I was able to watch part of the inauguration today. One thing I thought was good about the speech was that it attempted to inspire people to start setting goals and trying to unite together. And manage expectations, that's the big thing I got out of it. Excellent speech. There are plenty of sites with the text of Obama's inauguration speech (or here) so I need not repeat any of it here.
I also sort of laughed when he and the chief justice flubbed up the oath. Hey, if anything it shows they make mistakes like anyone else. I think they were both just anxious and nervous, and as one article said, it was "close enough for government work." Embarrassing yes, but what can you do. I thought they played it off well. At least all of these silly suits about his citizenship were immediately mooted as a result, if they are even still around.
Looking over the crowd, I am still amazed how many people the president has inspired and this probably was the most watched event ever. It's a good thing, and probably has larger, long-term effects than any of us realize right now.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
President Obama elected
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Obama wins and the sun still came up today
Well, the world didn't end. I think the breadth of Obama's win is going to be good for this country. For those who are disappointed, McCain's comments in his concession speech should be taken to heart:
"I urge all Americans . . . who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.
Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.
It is natural. It's natural, tonight, to feel some disappointment. But tomorrow, we must move beyond it and work together to get our country moving again."
I'm sure I will have some thoughts on all of this, but not at the moment.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Vote cast
Although I recognize generally the idea that voting is an irrational practice, I still did my civic duty this morning and cast my vote. Now I will sit and watch the returns come in and watch this three-ring circus finally come to an end. Read more!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Concurring Opinions posts the Berg opinion
I haven't had time to read through it yet, and I will decide whether I need to chime in and post any thoughts that contribute to a more intelligent discourse later.
Rather than post the direct link to the PDF, I will simply post to the entry on the Concurring Opinions blog, which has the link to it: See Dave Hoffman, Berg v. Obama Opinion and Analysis. See also my earlier thoughts on this lawsuit (complete with comments ranging from the hilariously absurd to the otherwise well-reasoned).
I will note that in searching for this opinion, I came across at least one site (which I am not going to link) which appears to be generating money for the appeal to the Supreme Court. Now, I don't know whether or not this money is actually going anywhere or to anyone in particular (other than at least to the person soliciting the donations), so I'll simply reiterate what should be an obvious point.
Like anything else on the internet, I would be particularly leary about anybody or any site asking for money. For anyone who knows anything about law, I'll save you two cents: he can't appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court anyway before he spends a boatload on appealing to the 3rd Circuit. If you feel so inclined to give your hard earned money to something worthwhile, donate to the Library of Congress, the Peace Corp., or your local blood bank.
Read more!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Why is it so unamerican to have negotiated a good contract for yourself?
What I would really like to write about is Gen. Powell's endorsement of Sen. Obama and why his comments lay out, quite intelligently, at least three specific reasons why his support, despite being a Republican, is behind the distinguished gentleman from Illinois. I would suggest that if you did not see the interview, the transcript speaks for itself.
I do want to mention, briefly, that despite my best intentions, I am still watching, even as I speak, some of cable news. The problem with these talk shows, which purport themselves as news shows, is that they are not: they are opinion commentary shows; there is a significant difference. Whether the general watcher realizes this or not is irrelevant. So long as everyone watching understands that each guest is carefully selected to endorse or rebut the point the show is trying to make, the perception should not be influenced beyond what it would be from one's own decision-making process. What disturbs me is that I doubt this sort of thought-process takes place. I have no solution to this problem at this time. Regardless...
But what prompts this quick reaction and the title of this entry stems from seeing the recent (and continuous) negative news reaction about CEO compensation. From a legal perspective, what rights does a non-stockholder have over what a private entity and its stockholders decides to pay its CEO? Not very much. See, e.g., Bailout's Bid to Limit Executive Pay will be Tough to Realize. Regardless of how far their golden parachute opens, these CEO's are going to come out on top one way or another. See, e.g., BoA Gives Top Job to Merrill Lynch CEO in the Merged Entity.
My limited point is why does it matter that these CEOs are making a lot of money? For the headache they have to go through in running a company, I'm sure a lot of that money is incentive to serve in the first place. Nobody seems to be complaining about how much money these news outlet CEOs and other industry CEOs are making in comparison.
People seem to be mad whenever they hear about how someone else is doing really well. It's rather absurd, actually. Didn't the Yankees pay A-rod about a quarter of a billion dollars to come in and turn the team around? I haven't seen them win a world series since he's been on the team. Should we renegotiate his contract and take away what has already been promised to him? Absolutely not. Should it impact how future contracts are negotiated? Perhaps. But notwithstanding this example, can't people be happy for someone when they are successful? Of course, all of this is facetious.
This is sort of getting circular and I haven't given it any significant amount of thought, but it just infuriates me when I see someone (particularly on cable news) bitch and complain about some ex-or current bank CEO or whoever who has been paid their contract. There are certainly ways, legally, to curb excessive pay, and if the stockholders want to do something about it, they certainly can. Why make this a news issue? It's not news. It's business.
And what exactly is a pro-America area of this country? And where are the anti-American areas? I can't wait until this election is over so the media will finally have something better to report about.
Read more!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Two funny internet videos
I rarely post links to videos, but these two were particularly funny. I'm not sure how long either of them will be available, but I'm sure they will make their way onto YouTube or something like that. The first is one of a wedding where the best man trips and knocks the bride into a pool. See Worst Best Man Ever. The other, assuming you are a fan of Triumph the Insult Dog, is Triumph's coverage of the third presidential debate. See Triumph in the Presidential Debate Spin Room (10/16/08 "Decision 2008" if that link redirects).
