are other paths to 270 for Romney, but this would be the most likely.

There are also a couple paths that lead to the House of Representatives deciding this one.  Even more unlikely than a Romney presidency, but more likely than in most elections.

Nate’s calling this for Obama with a pretty big margin in the Electoral Vote and a bigger margin in the Popular Vote than I am comfortable with right now. 

I think it’s going to be closer.  How much closer?  2000 close? 

I hope not.  But my Electoral College prediction looks frightenly similar to the 2000 numbers.

My Prediction for the Electoral Vote: Obama Wins, 272 to 266

Right now, my personal prediction looks a lot tighter than Nate’s. 

2012-10-26.  03.

This is the tightest it can be with Obama still coming out on top.  Right now, too many things have to break Romney’s way for him to win, in too many states that are leaning blue.  However, unlike Nate Silver, I do not see Obama sweeping all of the “tied” states right now.  This is my worst case scenario for an Obama victory, but I do not think Obama will break 300, though as of now I think he will get 270.

And I am worried enough about shenanigans in Ohio that I am tossing the state to Romney in my prediction.

Obama-Romney Race May Hinge on 2 Ohio Counties | RealClearPolitics:

If the race for president can be boiled down to two key counties in one key state, then those jurisdictions are Hamilton and Cuyahoga, here in the Buckeye State.

And, as Dan Rather put it on election night in 2000, "This race is tight like a too-small bathing suit on a too-long ride home from the beach."

My Prediction for the Popular Vote: Mitt Romney Wins

As for the popular vote, unless some of the game changers I mentioned above occur, I am predicting that Romney will win the popular vote.  Yeah, I know Nate went with Obama.  But I don’t.

2012-10-26. 05.

I don’t like or trust CNN polling this year.  I think they are swinging towards Romney where possible and I believe that they are holding back on making some pretty solid calls on the electoral map just to keep viewers interested and watching, but I do feel like Romney has a slightly insurmountable lead in the COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS national polls. 

However, CNN is not the only one showing Romney holding steady in the national polls. 

2012-10-26. 08.

The polls are pretty much all over the place, but with Obama only leading in three of eleven and tied in one other, I think it is looking pretty bad for Obama in the popular vote.  But, as I said earlier, it doesn’t matter.  Even if we all slept through our civics classes back in junior high, everyone should be real clear on this after the 2000 election - the national popular vote decides nothing.

This Day In History

So, how does this year compare to years past…

2000 was all over the place, a lot like this year. Below is a link to 10 different polls from this date in 2000. 

Bush led in 8 out of 10 polls by margins ranging from 2% to 7%.  Gore led in two polls, by 2% and 3%.

However, the most interesting numbers in these polls come from the swing between Likely Voters and Registered Voters in Newsweek’s poll.

Bush Gains Back Lead in CNN Poll; Gore Maintains Zogby Poll Lead:

Thursday, Oct. 26, 2000

NewsWeek – likely voters (Oct. 18-20)

  • Bush 48%
    Gore 41%

NewsWeek – all registered voters (Oct. 18-20)

  • Gore 45%
    Bush 42%

If this year’s election is still up for grabs, then I predict it will be decided by which side gets their base out and by which side can motivate swing voters leaning in their direction to actually show up and vote. 

This could be a real problem for both sides.  Obama’s base is somewhat dissatisfied with him not living up to the superhuman expectations built up in 2008, and Romney’s party actually thought about going with winners like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum before giving into the inevitable and nominating the only candidate that had with a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Obama.

When it comes down to it, I think the advantage here goes to Romney.  I think the far right’s hatred of Obama will overcome their ambivalence about Romney.  And I don’t think the far left has a motivational force of that caliber working on its side this time around, though the “rape is a gift from God” stories couldn’t have hit at a worse time for the GOP.  But it is probably not enough to balance out the Obama hatred.

However, will that be enough to beat Obama?  Probably not.  In 2004, the far left had this hatred for the GOP candidate working on their side.  They also had their own version of Romney in John Kerry.  It was a close election, it came down to Ohio, there might even have been a few shenanigans in Ohio, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome, most likely.  It was Bush’s night with or without the shenanigans.

Electoral Maps 1972-2008:

The 2004 US Presidential Election

The electoral map shown below depicts the results of the 2004 U.S. presidential election in which George W. Bush defeated John Kerry.  Bush carried 31 states and 50.7% of the popular vote.

2012-10-26. 09.

Here is a look at the 2004 polls from this point in that election.  Today we probably have about a 1% spread between Romney and Obama. Kerry was down by around 2%. All within the margin of error for everything.

