So comes word comes from the Omaha World-Herald:Good news for Barack Obama supporters.
This would represent the first time that Nebraska has split its electoral votes. Maine, the other state to award some of its electoral votes at the Congressional District level, has never done so.
His odds of bagging an electoral vote in Nebraska grew stronger this morning, with word that 10,000 to 12,000 early ballots and 5,200 provisional ballots are left to count in Douglas County.
Obama won about 61 percent of the early votes counted before Tuesday's election. If that percentage holds with the early ballots left to count, Obama stands a strong chance of winning the Omaha-area 2nd Congressional District.
Republicans did not concede defeat this morning, but they acknowledged the long odds.
John McCain held a 569-vote lead over Obama in the 2nd District at the end of Tuesday.
"I will remain cautiously hopeful but not cautiously optimistic," said Hal Daub, state director for McCain. "I'm disappointed (in the numbers). We really worked hard here, against substantial resources being poured into Nebraska."
11.06.2008
Obama Likely to Win Omaha Electoral Vote
@ 3:18 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
260 comments
Awesome!
*Fingers crossed*
I am thrilled that a state is finally going to split its EVs! That is so cool.
yeah!
Sadly, it would also mean you missed 2 whole parts of the map! That would move you down to an A from Rachel Maddow instead of an A+
The most amazing about Nate's projection is that he had Missouri as a 50-50 toss up, and two days after the election they still can't call it!
Re: Omaha, here it is:
http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/2008/ElectNight/electoralcollegeresults.pdf
McCain 126303
Obama 125734
Nader 1502
McCain won by 569 votes. Nader almost certainly handed Missouri and Omaha to McCain. Barr probably gave North Carolina to Obama. amazing, but true. 27 electoral votes almost certainly swung because of third parties that garnered less than 0.5% each.
did something change?
According to the exit polls, Obama's weakest demographic was WASP Males, what a surprise!!! Not!
MN Update:
Franken now only down 346 votes. Unlikely, but possible that he could have the lead in the official results before the recount. Then Coleman would have to eat his words about wasting money on a recount.
That would be cool. I bet the Republicans will act fast to switch the rules for next time, though it does seem like a good way for the state to get a little extra attention.
Yes, Eric -- that's not the end result. As the Omaha World-Herald states, there are still thousands of early/absentee/provisional ballots to be counted. The result on the Nebraska Sec'y of State site is unofficial.
They will meet to certify results on Dec. 1.
What a way to not only add insult to injury to McCain, but also keep the trivia wonks at Wikipedia busy with the first non-standard EC event since Margaret Leach voted for Bentsen as President and Dukakis as Vice President in 1988.
So anybody got the latest polling numbers? If you look at the graphic to the right, McCain still has a 1.1% of winning the presidential electoral vote! Obama is President-Elect, and STILL he can't seal the deal!
I'm really sorry for typing that... I just couldn't help myself.
/GObama!
vw: "susit", the word I use to hiss at people when they are talking on thier cellphone at the theater in the middle of a movie.
I made a prediction here, on Monday that Obama would win 367 electoral votes. I got every state right, but Montana. I predicted McCain would win Omaha by less than 1000 votes, probably by about 500. almost right, not quite. My popular vote prediction was 52.1% to 46.6%. Real close on that. I used Nate's science and added a little art of my own (ie analysis of all data I could find). I even got the %s very close to right on almost every state. I missed some on the Southern states. I expected the AA vote to keep them closer than they were. I missed Georgia, thought it would be within a point or 2 and places like Tennessee and Louisiana where I thought the margin would be closer to 10. Aside from that I was almost perfect with all of my predictions. i like it.
Andrew Sullivan is sweet on Nate:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/how-good-was-53.html
Franken now only down 346 votes. Unlikely, but possible that he could have the lead in the official results before the recount. Then Coleman would have to eat his words about wasting money on a recount.
What words? Why would he have to waste money on a recount? I thought Minnesota law required a mandatory recount if the margin was under .5%, which it clearly would be, so wouldn't the state have to foot the bill?
Do we now have a real and fake Nebraska?
>> I missed some on the Southern states. I expected the AA vote to keep them closer than they were.
I heard from an ex-Pat who grew up in southern LA, and still has lost of family there, that among deep South blacks Obama had the sigma of Uncle Tom, largely because of his more urbane view of the world. :/ How true this is, whether it was somewhat overcome before the election? *shrug* Mind you if they didn't bring themselves to vote for Obama they would be not voting period, which would maintain that Obama/McCain 95/5 split.
@ anne
I shall consult my Nancy Pfotenhauer magic eight ball.......
"Definitely"
To add to that, see how Jackson spoke ("off-record" but on wire in a Fox station) about wanting to snip off Obama's manhood. I can see where Jackson would look down on Obama's experience as not "pure", since Obama had a pretty cushy time of things in HI growing up compared to Jesse Jackson's experience of being there next to MLK when he was shot.
just out of curiosity, what would the electoral count look like if every state did as Nebraska and Maine? Might be interesting as another measure of strength across the country. I'd like to see that map colored in!
"Mike said...
What a way to not only add insult to injury to McCain, but also keep the trivia wonks at Wikipedia busy with the first non-standard EC event since Margaret Leach voted for Bentsen as President and Dukakis as Vice President in 1988."
Trivia: Kerry only got 251 votes in 2004 because one of his electors (accidentally, it is believed) voted for Edwards for President (AND for Vice President!)
I like the Omaha vote because it was part of my optimistic 387-vote projection (alas, I was wrong about West Virginia, Montana, and North Dakota, and still may be wrong about Missouri). And, of course, because it is GREAT NEWS!!!! for JOHN MCCAIN!!!!
Franken now only down 346 votes. Unlikely, but possible that he could have the lead in the official results before the recount. Then Coleman would have to eat his words about wasting money on a recount.
What words? Why would he have to waste money on a recount? I thought Minnesota law required a mandatory recount if the margin was under .5%, which it clearly would be, so wouldn't the state have to foot the bill?
Coleman is trying to say that Franken will be wasting the state's money, if he insists on a recount. Although the losing candidate is entitled to a recount, if the margin is below 0.5%, he can waive it. Clearly, if the margin were around 14,000, a recount would have very little chance of changing the result. But, with the margin now below 400, it's definitely worth it.
Thanks for posting this Nate. As a Cornhusker myself I only have one thing to say
OBAMAHA!!
Coleman's comments about wasting money on a recount are disgraceful and ludicrous. Especially since there's an automatic recount in this situation. Doesn't he know the rules in his own state?
As someone who was born and raised in Omaha, I'm so happy to see the Big O turn blue. Maybe I can move back...nah! I like it here in the royal blue state of Iowa.
Omaba wins Ohama!
@joe
Please see the website proposing a way toward a National Popular Vote
So, if you're reading this Nate.
Has the Obama campaign ever contacted you about this site?
Thanks.
@joe and my previous comment
It's not exactly an answer to you but it's something I find fascinating
@ Joe
Wouldn't that just be a map of the House Results nationwide?
BOO YAH! that would be awesome on many levels.
Sadly, my Dem congressional district in Kansas (KS-3) still wouldn't have gone for Obama. Dennis Moore keeps getting elected comfortably even with the district goes Red in every presidential year.
@evan
I'm not sure if this is 100 percent accurate, but I've read on the Washington Post, somewhere in the last month, that proposals to rid the country of the electoral college are the single most introduced topic of legislation at the national leve, over history. And, yet, here we have it. That's not to say it can't change, but it's a subject that's been around the block a few times.
OBAHA!
Douglas County, Nebraska:
Obama: 104,026
McCain: 97,425
The 2nd Nebraska Congressional District seat includes all of Douglas County and the urbanized areas of Sarpy County.
No - you cant assume that all of the Republican voters for the House would have gone for McCain for Prez.
For example - a Republican won the 2nd district in Nebraska
thanks for the MN updates.
i thought that 100% of the MN vote was already in, so where did they get those new votes?
is the MN sec of state a repub? or was the votes not totally counted?
@Andy JS
Coleman's comments about wasting money on a recount are disgraceful and ludicrous. Especially since there's an automatic recount in this situation. Doesn't he know the rules in his own state?
Norm Coleman is disgraceful and ludicrous. So, the comments are totally consistent.
Fortunately, there seems to be some blowback from the press; I don't think it'll be like Bush in Florida where the CW becomes that Coleman won and Franken is being a sore loser.
Also, Minnesota runs its elections carefully and well, and it's all fill-in-the-bubble paper ballots which can (and will) be examined for voter intent, not just correct reading by the machine (state law). The SOS is a good guy and a Democrat. I heard him on the radio yesterday, and he sounded like a total nerd; just the kind of guy I want running my elections. The recount will be fair.
(I live in Minneapolis.)
the last 100 vote uptick was due to the correction of a typo in transferring the votes from one machine to the database. 24 franken votes were input instead of 124
I am still a fan of the electoral college. It does its jpb, and I really do think that the potential for fraud increases if you have a national popular vote.
There have been a couple of times when it has failed to do its job, but almost always the winner of the popular vote wins the electoral college, and when it hasn't the result was a statistical tie anyways.
Its hard being a liberal here in Nebraska. But it would be so SWEEEEEET if my city of Omaha gave its one little electoral vote to Obama!
God love ya, Ben Nelson. He gave us Nebraskans the opportunity to split our votes and vetoed it every time the Republicans in the legislature passed a bill to repeal the law.
it would be nice to do a breakdown of how different allocation systems would have impacted the race.
- current system
- current system with increased number of EC (to reflect better population numbers
- nebraska system in every state
- proportional distribution to state percents
of course one should not forget that a different system in place would have meant a completely different campaign from both candidates, with much more focus on national ads and big markets
Will this week of weeks never end? All we need now is for that felon Ted Stevens to lose.
An editorial of praise for Nate in London's Guardian newspaper - fully deserved too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/06/us-elections-nate-silver-predictions
In praise of... Nate Silver
...The upstart expert has ruffled some feathers: seasoned pollster John Zogby urged Silver to spend more time with his baseball cards. But with Silver's first full set of election projections, he has hit it right out of the park.
So what is going on in Alaska? Massive under-vote?
The Electoral vote requires candidates to appeal to large swaths of the country, rather than running up the score in a few areas.
It helps bind the nation together--no one region can impose a candidate on any other.
Actually, for Nate's sake, I wouldn't mind if McCain took Omaha and (as seems likely now) Missouri. Then the EV total would stay at 364, which was the third most probable peak in the final EV distribution.
The peaks are the more sensible estimates than the mean, which is nearly useless from the point of view of making bets. If I had put money in a pool, I would have been pretty happy to choose 364, based on Nate's analysis.
jc,
it would be the same if the EC were allocated in a proportional way
We'll rename it Obamaha!
I love my city right now.
"The Electoral vote requires candidates to appeal to large swaths of the country, rather than running up the score in a few areas.
It helps bind the nation together--no one region can impose a candidate on any other."
Actually it can do just the opposite, too, though: completely marginalize a region of the country that's a minority. That's pretty much what happenend in 1860 - Lincoln won a clear majority in states with a majority of the Electoral vote, got virtually no support in the South, got elected with less than 40% of the popular vote, and we had a 5-year Civil War.
Out of curiosity, what would it take for Stevens to lose his senate seat?
Would he have to rape a toddler on live TV or something?
JC said...
The Electoral vote requires candidates to appeal to large swaths of the country, rather than running up the score in a few areas.
It helps bind the nation together--no one region can impose a candidate on any other.
This, as arcane and backwards as it seems the EC does have some definite upsides. Some isolation of electoral fraud as well as blatant pandering to certain regions over the interests of the others.
The downside though is the regional fiefdoms that have popped up, especially with this focus of just getting across the 270 finish line. It can cause a disproportionate amount of attention by the campaigns to "battleground" state. Though that's partly mitigated by the primaries, it has definitely been an issue. Even Howard Dean's 50-state strategy hadn't fully addressed it.
How many tour stops did TX get from Obama/McCain get in the last month of the campaign compared to the smaller EC state of PA? Even states a 1/3 of TX's population was getting a load of attention.
Does anyone know why Missouri hasn't been called for McCain? I thought he was way ahead?
"Out of curiosity, what would it take for Stevens to lose his senate seat? Would he have to rape a toddler on live TV or something?"
As long as he kept bringing home the federal bacon, even this might not cost him his seat.
The Governor of Nebraska has stated publicly that he would like to revert to the "winner take all" model.
This after over $750,000 was spent on local advertising, and three candidates visited the state. (The last candidate to visit before? Robert Kennedy in 1968.)
According to the cool maps at the New York Times, all but one county in Nebraska showed an increase in Democratic votes from 2004, and Obama had a majority in four. McCain's percentage margin of victory was half that of Bush `04.
Now... has anyone analyzed what a 102/436 Electoral College map would look like? (That is, what if every state followed the ME-NE model?)
Removing the electoral college would cause campaigns to visit the big 3 states (California, New York, and Texas) for more than just money. It would decrease the time spent in smaller states and less populated areas.
Not sure this is better (different people ignored by the campaigns), but it would change the strategy away from red and blue states.
"Out of curiosity, what would it take for Stevens to lose his senate seat? Would he have to rape a toddler on live TV or something?"
As long as he kept bringing home the federal bacon, even this might not cost him his seat.
This is why I hope the AIP comes to power and they try something, nothing would be better for Alaska than an attempted succession and extremely punitive reconstruction. They need to realize they are not their own entity.
"Does anyone know why Missouri hasn't been called for McCain? I thought he was way ahead?"
McCain's ahead by less than 6,000 votes and the numbers keep changing a little bit. I'm not sure what they're counting - provisional ballots, absentee votes, or what - but apparently those who know these things think that whatever's being counted could theoretically go to Obama by 6,000.
"As long as he kept bringing home the federal bacon, even this might not cost him his seat."
What I don't understand is why Alaskans think that a convicted felon in the minority party is going to be more effective at "bringing home the federal bacon" than a member of the majority party who will be hailed nationwide for having taken down a convicted felon.
tomthress said...
Actually it can do just the opposite, too, though: completely marginalize a region of the country that's a minority. That's pretty much what happenend in 1860 - Lincoln won a clear majority in states with a majority of the Electoral vote, got virtually no support in the South, got elected with less than 40% of the popular vote, and we had a 5-year Civil War. BTW, I live in the South, just keepin' it real. And no, I'm not kidding.
This is somewhat misleading. No challenger came close to beating Lincoln. It was a 4-way race. Lincoln received 39.8% of the vote and Douglas finished 2nd with 29.5%. What's particularly interesting is Breckenridge won the Southern states. If he hadn't run, who knows who the SOuth votes for, probably not Lincoln. Where would we be then? In 1968, George Wallace received about 14% of the vote as a 3rd party, but won or came close to winning most of the South. Maybe Southerners should not be allowed to vote or perhaps they could get 3/5 of a vote. Seems fair to me.
I wrote by the way, I live in the SOuth and am just keepin' it real. That should not be attributed to tomthress.
I predicted 367 Electoral Votes for Obama, I called Indiana the surprise and hedged my bets that either MT or ND would flip. Came pretty damn close.
I was surprised with the ND final- thought it would be closer than that.
WV: "Refuncoc", GOP donors are demanding a refuncoc for the money that went to Palin's wardrobe.
any system in which MORE people's votes count cannot be but an improvement.
campaign would still go to the smaller states because their vote would be equally important.
right now the most penalized states are small states that are deep blue or deep red, because there is zero reason to go there.
with a proportional system, or with a nebraska system, there would also be the possibility to pick up the extra EC vote, so candidates would go everywhere.
Furthermore, the 'cost' of ads for that extra EC vote would be lower in smaller markets than in bigger ones, balancing out the reduced reach
Franken deficit down to 336 according to CNN and the Minnesota SoS...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#mapSMN
"This is somewhat misleading. No challenger came close to beating Lincoln. It was a 4-way race. Lincoln received 39.8% of the vote and Douglas finished 2nd with 29.5%. What's particularly interesting is Breckenridge won the Southern states. If he hadn't run, who knows who the SOuth votes for, probably not Lincoln. Where would we be then?"
We'd be in the exact same spot. Lincoln won a majority (>50%) in enough states to give him a majority of the Electoral College. The only states he won by a plurality were CA and OR and back then they only had 7 EVs between them. If there were two candidates in the 1860 election - Lincoln and not-Lincoln - Lincoln would have still won the Electoral Vote (173-130) even though he would have been beaten 60-40 in the popular vote.
source: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=1860&datatype=national&def=1&f=1&off=0&elect=0
what is the smallest margin of victory for senate races?