2012-10-26. 06.

One thing is for certain, this is no 2008, when Obama comfortably had the popular vote wrapped up by this point.

2012-10-26. 07.

Are We Locked In?  Is This A Done Deal?

Well, in the past, including these elections we are looking at here, there have been some changes in the polls heading into the last week.  Usually whomever leads through October wins, which is what the GOP is counting on right now.

However, this is not always the case.  Of course there was Dewey / Truman in 1948.  The GOP candidate was leading Truman by fairly large margins from the spring on.  The final Gallup poll had Truman losing with 44.5%, and he was behind by about 5% at the end of October.  He ended up winning with 49.9% of the popular vote.

In 1952, in the Gallup poll, Stevenson shot up by about 10% in the last couple weeks of the election, with Eisenhower at 51% in the final survey.  It wasn’t enough and the General won with 55.4% of the popular vote.

1960…  Nixon closed around a 4% gap to a 2% gap in the last month or so, and this momentum continued to election day with Kennedy barely squeaking out a 50.1% victory in the popular vote.  In fact, this election was so close, that in a different day and age, it might have gone like 2000.

In 1968 we had a three party election with Wallace absorbing 13.53% of the popular vote and winning five states (46 electoral votes).  Through October into November, Humphrey closed an 8% gap to about 1% going into election day.  But Nixon’s lead held, of course.

Perhaps the modern election that most resembles the 2012 race is the 1976 contest between Ford and Carter. 

1976 Gallup tracking poll: Ford vs. Carter(very interesting reading!!):

Ford made up additional ground following the third debate in late October, again pulling even. In the final pre-election poll, Gallup's numbers indicated a statistical dead heat among likely voters, with Ford at 49% and Carter 48% (the unallocated numbers had Ford at 47% and Carter at 46%). The actual outcome was 50% for Carter and 48% for Ford. The election was so close that it was not certain that Carter would win until the morning after Election Day.

Then of course, we have the 2000 election… At one point in October, Gore was actually down by 13% in the Gallup survey.  By this week in 2000, Gore had closed the gap to 5% according to Gallup, and he continued to surge (if Gallup’s numbers were right, which is unlikely looking at the chaos in the polls that year). 

Of course, Gore ended up winning the popular vote 48.38% to 47.87%.  Of course, 543,895 popular votes count for nothing compared to Bush’s five extra electoral votes (271-266).

So is this over?  Absolutely not, when it comes to the popular vote.  However, Obama is looking pretty solid in the Electoral College unless the polls are off by 1948 margins, which is pretty unlikely considering the refinements in the polling process over the last 64 years.

Could This Be Another Bush / Gore Style Nightmare?

Short answer, yes.  It is possible. 

Could it break like 1960, where Nixon chose not to contest the counts in several close precincts?  Maybe. 

My gut tells me that it all depends on who is up and who is down.  I suspect the man that will say anything to be president would push it as far as it went in 2000, clinging to any chance at all to be president (for all you tea partiers that think I am talking about Obama, sorry).  Obama, I suspect, is smart enough to see how damaging that process can be to the country, and might not take it that far.

Even in 2004, there were enough questions in Ohio that some thought that Kerry should have called for some recounts.  He, however, chose to accept what was probably inevitable and to go out as a classy winner instead of a sore loser.  This was not like 2000 where it was very likely that more voters did vote for the candidate that lost than the candidate that won in the disputed state.  This was less unlikely to be the case in Ohio in 2004.

Unfortunately for Obama, the elections this year most resembles, poll wise, are 1960, 1976, and 2000.  Like 2000, the polls are a bit all over the place.  Like 1976, we have an fairly unpopular incumbent and an untested outsider hovering within a percentage point of each other.  Like 1960, we have a candidate losing the first debate only to slowly crawl his way back in the polls through the later debates and up into the election. 

The final results for the 1960?  “In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%)—the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the Electoral College, Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win).” (Wikipedia) 

303 is also the number Nate Silver is calling for Obama as of the evening of the 26th, according to his map, at least.

So, parallels?  1960, Romney as Kennedy, Obama as Nixon because of the debates…. Romney wins.  1976…  Incumbent loses to challenger.  Romney wins.  2000…  Late surging Gore pulls off a popular vote victory and loses the election.  Romney wins. 

But, Obama fans, take faith in the 2004 election….  In many ways, this year’s election bears more resemblance to that one than any of these others when looking at more than just the polls. 

And our, oh sweet Jesus, Bush wins in the end. 