Matt said...
I predicted 367 Electoral Votes for Obama, I called Indiana the surprise and hedged my bets that either MT or ND would flip. Came pretty damn close.
I was surprised with the ND final- thought it would be closer than that.
Matt you and me almost nailed it. I had Obama's range at 338-397. the 7 too close to call to me were: ND and MT (3 each), NC and GA (15 each), and MO and IN (11 each), last Omaha. I split the 6 states evenly giving Obama NC, MO, MT and thought Omaha would be decided by about 500 votes and gave it to McCain. My final estimate was 367 EV and 52.1% to 46.6%. Almost perfect!
good call tomthress. you're probably right
"What I don't understand is why Alaskans think that a convicted felon in the minority party is going to be more effective at "bringing home the federal bacon" than a member of the majority party who will be hailed nationwide for having taken down a convicted felon."
If this campaign has taught us anything, it's that we do not understand why Alaskans think/do a lot of things..."It's Chinatown, Jake..."
I made a little simulator in Excel and ran it 1,000 times each night for the two weeks prior to the election.
It was just a normally distributed probability based sim based on state by state polls weighted by their recentness.
It was pegged at 364 to 174 for the seven days prior to the election, but had Missouri and Indiana flipped as to who would win them.
OT: I haven't had any luck finding professional footage of the crowd reaction when the race was called for Obama at Grant Park, but this one from youtube is worth a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxuGHGqVZZ4&feature=related
There's a lot out there like this, but this is my favorite because you really get a sense of the crowd noise when the race is called--it sounds like 100k people going down a huge drop on the world's best rollercoaster.
i have been saying since september that it was going to be 375. a bit too optimistic, but not that much!
So when will the demagogue Barack Obama and his followers start herding conservatives into concentration camps so they can be humiliated, starved, tortured, and murdered?
On the topic of what the EV's would look like if all states distributed theirs the same way that Maine & Nebraska do:
The biggest problem with looking at this as an alternative to the winner-take-all method is my same complaint about the way congressional districts are drawn: gerrymandering. My view is that congressional district should not be drawn to have such obscure boundaries, since people within a particular geographic area should have specific concerns because of their location.
As an example (since it's where I grew up), let's look at the 7th and 8th CD's in MN, particularly about their boundary near/within the small city of Bemidji (a town of roughly 12,000.) Look at the maps of these districts on http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/MN07_109.gif and ...MN08_109.gif
The 8th district includes the majority of Northern Township (part of which is incorporated in the city of Bemidji), whereas the 7th district includes Bemidji Township. The residents of Bemidji and its nearby rural areas certainly do not have major differences to warrant such a boundary. (Yes I do understand boundaries need to be drawn somewhere and in such a way to balance the numbers of residents, etc).
For a more stark example, look at Arizona's 2nd congressional district. (same address, ending with AZ02_109.gif) How exactly can one propose that such a boundary represents anything other than gerrymandering?
The overall point here is that if all states were to be proportioned the same way as Maine & Nebraska, it would lead to another reason for excessive gerrymandering.
Oh, by the way, I don't have the numbers for 2008, but in 2004, Bush carried the vote in 255 CD's against Kerry's 180. Bush won 31 states against Kerry's 20 (including the District of Columbia), which means the final total would have been 317-221 (assuming that DC would be worth 3 instead of just 2, since its voters don't belong to any congressional district) instead of 286-252.
If every state awarded two votes based on popular vote in the state and all additional based on congressional district, then:
Obama: 28 states + 3 DC + 254 House
McCain: 22 states + 174 House
Four House seats are undecided: CA-4, MD-1, VA-5, WA-8
Then its 285-196. But there are probably more House districts that voted for a Democratic incumbent but who would prefer McCain to Obama than vice-a-versa, in which case the margin would be pretty close to 270.
It would still be a win for Obama, but a much narrower one than the actual result. If other states enacted NE's allocation method of electoral votes, it would almost certainly provide the GOP with a structural advantage as they tend to win the small, more rural states while Democrats prevail in urban and large states.
I think there are 2 reasons for the apparent madness in Alaska:
1) Republican election fraud
2) Legitimate support for Stevens
To explain #2, let me use myself as an example. I live in CA. I'm a democrat. I despise Diane Feinstein. Now ... let's say CA had the same law as Alaska whereby the governor can't appoint senatorial replacement. And let's say that Feinstein ... as she should be ... has been convicted of a felony for pushing legislation that helped her defense contractor husband. But, like Stevens, she's still on the ballot and her opponent is a typical Republican. I don't want Feinstein, but if I vote for the Repub, I'm stuck with the bastard for 6 years. If I vote for Diane, she goes to jail and then I get a new chance to vote for a real democrat within the year.
No brainer for me.
When will Obama commence mass murders and genocide against his own people?
It will happen. We will be begging for mercy, yet he will show none. Obama will murder millions of people - mostly those who disagree with him.
I don't like the electoral vote by precinct that much - too vulnerable to gerrymandering.
What's the argument against pure popular vote?
So when will the demagogue Barack Obama and his followers start herding conservatives into concentration camps so they can be humiliated, starved, tortured, and murdered?
Well, the first step will be identifying you guys. We'll probably start by tracking down people who post conservative comments on blogs.
I think a far more interesting change than getting rid of the electoral college would be to make voting compulsory. Yeah - I know it'll never happen.
Voting is compulsory in Australia (and I've seen both systems in action). It has a few effects: i) it means that voter intimidation is useless; ii) it means that elections are well organised - turnout is easy to predict and the people who get annoyed at long lines still vote rather than leaving; iii) It encourages people to be more aware of the political environment because they know they'll have to vote; and iv) it doesn't actually force people to make a decision - informal votes are allowed.
Oh, and if I were to really go off into dreamland :), I think it'd be great to have range voting.
Anonymous said:
So when will the demagogue Barack Obama and his followers start herding conservatives into concentration camps so they can be humiliated, starved, tortured, and murdered?
Nate, could we followers of the demagogue Barak Obama have Anonymous' IP address, so we can get started on herding conservatives into concentration camps etc.?
@walt526:
Are your numbers based on the way the Presidential popular vote was in the Congressional Districts, or are you looking at the votes for the House seats to determine your totals. Careful, Maine & Nebraska's are based on the *presidential* votes within each congressional district, not on the votes for the actual congressmen. :-)
Anonymous wrote ...
"Obama will murder millions of people - mostly those who disagree with him."
Well, good thing I voted for him then. I hope he goes alphabetically among his opponents. That way, you'd be near the top of his list.
wv: luctiza - perhaps that would help anonymous with his paranoid delusions.
My point is proven exactly. You supporters of this fascist demagogue want to murder me as well as millions of others.
You want to enact the New Final Solution - the complete annihilation of conservative thought by murdering those who espouse it.
Damn. I had 364 in the pool. throw it bar-ack!
tomthress said...
We'd be in the exact same spot. Lincoln won a majority (>50%) in enough states to give him a majority of the Electoral College. The only states he won by a plurality were CA and OR and back then they only had 7 EVs between them. If there were two candidates in the 1860 election - Lincoln and not-Lincoln - Lincoln would have still won the Electoral Vote (173-130) even though he would have been beaten 60-40 in the popular vote.
but that assumes that lincoln would have gotten 0% of the votes that the other split three-ways, which is highly unlikely.
he would have picked up some of the votes, -and possibly a lot- depending who among douglas, bell and breckinridge would have been his only opposition.
i think he would have likely picked up the remaining 10% to give him a majority of the popular vote
Murder and genocidw will abound throughout the rule of Barack Obama.
He will seek to torture, humiliate, and murder the millions who oppose him. He will use nuclear weapons against his own citizenry.
He will kill us.
Anonymous:
There you go again. Projecting your insanity onto others. Did they test for accute paranoia before letting you into the party?
@Mason,
How can you live with yourself and embrace such a horrific end to so many people. You really are a murderer. You and so many just like you.
Why do you want to humiliate and kill so many of us. Why?!
Because Barack says so? I can't believe you are so hoodwinked by his fascist rhetoric. He hates conservatives and will seek out the death of millions of them.
"You want to enact the New Final Solution - the complete annihilation of conservative thought by murdering those who espouse it."
Unnecssary. Why got through the time and trouble when conservative "thought" is already on the endagered species list. Just keep nominating candidates like Moose Hunter Palin and you will exterminate yourselves.
McCain won by 569 votes. Nader almost certainly handed Missouri and Omaha to McCain. Barr probably gave North Carolina to Obama. amazing, but true. 27 electoral votes almost certainly swung because of third parties that garnered less than 0.5% each.
The problem with this sort of analysis is that it assumes that if the third-party candidate wasn't in the race, that all of his voters would a) choose to vote; and b) behave uniformly in voting when choosing a major party candidate. And the literature on third party candidates is that those are not always good assumptions.
There was a study done on the 1998 MN Governor's race (the Ventura election) that suggested that a large percentage of Ventura voters would have not voted had he not been on the ticket (around a third, IIRC). I don't have it front of me, but it was something along the lines of those who would have vote, about one half would have voted for the DFL (Skip Humphrey) and a one-half for the GOP (Coleman). So the net effect of Ventura (37%) was:
-12% don't vote
-12.5% vote for Humphrey
-12.5% vote for Coleman
In other words, we'd predict the two-man race to be decided:
-Coleman 54%
-Humphrey 46%
That 8% advantage for Coleman was pretty close to his actual advantage over Humphrey (34% to 28%), so Ventura's presence in the race did not alter the relative preference of voters.
While most Green voters are closer to the Democrats and Libertarians are closer to the GOP, there will be a percentage who will refuse to support a major party candidate (ie, not vote) while the remainder who do vote will not uniformly go to one party.
RWD,
You are another fascist full of hate. I bet you are foaming at the mouth to kill at least a few conservatives.
Why is genocide necessary? Why?
Why do you feel the need to torture and kill so many innocent civilians?
That is what you are trying to accomplish in the next few years. It is no longer a secret.
walt256:
Very cogent analysis.
Conservative annon:
We are liberals. Unlock your doors and surrender your homes. We will add your intellectual and idealogical distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
I lived in Omaha for around six months on a contract. It was a little redneck city in the middle of a huge sea of red. I would be downright amazed-- and quite pleased-- if Omaha had, in fact, turned blue, even if only barely.
"Why is genocide necessary? Why?"
Read my post. Genocide is unnecessary as your school of "thought" is busily committing suicide through stupidity and infighting.
Conservative, get over yourselves. We libs don't care about you because YOU DON'T MATTER ANYMORE!!!
@Anonytroll:
It's interesting that you claim to be drawing these conclusions from Obama's rhetoric, given that it is the exact opposite of what you describe (c.f. the "Democrats and Republicans" chapter of Audacity of Hope, the 2004 convention speech, bloody well everything).
Mason,
You are evil of the worst kind. You hate anyone not like you. It is sad you wish the death of so many people. How barbaric!
I just want to live. I don't want to die for simply not agreeing with the President. All hope is lost. Evil has prevailed. Millions will be murdered.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!
Listen to them squirm!
HEEE HEEEE HAAA HEE HAAA!
@ anonymous
yawn
RWD:
We've assimilated almost all of their intellectuals, but the rest of them don't even know it yet.
What's the argument against pure popular vote?
That small states will be ignored. Back in the 18th century, small colonies like DE, CT, etc. were concerned about being dominated by VA and NY. To get their support, two interrelated compromises were made to frustrate a "tyranny of the majority":
1) The electoral college
2) A bicameral congress, in which representation in one house was allocated based on population and the other was based on two representatives per state regardless of size.
If popular vote decided presidential elections, then the political power would shift pretty dramatically from rural to urban areas. There would be benefits, but there would be stiff resistance from the smaller, rural states. Since such a change could only occur through passage of a constitutional amendment (which would require approval of 3/4ths of the state legislatures), it's unlikely to ever occur.
where is Right Wing ConspirIcist these days?
@eric
The thing you should really be patting yourself on the back for is having had the patience to keep reassuring everyone about PA!
As for engaging more people and more states in the campaign, the best way to do that is to introduce some form of proportional representation, such as the Single Transferable Vote. PR is used in quite a lot of countries now. Under PR everybody's vote matters.
RWD and BushWhacked,
Conservative thought is badly on the defensive but will never die out.
So you do think it would be necessary if conservatives weren't "committing suicide." You think genocide would be necessary then. You are evil.
Conservative - someone who shouts "Fire!" while standing under Niagara Falls
Anonymous said...
My point is proven exactly. You supporters of this fascist demagogue want to murder me as well as millions of others.
You want to enact the New Final Solution - the complete annihilation of conservative thought by murdering those who espouse it."
Welcome back PeteKent!!!
"Conservative thought is badly on the defensive but will never die out."
I know a woman in Alaska who will be doing all she can to make it die out. Of course she thinks she will be helping it.
PeteKent is too naive to see what's happening here.
He doesn't even see that there will be millions murdered to protect liberal thought and the legacy of Barack Obama.
@anonymous
Genocide is not necessary. What remaining brain cells people like you have are clearly committing suicide as you post.
No, we are going to do something far worse. We are going to laugh at you!
Sarah Palin doesn't represent conservative thought. She represents ultra right-wing radical thought. She is nowhere near simply being 'conservative.'
You all are out to murder even the most tranquil of conservatives.
By the way, what's happened to Joe the Plumber? He seems to have vanished!
sherwick said...
"where is Right Wing ConspirIcist these days?"
I heard he changed his name to anonymous.
@bush whacked
what do you mean 'going to' laugh at him, we ARE laughing at him.
Hey check it out if you haven't already:
www.change.gov
The new official website of our president elect!
wv: yostrys - how my daughter pronounced "ostrich"
/hands Anonymous a Heavy Duty ACME Steel Reinforced Tin Hat
So it starts. Joe the Plumber 'vanishes' by going home after his fifteen minutes of fame.
Millions of conservatives will 'vanish' from the face of the earth when fascists commit genocide against them.
JOe the plumber has moved to Alaska and will run for the senate when Stevens gets chucked out.
Oh Dear Lord:
"Obama es un joven guapo y bronceado"
"Obama is young,handsome and "suntanned"
http://www.heraldo.es/index.php/mod.fotonoticias/mem.galeria/idfotonoticia.15835/tipo.flash
"guapo... bronceado" do you get it ?
...and next week I have to go to Spain.
Spanish will treat me as a jackass I know them.
Why,why,why, we elected this moron in charge for the third term ???
I apologize again whit you guys,really really sorry .
:(
bush wacked-
But I really want to assimliate them! Please!!! Just one???
Are your numbers based on the way the Presidential popular vote was in the Congressional Districts, or are you looking at the votes for the House seats to determine your totals. Careful, Maine & Nebraska's are based on the *presidential* votes within each congressional district, not on the votes for the actual congressmen. :-)
I was just basing it based on actual House votes. I'd have to dig up the actual results by congressional district. But because we live in an era of highly gerrymandered districts, its probably the case that in 90%+ of the cases there's an overlap between preference for president and voter support for the House. In cases where that isn't the case, I would suspect a slight bias against the Democrats (voters want a proverbial Mommy to provide pork, but a Daddy on national security or whatever).
To summarize: a switch to a straight national popular vote for president would introduce a structural advantage to the Democrats (more power to urban areas) while a switch to a nationwide NE-style of electoral votes would favor the Republicans. Because both parties would fight a change and it would require either a constitutional amendment or similarly unified action by state legislatures (in the case of switching to a NE-style system), I would be surprised if it ever happened so long as our political system is dominated by two major parties.
Now if we ever evolve to some sort of a multiparty system (probably organized along various regional interests), then the political calculus might change. But barring that, the electoral college will most likely exist until the US Constitution ceases to exist.
Joe The Plumber went down the drain with the rest of the McCain campaign.
Amazing. The model got everything right except MO, a race separated by less than 6,000 votes; IN, 26,000 votes; and NE-2 (Omaha). Indiana seems to be the biggest error.
NBC has called North Carolina for Obama.
walt, what about a switch to distribute the EV in a proportional way based on statewide results and not districts?
mason:
OK. Go for it with the current PK incarnation. Just make sure to laugh at him while you do it.
right now the most penalized states are small states that are deep blue or deep red, because there is zero reason to go there.
with a proportional system, or with a nebraska system, there would also be the possibility to pick up the extra EC vote, so candidates would go everywhere.