Related Posts

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Florida… (yawn)

There’s this…

Florida Primary 2012 Results: Election Reporting By County (MAP, REAL-TIME DATA):

According to the latest polls going into election day, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney held a commanding lead, with 42.3 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who won in South Carolina just over a week ago, had 29 percent of the vote heading into Tuesday, while former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Rep. Ron Paul trailed with roughly 11 percent of the vote each.

Still, by the end of tonight's race, only 5 percent of the delegates will have been rewarded.

Or this…

Personally, I’d go with the Modest Mouse.  I don’t think Florida will decide anything.  But we are getting closer…

Of course, this will be Santorum’s coffin nail.

Related Posts

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Newt, NASA, & the Moon (Updated January 30, 2012)

On Newt Gingrich on the Moon | Vintage Space:

Last week, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich made a bold claim: “By the end of my second term [2020], we will have the first permanent base on the Moon and it will be American.” On the surface, it’s an intriguing and even exciting prospect to space enthusiasts. A base on the Moon would extend human presence in the Solar System and act as a stepping stone on the way to Mars. Or, it could bankrupt NASA and prove to be little more than an ill-thought out, dead-end program. (Gingrich proposed a lunar base by 2020 in Florida on January 25, 2012.)

Gingrich promises moon base that could become 51st state | The Raw Story:

“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” the candidate insisted. “We will have commercial near-Earth activities that included science, tourism and manufacturing.”

“I accept the charge that I am an American and Americans are instinctively grandiose because we believe in a bigger future!” he exclaimed. “I want you to help me both in Florida and across the country so that you can someday say you were here the day it was announce that of course we’d have commercial space and near space. Of course we’d have a man colony on the moon that flew an American flag.”

Do we need a manned space program?  Yes we do. 

Does NASA need to get out of low Earth orbit?  Yes.

Will the private sector get us there?  Probably not.

Is Newt the leader we’ve been waiting for to get us re-focused on space?  Highly unlikely.

Is Newt the second coming of JFK?  Only in his own mind.

UPDATE: January 30, 2012

Phil Plait always has some good thoughts on these subjects.

The Newt-onian Mechanics of Building a Permanent Moon Base | The Crux | Discover Magazine:

I’m also not comfortable with raising the specter of another space race. Any attempts to get political motivation for exploring or exploiting space will inevitably bring to mind the idea of the Chinese. Have no doubts: the Chinese space program efforts are solid, and accelerating. When they say they want to have a moonbase by the 2020s, this is not bluster. They may very well be able to do it. But getting into a second space race with China would be suicide for our space program. Obviously, they have far more money than we do for such an endeavor. But more than that; what is the goal of a race?

Answer: to win. And what happens after you win? Look to Apollo for that. The goal of the first space race in the 1950s and 60s was to beat the Soviets. We did: America got to the Moon first. But after that, enthusiasm for Apollo died rapidly, and Apollos 18–20 were canceled about a year after Armstrong first stepped foot on the Moon. After all, once you’ve won, why keep running?

The point is, if we want to have a sustainable, permanent base on the Moon, then it has to live or die on its merits. As soon as we make it an “us versus them” scenario, the chances of long-term thinking drop precipitously.

Now, don’t get me wrong. When it comes to space exploration, in many ways I’m a starry-eyed optimist, but I’ve learned to temper that optimism with cold, hard, reality. And history shows that building a moonbase by 2020 according to Gingrich’s ideas not only won’t work, but would be a disaster for NASA.

NASA simply can’t do it in that timeframe; there’s no place in the budget for that sort of mission, and it’s unlikely in the extreme they’ll get extra funding for this. Perhaps because of that, Gingrich proposed taking 10% of NASA’s budget—some 1-2 billion dollars—and creating a new X Prize to motivate private industry to be involved. This has worked in the past as a catalyst for companies to work on difficult goals, like launching a piloted vehicle into space. However, going to the Moon and building a base would cost more than 1000 times as much as launching that sub-orbital rocket did, so it’s not at all clear an X Prize like this would work.

Add to that the money needed to keep the base running—an estimated $7.4 billion per year. That’s a lot of cash for a fledgling corporation. Or even a government. It’s more than third of NASA’s annual budget.

A lot of the media have made fun of Gingrich for this plan. The irony is they’re doing it for the wrong reason. A Moon base is being likened to science fiction, just some silly fluff. But that’s grossly unfair.