The MA/NE way of splitting between parties is already done. It's call Congress.
In the end the legislative branch does share power with the executive branch.
P.S. In regards to Lincoln, in a two-way only race would he have garnered more than 50% of the vote?
But the underlying problem leading to Succession and then to Civil War was two very different views of how to go forward, and an inability to see a workable compromise for the majority on either side.
Of course it didn't have to go to war. But it did. That had just as much to do with jingoism and a widespread entirely romatisized understanding of what war was like. Topped off with most in the South having very unrealistic understanding of their chances. It is one thing to fight a distant empire (Britian, 30 days by boat) distracted by bigger fish elsewhere over control a raw untamed land when you are severely outclassed industrially. It is another matter to wage war with your much bigger neighbour who you have the full attention of.
Just look at these figures and tell me whether they look strange:
ALASKA 2008, (with 2004 in brackets):
McCain - 136,348, (Bush - 190,889)
Obama - 80,340, (Kerry - 111,025)
Surely those figures can't be right? A drop in turnout of 85,000 voters? With Palin inspiring Republicans and Obama enthusing Democrats?
The New York Times maps are great. Look how blue Wisconsin is...
Joe said... "just out of curiosity, what would the electoral count look like if every state did as Nebraska and Maine?"
In 2000 and 2004, Michigan went for Gore and Kerry. Of the 15 Congressional districts, there were two (city of Detroit, basically) where Bush did not even threaten to break out of single digits (2000, got 3% to barely edge out Nader at 2% for a distant second; 2004, "improved" to 6%). Everywhere else, Bush won narrowly, although if I recall correctly one suburban district did flip in 2004? Will have to look up the figures. So, instead of Gore 17, and Kerry 17, Gore would have gotten 4 (two for "winning" the state!) to Bush's 13, and Kerry would have improved to 5, to Bush's 12.
wv: spincopp! Yes, that's what Nate did for us, he policed the spin
Mrs B said...
@eric
The thing you should really be patting yourself on the back for is having had the patience to keep reassuring everyone about PA!
Thanks a lot. Yeah, PA is a waste of time for the Republicans until further notice. The other piece of the puzzle that seemed obvious to me was Nevada. There was no way that McCain could win Nevada and without it he couldn't get to 270. Obama won Nevada by like 12%.
don't panic said...
the last 100 vote uptick was due to the correction of a typo in transferring the votes from one machine to the database. 24 franken votes were input instead of 124
OMG transferring votes from a machine to the databases involves typing? I always thought the US was a developed county, but I stand corrected.
In 2012 we are coming for Arizona, Georgia, Montana,North Dakota and TEXAS!
anyone have the scoop on MN-Senate? Are there votes left to count? I figure if there are Franken might catch up. It's a lot less likely the recount will yield a different result. are there still ballots to be counted?
SHERWICK said...
In 2012 we are coming for Arizona, Georgia, Montana,North Dakota and TEXAS!
We don't get Texas, sorry to say. The state used to be Democrat a long time ago, but something happened here. I will say I've live in two counties my whole life Travis (Austin) and Harris (Houston). They both went for Obama. I like that.
News flash! Canada turns blue! Well, except for Alberta.
wv: cowbew - tiny cow bell?
on gerrymandering: The West Virginia constitution requires the legislature to make congressional district borders contiguous with county borders as much as possible (and thus far it has always been possible).
County borders have historical reasons for being where they are, and this really makes much more sense than the wacky gerrymandering like in the MN example above (there are many worse examples in TX, NC, VA and PA.
Of course you could also draw districts by watershed (pretty objective!) or have them designed by 7th graders with MacBooks in Japan based solely on compactness -- they'd have no idea of the political landscape, it would purely be a math and mapping exercise.
The downsides? All these approaches would tend to dilute minority voting in the south and southwest. And they are (excepting the WV approach) silly.
Other question: if other states used the Nebraska apportionment scheme:
WV: still all 5 to McCain
VA: 4 McCain, 9 Obama
and of course the 3 EV states are the same:
VT, DE, ND, SD, MT, WY, and AK.
9/51 of the work done...
Carlo Graziani said...
Actually, for Nate's sake, I wouldn't mind if McCain took Omaha and (as seems likely now) Missouri. Then the EV total would stay at 364, which was the third most probable peak in the final EV distribution.
The peaks are the more sensible estimates than the mean, which is nearly useless from the point of view of making bets. If I had put money in a pool, I would have been pretty happy to choose 364, based on Nate's analysis.
Well yes, however 375 and 376 have ranked as likeliest and second likeliest peak for most days the past two weaks, so would not be a bad result for Nate either
The "allocate by CD" Electoral College model is deadly for Dems. It would have meant Nixon winning in 1960, Ford in 1976, and Gore not coming close in 2000.
And unfortunately the likely NE EV to Obama will excite the serious movement, mostly GOP, but still naively sought by some "good government" types, to have this voted on in CA.
The 2012 CA presidential primary, if held on a separate date like this year, will have the following contests:
1) GOP race (competitive, exciting)
2) Dem race (Obama unopposed)
3) Whatever propositions get on the ballot.
The result? Start from a base of huge GOP turnout, a struggle to get Dems to vote, even if an EV issue is on the ballot.
If it passes, there is an automatic shift of 40 EVs from Obama to the GOP candidate.
And the supposed goal - getting the state some attention - is phony. Nearly ever CD would still be noncompetitive, so there still would be no need to pay attention.
Don't ANYONE who cares about Dem candidates cheer for this as a change. It is great for the locals in Nebraska, and they deserve great credit, but I hope Nebraska does revert to winner take all. It's better than the alternative.
To summarize: a switch to a straight national popular vote for president would introduce a structural advantage to the Democrats
See this makes no sense to me. Your election mechanism is now set up to maintain balance in a 2-party system, not to represent the electorate. Its clear your view is just politic-ing (ie society is becoming increasingly more urban, yet you cling to a mechanism to create urban-rural balance that was set up over 200 years ago).
One person, one vote. That seems to be the intent of the founding fathers. Why disenfranchise some and over-weight others?
P.S. Neither balancing small-states vs big-states nor urban vs rural was the explantion *I* got in grade school for the presence of the Electoral College... Are there any primary sources available to help me understand why it was implemented in the first place?
http://www.haspresidentobamabeenassassinatedyet.com/
Looks like the market has responded to an Obama presidency. The Dow is down more than 800 points the last two days. Expect it to drop to 4,000 by year's end.
WOW! New Mexico ended up as 57% Obama, 42% McCain.
THAT IS SOME 'FLIP'!!!
As far as I can remember, Obama and McCain after their conventions campaigned in the same battleground states, and only those states exclusively (not counting the Monday airport TN stop meant for VA/NC TV, and the Al Smith dinner in NY). Of those states - McCain's entire state pursuit - Obama won every single one except possibly for Missouri.
So McCain's entire exhaustive effort was virtually entirely a waste despite all the effort. I doubt that other than 1972 and 1984 this has every happened.
Yup, McCain wasted HIS time and OUR tax dollars.
SHERWICK said...
In 2012 we are coming for Arizona, Georgia, Montana,North Dakota and TEXAS!
I'm suggesting they target Georgia, Nebraska, and Arizona. That will link all the blue states together in one contiguous group.
Divide and conquer!
Rahm Emanuel will play bad cop to Obama's good cop. boehner doesn't like it. to that I say who cares. Boehner doesn't impress anyone. Never has. The Dems will do what want in the house. The house Pubs have zero say. The Senate Pubs have the negotiating power. Boehner could go home and it wouldn't make a difference.
Yup, McCain wasted HIS time and OUR tax dollars
You fucking idiot!
That's the most asinine thing I have ever heard.
How much money did Obama spend again? I realize it's not "public" funds, but it was a fucking ton of money to be sure. Money completely wasted, and millions of which could have gone to much better causes.
Just being on the losing ticket yet using those 'public' funds doesn't make it a 'waste.' That's how it's always been, ass-fuck.
Rest assured, the Republican party WILL NOT waste your tax dollars next year. They will do like Barack Obama and waste millions (billions) of dollars from the private sector.