Space exploration is an issue that’s important. It’s vital to our nation for a host of reasons, but it is also costly in every sense of the word. If we go, we should go for the right reasons, and we should do it the right way. If we go, we must go to stay. The budget for this can’t be set up on political election cycles, it must be based on the real constraints of engineering and technology, and far more importantly it must be based on a commitment to the future. If we do this, we must invest in the long haul.

Gingrich’s plan does not encompass that idea. Ineptly aimed media ridicule aside, what’s clear is that Gingrich’s speech was long on rhetoric but short on actual substance…

The Gingrich Who Stole The News Cycle | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine:

In the post for The Crux I was blunt, but held back my tongue a bit because that isn’t necessarily the venue for me to do otherwise. But here, on my blog, I’ll say this: Gingrich’s words were both transparent and hollow. I knew right away what he was claiming was simply not possible, either financially, technologically, or politically. Take your pick. And it was also clear to me that no matter how you slice it, NASA would get screwed royally if his Moon base plan were implemented, since it would mean billions of dollars moved away from NASA projects to finance this. I started digging deeper to see if my first reaction was wrong, and all I found showed I was righter than I first thought. Every way you try to do it, his plan would destroy NASA. And I’m not exaggerating; the amount of money we’re talking about taking away from NASA projects to fund a base his way would leave everything else in NASA facing cancellation. It’s really that simple.

Also see…

Amen! "I bet we could go explore the galaxy if..."
Armstrong to NASA: You're Embarrassing : Discovery News
Story Musgrave kicks ass: Thoughts on NASA's lack of vision
One small step for China, one impossible step for America: Falling behind in space
Final shuttle flight...
NASA's failure to launch: Being right in so many wrong ways...
50 years after the first manned spaceflight... Is human space exploration to become a footnote in history?

More Related Posts

Friday, December 17, 2004

Starting Over in Ohio…

In Ohio, the original Supreme Court case filed on Monday challenging the election was thrown out on a technical issue, but it was refiled today.

The group filed the request Monday, the day the Electoral College cast votes for Bush. Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the state Supreme Court threw out the complaint Thursday, saying the voters improperly included a second election challenge in the complaint.

Anyway, the lead on the AP story regarding the Ohio recount recalls images from Florida in 2000, with “two teams of Republican and Democratic election workers held punch-card ballots up to the light Wednesday and whispered back and forth as they tried to divine the voters' intent from a few hanging chads.”

According to Ohio Law:

Workers must hand-count 3 percent of ballots. If the results match the certified results exactly, all other ballots can be recounted by machine. If the totals are off, all ballots must be counted by hand, adding days or weeks to the process.

What I am unclear on is how the paper-less voting machines effect this process. Still, I suspect that we’ll be waiting for those “days or weeks” to find out the new Ohio totals.

Another interesting tidbit, not a new one, but always a bit disturbing. “Statewide, about 92,000 ballots cast in last month's presidential election failed to record a vote for president, most of them on punch-card systems.” Dosen’t this just automatically raise eyebrows? You cannot tell me that people show up at the polls and say to themselves, “Well, I was going to vote on the Presidency, but since I get to vote with punch cards, I’ll skip that section of the ballot.”

Now, there could be something to this. What are the demographics of these precincts? I have a feeling that there could have been a higher percentage of abstentions in blue collar neighborhoods, where people are too disgusted with the process to vote for either of the candidates. Unfortunately, I fear the flaw with this theory is that disenfranchised blue collar people tend to abstain by not voting at all.

And finally…

It seems that workers for Triad, the vendor for some of the vote counting software used in Ohio, showed up at precincts and tinkered with the voting machines before the recount. The company says that this is just the standard procedure…

Brett Rapp, president of Xenia, Ohio-based TRIAD, said it's standard procedure to prepare the machines for a recount so they only tally the presidential race. He said company representatives have worked on computers in every county that uses TRIAD software.

However, “a sworn statement from Sherole Eaton, [Hocking] county's deputy director of elections,” makes these visits sound a little more concerning. In this AP article, the parts of the statement reported sound fairly ambiguous, but I have heard more extensive reports on this statement, and the incident she reports definitely sounds a bit more sinister.

Something is being done about this…

Rep. John Conyers D-Mich., a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary, urged the FBI to investigate possible election tampering in Hocking County involving an employee of TRIAD Governmental Systems Inc., the company that wrote the voting software used in 41 of Ohio's 88 counties.

I suppose we’ll have to wait and see if anything comes of this. It cannot be allowed to stop with just one Representitive urging an investigation.

Not this year, not any year.

Investigate the Vote
Ohio Voters Refile Election Challenge
Hanging Chads Make Reappearance in Ohio

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

The godofthebasement Speaks...

He really must hate America... He posted the following rant as a comment on the blog awhile back, but I thought it was time to elevate his words. I know who he is. He does answer prayers if offered the proper sacrifice...

In honor of Ohio, I thought I would give up this burnt offering...

Well I guess I'll start since I don't feel like doing any more real work this afternoon.

Follow the conspiracy trail:Several counties in Florida, Ohio, and Texas have followed this pattern:

First: Electronic voting machines had votes registered before the polls opened. Official explanation: Each individual machine has an internal counter for total votes ever cast on the machine, that count has no effect on results of this election. My call: Plausible, but still a technical glitch that needs to be fixed before electronic voting can be trusted.

One item specific to Texas: Many users of electronic voting machines that print out a "receipt" found that although they had voted strait Democrat, the machines recorded their presidential vote as "Bush" even though all their other votes registered correctly as Democrat. There are thousands of documented instances of this happening in Texas in this election. Those who noticed the error were able to get their ballot corrected, but what of those who didn't notice? And what about the majority of electronic voting machines that don't print a "receipt?"

Next: While election results are being counted, more votes for Bush are recorded than total votes cast. Official explanation: It's a running total, these numbers change and the final result will add up. My call: Skeptical, see below.

Then: More votes cast for Bush than there are people registered Republican. Official explanation: crossover votes by Democrats and independents for Bush. My call: Plausible on the face, but how many Democrats do they really want us to believe voted for Bush?

Finally: There are counties in Ohio, Florida, Texas, and a few other southern states where BUSH RECIEVED MORE VOTES THAN THERE ARE RESIDENTS IN THE COUNTY! Official explanation: Just a glitch that will be cleaned up. Republican explanation (I'm not making this up, it was said by a Republican PR person on NPR): The Democrats rigged these counties to make the Republicans look bad! My call: Bullshit.

Analysis: Sorry people, I'm not going play nice and roll over like douche-bag Kerry, I'm pissed. The Bush "victory" is a result of widespread election fraud by the Republicans on a nationwide scale. Period. Bush can shove his "mandate" up his...

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Kerry's Extra 16 Million

I am repeating this here from comments I made to my earlier post on the Washington State hand recount.

Okay, I am commenting on my own post, but what the hell... And I do mean what the hell! As I was reading over this post, I was left wondering why a canidate that narrowly lost the presidancy had almost a quarter of a million dollars left over in the war chest?Now, I am the first one to go off about money being the Great Satan of American politics, and I really do not believe that one more ad buy in Ohio or Florida would have changed anything...I suppose short of giving a buck to 200,000 people in Ohio to vote Kerry, it probably wouldn't have changed the election, but it still makes me wonder if everything was done that could have been done.

16 million is a lot more than a quarter of a million. He's getting some heat from other Democrats for this...

Kerry aides said the money was set aside to cover late-arriving bills and any legal challenges to the presidential outcome. But other Democrats said the money, which was raised during Kerry's primary-election campaign and could not be spent on his own general-election campaign due to federal limits, should have been given to other candidates to spend.

One top Kerry aide said that after all bills are paid, the primary account is likely to be down to about $14 million. Approximately $4 million will be used to defend against allegations that the Kerry campaign illegally coordinated with independent groups.



Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who managed Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said she was ''totally shocked" to learn that so much money was left over. Aside from Kerry's defeat, Democrats lost two seats in the House and four in the Senate this year.''I've never heard of having that amount of money left over," she said. ''This is not about John Kerry. This is about how do you deploy resources. We kept saying, 'This is the greatest, most important election in our lifetime.' Yet we have money left over? I don't know what else to say."



Okay, there are some quotes. The link to the article is below. I don't know what I feel about this in the long run, especially when it is Donna Brazille complaining. I still haven't worked out my feelings about her management of the Gore campaign (even though she did get the win, I suppose, on that one), but I am pretty sure they are all negative.

[Note: I took the link to this story off because it was messing up the layout on the blog. E-mail if you would like to read the piece. mailto:admin@democracyindistress.com

UPDATE: December 28, 2004 - 8:35 AM

On Steve Gilliard's News Blog...

Duh, we don't kill babies, we kill them and eat them

Wow, I'm not the only one who thinks [Donna Brazille]'s both incompetent and an idiot. If she can't explain a core belief of the people who pay her, then why the fuck are they paying her?

She is simply not competent at her job and no one will say so.

This is in response to Brazille: I'm Not Good Enough To Convince My Own Family on Patridiot.

So, it is not just me.