Now shut the fuck up, idiot!
"To summarize: a switch to a straight national popular vote for president would introduce a structural advantage to the Democrats"
But I thought before BO no Democrat had won an outright popular majority since who-knows-when...?
I think the advantage the EC confers (relative to a straight popular vote) changes with every election, and especially with sharp population growth or decline in between censuses (censi? damn plurals) where the EV of a state has not changed but its population has.
The fact that the Catholic Church expects like 10% of their churchgoers money and people are saying that contributions that averaged about $85 and ranged from $5-2050 is somewhow money wasted could only come from a resentful McCain supporter. 4,000,000 donors giving $85 average contribution that helped elect a President is somehow money. you've got to be kidding. Now those who say yes take my $3.00 on their income tax who voted for barach, their money was wasted, not the donors money. In fact, the country is getting behind their PResident, in part because they can sense the love and will and want to of their fellow Americans. So please, give us a break. It was money well spent. With your argument, we could say all advertising is money wasted.
@RWD, 2:56pm
Actually, KS-3 probably would give the EV to Obama. Look at these numbers for the district:
Wyandotte County: Obama +22,271
Johnson County: McCain +25,674
Which makes it +3,403 for McCain before we look at Douglas County.
Douglas County as a whole was Obama +15,666. Looking at the votes cast in KS-2 and KS-3, it appears that 55% of the voters are in KS-3, giving 8,644 of those votes to Obama, for a net of 5,241 to the Democrat and the theoretical electoral vote.
And I think it's probably a bigger margin than that, as KS-3 includes east Lawrence, which is considerably more D than west Lawrence - Moore took 70% in his part of Douglas County, while Boyda took 58% in hers.
@Sherwick and others
What makes you think that Joe the PLumber has gone away? The laughs aren't over yet!
Just when you thought this election couldn't get any funnier...
It wasn't enough to hear a McCain staffer call the Palin family the "Wasilla Hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast."
It wasn't enough to find out that Sarah thought Africa was a country. Oh no, now there is this.
http://secureourdream.com/
background:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081105/NEWS09/811050473
funnier background:
http://wonkette.com/404206/local-idiot-plans-to-get-rich-with-charity-website#more-404206
McCain/Palin 08- the gift that keeps on giving.
Yup, McCain wasted HIS time and OUR tax dollars
You fucking idiot!
That's the most asinine thing I have ever heard.
How much money did Obama spend again? I realize it's not "public" funds, but it was a fucking ton of money to be sure. Money completely wasted, and millions of which could have gone to much better causes.
Just being on the losing ticket yet using those 'public' funds doesn't make it a 'waste.' That's how it's always been, ass-fuck.
Rest assured, the Republican party WILL NOT waste your tax dollars next year. They will do like Barack Obama and waste millions (billions) of dollars from the private sector.
Now shut the fuck up, idiot!
No. You STFU and read what you wrote. Money given freely by people to spend on campaining isn't wasted when it's spent on a campaign. That's like saying that money given to the Red Cross is wasted on emergency supplies. Besides: were do you think all that money went? The answer? It went to buy goods and services in swing states. It's not like he took it and burned it. He spent it and threw it back into the river of commerce.
I just posted this in an older thread thinking it would go here, and it's worth repeating I think...
"...to show that across the heart of the south (excluding parts of Texas and Florida) Obama underperformed not only Clinton ('92 and '96) and Gore, but even John Kerry?"
Not to defend the potentially racist, but I think that you can look at that in a variety of ways. One thing that I would argue is that those areas of the country are generally looked upon as some of the lowest educated areas of the country. The tactics of calling Obama a terrorist-paller, socialist person would ring more true with that portion of the country than anywhere else, in my opinion.
Did you have any conversations with people that were uneducated? I ended up with one that I didn't want to be in where the person I was talking with told me that Sarah Palin had a ton of foreign relations experience, and when I said, "Yup, 'cause she can see Alaska from her house!" (me, thinking this other person was being sarcastic...) said, "Oh, that was just Saturday Night Live, that's not what she really said."
That person got extremely, *extremely* angry with me when I said the Saturday Night Live sketch was word for word in most parts from the actual interview, and that I didn't find the sketch funny at all, I found it terrifying. She said I should go and try to find the actual interview since Sarah was clearly a genius and sounded "ready to be the next President!"
So anywho, it *may* not be racist people. It *may* just be extremely stupid people.
"Rest assured, the Republican party WILL NOT waste your tax dollars next year. They will do like Barack Obama and waste millions (billions) of dollars from the private sector."
@ mad max -- Last I checked, there isn't a Presidential election for another four years. If the Republicans start spending tons of dollars from the private sector next year for the 2012 race, they are dumber than I imagined.
To mad max: Yup, McCain wasted HIS time and OUR tax dollars, while Obama didn't waste his time (he won) and didn't waste any tax dollars (he spent our money which we gave him to do whatever he liked with).
:)
I'll say it again SO EVEN SOMEONE LIKE YOU WITH A PEA FOR A BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND:
M C C A I N W A S T E D H I S T I M E A N D O U R T A X D O L L A R S
@goatdan
I think it shows pretty well the dilemma the Republican Party is finding itself in. As the country drifts further and further to the center their base stays firmly way off to the right (or in some cases, moves even farther to the right as a reaction). It's going to be a very difficult balancing act for any Republican candidate to appeal to that kind of base and not alienate moderates and independents.
I've got news for you, goatdan. The "I can see Alaska from my house!" remark was indeed Tina Fey, and not Sarah Palin. That remark did not come in the Katie Couric sketch, but in the earlier sketch with Tina and Amy Poehler as Palin and Hillary Clinton. Palin never said it.
Large portions of the Katie Couric sketch were indeed actual word-for-word quotes from Sarah Palin.
So that person was right that Sarah Palin never claimed to be able to see Alaska from her house.
walt, what about a switch to distribute the EV in a proportional way based on statewide results and not districts?
Running the percentages of each state against their electoral votes, I get a 2008 total of 291 to 280 (note that 8 states lose an EV to rounding error: AZ, IA, IN, LA, MI, NV, NY, VT). If you go with "tie vote" to the overall winner of the state, then it changes to 297-282. Of course that assumes that the both candidates would have campaigned the same, which isn't the case (Obama would have had a strong incentive to run up the vote in CA, etc rather than focusing on swing states).
The biggest problem with any system that allocates based on proportional percentage of popular vote is the rounding error. In most states during the Democratic primary, delegates were awarded based on some function of the popular vote percentage (Obama beat Clinton in pledged delegates largely because his campaign was more strategic at picking up the "tie breaking" votes).
In terms of whether or not this would benefit the Democrats or GOP, it's probably the case that it would simply benefit whichever party positioned itself closest to the national median voter rather than the median voter of the swing states--and there is an important, if subtle difference between the two.
Nationally, the median voter is probably more socially liberal, less isolationist on trade but more isolationist on military intervention, and fiscally more conservative than the median voter of traditional swing states. I'm not sure whether the Democrats or GOP would be able to better position themselves to appeal to the national median voter. My gut says the Democrats would then have the advantage on social issues (the national median voter is pro-choice and generally for protection of classical civil rights), but the GOP holds onto the advantage on fiscal issues (the national median voter favors lower taxes). Neither party has staked out much of a position on trade in the past few election cycles while foreign policy is trending toward less military intervention (in terms of both occupation of foreign countries and humanitarian/peace-keeping missions).
My guess is that between now and 2012, the GOP will gravitate toward some sort of populist, anti-free trade and anti-immigration position. In other words, the 2012 GOP Presidential candidate is going to sound a lot like Lou Dobbs.
Sarah Palin's Clothes: GOP Lawyer Dispatched To Alaska To Retrieve Some
Reporting from Phoenix -- Sarah Palin left the national stage Wednesday, but the controversy over her role on the ticket flared as aides to John McCain disclosed new details about her expensive wardrobe purchases and revealed that a Republican Party lawyer would be dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession...
For weeks, the McCain-Palin campaign has dealt with the fallout from the disclosure that the Republican National Committee was billed for $150,000 in wardrobe purchases for the Palin family -- a discovery that was widely ridiculed and undercut Palin's hockey mom appeal.
Several McCain aides said they had recently discovered that Palin's traveling staff had used personal credit cards to spend as much as $20,000 to $30,000 on additional wardrobe items for Palin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/gop-lawyer-dispatched-to_n_141897.html
Mason,
You don't get it either, fucking idiot. The public finance system for campaigns was set up to keep spending in check - so no one could 'buy' the election. I'm not saying Barack did that, but the spending was out of control and unnecessary by both candidates.
Obama spent over $1 billion campaigning. That is ridiculous. Comparing that to money donated to the Red Cross makes you look like incredibly dense. No one was 'helped' by getting Barack Obama elected. It was money poured into advertising, GOTV efforts, etc. NOT directly helping the needy with donations.
McCain only did what everyone has done before him and what Obama himself SAID HE WOULD DO at the beginning of this thing.
As I said, rest assured, that will NOT be the case next year, as neither party will be spending money from the unwilling populace.
Oops. I meant Russia, not Alaska.
Boehner doesn't like it?
Good, let's do it!
As expected, Merkley wins Oregon senate seat as just announced on MSNBC
I'll be the first to talk about this.
Obama 2012
Here's your list of Blue states that are almost definitely solid blue. Kerry states + NM + IA + NV.
That's 269 electoral votes. My gut tells me that if Obama is running in 2012 and has had a Presidency that is at least decent, all of those states can be taken to the bank. The only exception would be if the GOP could come up with a really solid contender from a light blue state among them. I don't think Romney could flip Michigan. Maybe he could flip New Hampshire. My point is, I see 269 electoral votes almost assuredly locked up for a second run, regardless of opponent. This matters for a lot of reasons. For every Bush 2, Reagan, and clinton there's a Bush 1, Carter, and Ford.
So, my initial 2012 map for Obama gives him exactly 269 electoral votes solid blue and a Congress that would hand him the Presidency in a tie. good footing to start from.
mad max, what election is happening 'next year'?
I meant next election not next year. Sorry for the error.
Sherwick,
Your logic is inherently flawed. What you are saying is that whoever the loser is has wasted money because money was spent and they didn't get elected...ergo, it was a waste of money.
That's completely false and ignorant of you to be so myopic.
Every election is a winner and a loser. The only way that's not the case is if the election is uncontested. Do you want THAT? How Democratic is THAT?
What a fucking douchebag!
eric, it is worth even having the election in 2012..?
Well I suppose we can further decimate the Repubtards :)
Ralph Nader: Obama will be not better than Bush.
no, i said he wasted our tax dollars, not that he wasted money.
Bachmann praises Obama's win, now
After suggesting that Barack Obama had anti-American views in an exchange three weeks ago with MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told Politico Thursday that she was “extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year.” She called his victory “a tremendous signal we sent.”
“I have not seen the United States as a racist nation,” said Bachmann, who represents Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District, in the east-central part of the state. “In my district, I don’t sense racism, and that’s why I’m thankful that hopefully this will send a national signal across our country that America is not a nation made up of racists. ... On the same hand, I hope that the national media will not confuse disagreement with Obama’s policy positions with being consumed [by] racism.”
Some analysts had written off the linguistically intemperate Bachmann as a casualty of her calamitous “Hardball” interview, but she graduated to being a sophomore in the House of Representatives in Tuesday’s election.
In a telephone interview, Bachman said she was gratified that voters in her district didn’t “let the media intervene” in the race, which she ultimately won by three points over Democratic challenger Elwyn Tinklenberg. But in surveying the wreckage to her party that the election wrought, Bachmann was quick to acknowledge that, going forward, “clearly the views and opinions of conservatives won’t be prevailing.”
As she looks ahead to her next term in Congress, Bachmann, a former U.S. Treasury attorney who now sits on the Financial Services Committee, said she’s hoping for a spot on the House Ways and Means Committee, the panel charged with writing tax legislation and bills affecting Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs. Minnesota Rep. Jim Ramstad, a nine-term Republican who is retiring, is currently the only Minnesotan on that committee.
“My husband and I were Joe the Plumbers,” said Bachmann, referring to the 42-employee Christian therapy business she and her husband started, as well as the ubiquitous plumber from Ohio who was elevated to the status of Everyman during the campaign. “I think my business background and tax background works very well on Ways and Means.”
Bachmann said that she had always expected her race to tighten toward the end, but she seemed willing to accept the connection between her gaffe on “Hardball” and the closeness of her race.
“My opponent did not do a stellar job fundraising,” Bachmann said, noting that it was only after her interview on MSNBC that “there was money coming from [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] and outside money, and that significantly impacted race.” Fundraising records show that her challenger raised more than $1.3 million in a week.
“What that did is, it opened the door for a phenomenal outpouring of negative media coverage. It was the echo chamber of the left media, and it was overwhelming, and that was difficult to overcome that level of vitriol.”
Bachmann said that aggressive Democrat organizing in her district this year, combined with the “great resources they had in trying to defeat me in ’06” made reelection a breakneck climb.
“I had laid a strong foundation,” Bachmann said, explaining how she pulled out the win. “That is something we knew all along. For two years I worked enormously hard in the district.”
“People knew that I am a serious member of Congress, that I take issues seriously, and that I worked extremely hard. ... They know I’m not a nuanced politician that waffles and changes my mind with whatever is popular at the moment.”
After raising her national profile in cable news interviews about the presidential race and energy issues, Bachmann said her primary focus going forward will be the concerns of her constituents. She said her party would have to wait to see the specifics of the Democratic agenda, then offer “positive” alternatives.
“It was a decisive win [for Democrats] on every level: presidency, House and Senate,” Bachmann said. “Even in Minnesota, we passed a state sales tax increase. That’s pretty phenomenal when you think about the difficult environment of the economy. The fact we could pass a tax increase and have such a strong Democratic showing ... it just shows what an overpowering Democratic year this was, and that’s why I feel very gratified to have survived the storm.”
it would have been far, far better if McCain had wasted donations from Repubtard supporters though!
:)
it would have been far, far better if McCain had wasted donations from Repubtard supporters though!
:)
Eric,
What a tool. Counting your chickens before they hatch, eh? Already counting Obama's EV's for 2012 and he hasn't been sworn in yet from his 2008 election.
Outside of the ultra-blue Northeast and West Coast, who are almost too far gone to vote Republican any time soon, no matter who the Democratic or Republican candidates are, pretty much any state in the Plains and Rockies, South and Mid-Atlantic, and Rust Belt and Upper Midwest are in play...with Illinois likely an exception.
If he fails miserably, those close states that went blue this time (IN, VA, NC, OH, and FL) will easily turn back red, and you can bet your bottom dollar IA, MN, WI, and MI will be in play.
A 269 count for him this early is far from given. You are a delusional moron for even postulating that this far ahead.
DarÃo said...
Ralph Nader: Obama will be not better than Bush.
Throw him in the re-education camps with the rest of the conservatives!
Mad Max said...
Mason,
You don't get it either, fucking idiot. The public finance system for campaigns was set up to keep spending in check - so no one could 'buy' the election. I'm not saying Barack did that, but the spending was out of control and unnecessary by both candidates.
Obama spent over $1 billion campaigning. That is ridiculous. Comparing that to money donated to the Red Cross makes you look like incredibly dense. No one was 'helped' by getting Barack Obama elected. It was money poured into advertising, GOTV efforts, etc. NOT directly helping the needy with donations.
McCain only did what everyone has done before him and what Obama himself SAID HE WOULD DO at the beginning of this thing.
As I said, rest assured, that will NOT be the case next year, as neither party will be spending money from the unwilling populace.
You are so wrong on so many levels. The country said enough is enough with their pocketbooks. you don't get it because you don't like it. Bottom-line is this country has been driven into the ground by 28 years of BS from the conservatives. country hits rock bottom and says we're not gonna take it, no we ain't gonna take it, we're not gonna take it anymore. 4,000,000 donors rise up and give a little change. As opposed to Exxon or Merck or Halliburton giving $2,000,000 to buy lobbying power. Do you even understand what you're trying to argue. The frustration the GOP has got to have is they can't compete at that level. They'll try if they have to. But, the some way the Dems couldn't get as many companies and wealthy donors to give $ millions, the GOP won't be able to mobilize the kind of small donations the Dems can. It's not going to change either, because the Dems are in power and benefit from it. Deal with it. We've had to for 28 years.
The 2012 EV state by state count will be dramatically changed by the 2010 census. Calculating by this year's numbers is meaningless.
One last thing for now...
I am disappointed by how the news has been covering Obama's win, and I've seen it in some posts here even.
Obama's election was not just a win for black people. That is what at least our local media has been painting it as, and how the "world reaction" seems to have been spun.
On the local media, after it was announced they cut to some local center where they literally had people pounding drums and jumping around in tribal costumes. And the local news then continued to interview *only black people* about how great this would be *for them*.
I live in the Midwest. I felt it was offensive reporting.
Obviously, African Americans won something with Barack winning the Presidency. But to make it seem like Barack had only won because of African American people, or that now blacks had nothing to worry about because Obama would be overconcerned about them (which is how the media made it sound) was offensive to me.
Obama's win is something that should benefit *all Americans*, and we should *all* be glad about it. But quite frankly to me, it doesn't do anything to how I think of African American people.
I think that is what the rest of the world is celebrating about this too. I honestly don't think that most of these countries give a damn about the color of his skin. They care about his policies, and how they will line up with their way of thinking.
Yes, Barack Obama's win may allow some African Americans who felt like because there hadn't been an AA President like they have now "made it," but I hope that many realize that they have "made it" a long time ago, and that this is simply a good *person* winning the office.
So, I hope that for Barack's sake, we can stop patting ourselves on the back for electing a black person and start looking at Barack like we have every other President -- as a person filling an extremely important role as the leader and face of our country. Let's not judge him on what color that face is, lets judge him -- with all the harshness that comes from the Presidential spotlight -- by the job that he does.
And regardless of race, I expect that he will do a very, very good job.
DarÃo said...
Ralph Nader: Obama will be not better than Bush.
Dario,
Ralph Nader believes that no Republican or Democrat is better or worse than another. He thinks they're all bad. That's his way. He's kind of nuts or at least unique that way.
more EC votes for Dem states sfergus?
i said he wasted our tax dollars, not that he wasted money
Way to spin out of it, fuckbag. You are a coward. You know what you said, and you know what you meant. Just stand by it now and don't be such a fucking douche.
You hate Republicans and you're just trying to be a smart-ass and make the point that because McCain used public funds and he lost, our taxpayer dollars being spent as such were a waste.
Just say it, fucker!
That's what you mean!
As I said, that will not be a problem next time, so rest easy!
sfergus483 said...
The 2012 EV state by state count will be dramatically changed by the 2010 census. Calculating by this year's numbers is meaningless.
True. I forgot about that. you're right.
@walt
Having never completely understood the concept of the electoral college; wouldn't proportional allocation be essentially the same thing as the popular vote? In other words wouldn't propotionality negate the intent of electoral votes?
wv: crailed - ?
Additionally: Why the heck is there an even number of electoral votes allowing for the possibility of a tie?
But I thought before BO no Democrat had won an outright popular majority since who-knows-when...?
Shoot, Blogger ate my post.
In recent elections both parties have sought to maximize electoral votes, rather than the popular vote. Look at expenditures by Obama in St Louis, MO versus Oakland, CA in terms of both advertising and ground game. Obama could have added 5-10% to his margin in CA had he spent the same per capita out here as he did in the swing states. But he didn't do so because there's no advantage in the current electoral system to winning a state 70/30 rather than 60/40.
Because "deep blue" states tend to be more densely populated than "deep red" states, the Democrats have a deeper well of prospective voters from which they can mobilize. If maximizing nationwide turnout became a priority, the Democrats would have an advantage over the GOP if swing states became less important because they could win the national popular vote with a minority of states. Under the electoral college, that's a lot harder to do (although Gore almost did it in 2000 when he won only 21--or arguably 22--states and the popular vote). Given current demographics, the GOP couldn't win an election without carrying 25+ states.
"Mad Max said...
because McCain used public funds and he lost, our taxpayer dollars being spent as such were a waste. "
I completely agree with you!
:)
Eric,
You are living in la la land, you fucking moonbat. The Republicans could have held their own on the donations front, even from small donors, if McCain had opted out of the public campaign finance program.
He kept his word. No big deal. Now we see what the future will hold.
The Republicans have never had a problem raising money. In 2012, it will be a madhouse.
madmax said...
If he fails miserably, those close states that went blue this time (IN, VA, NC, OH, and FL) will easily turn back red, and you can bet your bottom dollar IA, MN, WI, and MI will be in play.
Kerry states + IA, NM, NV leaves out most of the states you listed. I don't believe any of IA, MN, WI, MI would be in play, unless you had a strange brew of a failed Presidency and extremely strong candidate from that area. Unlikely combination. That said, the 269 electoral votes that the states I listed add up to will be less in 2012 because of the 2010 census.
"Having never completely understood the concept of the electoral college; wouldn't proportional allocation be essentially the same thing as the popular vote? In other words wouldn't propotionality negate the intent of electoral votes?"
Not exactly. The number of EVs is the sum of a state's House members and Senators. The former is proportional to population; the latter is constant. So small (3-5 EV) states would still get extra representation in the Electoral College, even if the EVs were apportioned proportionally.
Unless you changed the way you allocated EVs to the states, but then, yes, you'd just be moving to a national popular vote under a different name.
goatdan,
the revolutionary change that was achieved with obama's election was that we have an intelligent, competent and moral president.
this is who 64 millions people voted for.
that he is of mixed race is also a positive development, that moves our nation forward, but it's not the main one nor the main reason he got elected.
I googled Electoral College 2012, and guess what? It took me to a Nate Silver post last June!:
- Texas gains three electoral votes.
- Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah each gain one electoral vote.
- Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania each lose one electoral vote.
- Ohio loses two electoral votes.
End Nate, back to me.
One of the anomalies of the EC is that California will have 3-4 million more people (above 40 million), but may not gain a single vote, while other states might gain 600,000 and gain one. Talk about an absurd system.
I followed the link (above) to http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
and got one hell of a hearty laugh from this:
Washington Post
Two Weeks of Trivia
Washington Post column
By David Broder
May 8, 2008
The endless Democratic presidential campaign has lurched from irrelevance to trivia, triggering a near-universal call to bring it to a halt.
The two states that voted on Tuesday — Indiana and North Carolina — are so unimportant to Democratic chances of electing the next president that it is unlikely Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make more than a token appearance in either after one of them is nominated.
Unless John McCain butchers his campaign, he will be an odds-on favorite to continue the Republican winning streak in both states.
What does Utah gain 1 electoral vote for? Is anyone there?
Well, we've still somewhat negated the "original intent" of electoral votes by having electors choose based on state popular votes and not their own judgment...
Then John Kerry and Al Gore wasted a big load of fucking money of mine (and all other taxpayers) in 2000 and 2004.
I am pissed. Fuck them and fuck you too, Sherwick.
@walt526
What's the argument against pure popular vote?
That small states will be ignored. Back in the 18th century, small colonies like DE, CT, etc. were concerned about being dominated by VA and NY. To get their support, two interrelated compromises were made to frustrate a "tyranny of the majority":
1) The electoral college
2) A bicameral congress, in which representation in one house was allocated based on population and the other was based on two representatives per state regardless of size.
If popular vote decided presidential elections, then the political power would shift pretty dramatically from rural to urban areas. There would be benefits, but there would be stiff resistance from the smaller, rural states. Since such a change could only occur through passage of a constitutional amendment (which would require approval of 3/4ths of the state legislatures), it's unlikely to ever occur.
It's not as hard as it appears, some states already have laws that award their electoral votes to the national popular votes winner. Those laws are only enabled if enough states having a total of 270 EVs or more have the same law.
So practically, if the blue and the red states( the ones that have no chance of a campaign coming their way) sit together and enact this law, then effectively PR is enacted.
I live in the Midwest. I felt it was offensive reporting.
That's because it is.
My take is to let the early surge of reporting run. It will die down. Though the longer it goes on, the more likely it risks becoming a major narative. But in any even, I expect Obama will hit ground running in January, and put any thought that he is a "figure-head" president to bed. He hasn't messed up a single thing yet, I have little doubt he will let the stupids drive the message.
(P.S. McCain didn't help this tangent - "This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight." - *ahem* we are ALL proud. He's not the president of black America, but (wait for it) the United States of America. :D )
:)
Post a Comment