The best line is "Even Joe the Plumber couldn't unclog the crap coming out of their mouths." And "Phillies 2, Dodgers nothing, Joe the Plumber 13."
Read more!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Is Joe the Plumber going to become the catalyst symbol of the average joe? I don't think so
Just a quick thought on this Joe the Plumber story and I will be more consistent in tying legal thoughts to some of these rather juicy legal news bits as of late.
When I heard the Joe the Plumber story break, I thought Obama's choice of phrasing was a little off. People love throwing around "socialism" and "communism" and "robin hood" without really understanding the concepts, so I am giving him a pass on this one.
The concept of fairness and this so-called wealth distribution, in some respects, is quite misleading with those terms. It isn't so much the question of why the richest should pay more taxes, it's a question of why should the richest only pay the social security tax only up to a certain point. Isn't it everyone's burden? I appreciate the idea of social security being more of a flat tax than some sort of regressive tax, and I also appreciate, from a financially greedy perspective, having it cut-off at some point. But if Obama wants to move up the cut-off point for the social security tax to double what it is now as an effort to balance the social security budget, so be it. Now, moving that number up will obviously affect all businesses, so maybe there needs to be some further tweaking, but that can be given in the form of other tax breaks and incentives. I don't know enough about it to speak more about it than this at this point. Now with regular income taxes, that's another story for another time. Flat tax = semi bad.
But not with social security did this phraseology capture the media's attention, but only in the limited respect with a presumed small business owner's concern with why should his taxes be raised because his business is doing better than someone else's. Certainly it's a fair question, and the answer, I agree, was worded quite poorly. Had Obama said, it's to help pay in part programs like this $700 billion+ bailout plan, that may have been more realistic. He just needs a stock response that doesn't sound too distant or political. Regardless...
The fact that it came up in the debate, multiple times, in the way that it came up, was surprising. I can understand McCain attempting to turn "Joe the Plumber" into some sort of icon to turn the larger conversation to tax policy and perspective. The problem with doing this is that you have to make sure your icon actually stands for what you are purporting him to be. I remember thinking as the debate was going on that it would be funny if Joe the Plumber wasn't even a plumber. And, as it turns out, I was semi-right. At least the 24/7 media had something new to report about.
According to the USA Today article, and about every other valid article written on the subject, Joe the Plumber turns out to not be the sad story he purports to be. In many respects, it is totally irrelevant that he isn't really a plumber, but aspires to be one, has not completed his Ohio apprenticeship to be licensed, and has a lien on his house for failing to pay state income taxes. It's no wonder Joe the Plumber doesn't want the government to get involved with the average Joe (or him), he owes them money!
So maybe Joe isn't the best representative of the average Joe or small business owner. Maybe, in some respects, his thoughts are indicative of a greater concern with paying higher taxes. But it's conjecture and speculation. Further, it doesn't even effect him since his taxes will remain the same under either candidate. I appreciate the concern, but the fact he was trying to speak on behalf of a constituency he was not part of merely demonstrates that the media (and this time, the RNC) picked the wrong horse to hang their hat on. Had they done a minimum amount of research before giving their candidate a green light to use him to attempt to martyr the other side's tax plan, the debaters certainly would not have spent as much time as they did glorifying this guy, who turns out to be a tax evader.
So, was Joe the plumber the real winner? If by the fact you mean that the government of the State of Ohio will get their money, then yes. He's certainly getting his 15 minutes of fame, whether he likes it or not. But he shouldn't blame anyone on this unwanted spotlight other than the media (in part) and McCain, for bringing it up in the debate the way he did.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Some thoughts on big government
For a quick jump at humor, I note that I still am getting humorous comments to my thoughts on this Obama citizenship lawsuit. Today's thoughts, however, turn back to the economy for a moment.
Last week the Congress passed, and the President signed into law a massive "bailout" (or "rescue", depending on how you spin it) plan to save the planet, or economy, if you will. At this point, the problem has become self-perpetuating, and the governments of the world, all of them really, are being forced to react. Whether this is good or bad is beside the question; it's going to happen and the free market is going to have to respond. So far, it doesn't seem to like it very much, or, at the very least, the housing bubble burst a little bigger than anyone thought it was going to. But hey, I'm not an economist, so what do I know.
What I do know is that McCain's suggestion that the government should now buy up people's bad mortgages and allow people to keep their homes is fiscally irresponsible, for several reasons, of which I will explain only one. The question at the town hall meeting was: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?
First, Obama's answer was not very good. So what? It was good enough to show that he has at least given some thought on the issue, and more importantly, McCain's answer was far worse. And if that's McCain's stance on this issue, he deserves to lose. I'll be curious as to whether the exit polls next month have people voting for Obama, not so much for him, but simply against McCain.
The bottom line is that the economy has no realistic chance of recovering over the next 30 days, which essentially means that Obama will win this election. Personally, I think this may be a good thing for the country overall, but I will have to wait to see how good or bad the economy is four years from now before making a final decision on the merits. I rarely use this type of language, but McCain's answer is SCARY. Meaning, it is scary for everybody who makes or wants to make money (that is, everyone). At this point, my time to sit on the fence of this issue is over. Obama will get my vote. (Not that mine will make a difference in the electoral scheme of things).
Here is McCain's scary response, in full:
"Americans are angry, they're upset, and they're a little fearful. It's our job to fix the problem.
Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it has got to do with energy independence. We've got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't want us very -- like us very much. We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low. Let's not raise taxes on anybody today.
We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?
We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values.
You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.
Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America.
I know how the do that, my friends. And it's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal. But I know how to get America working again, restore our economy and take care of working Americans. Thank you."
What scares me about this response is the level of government involvement it implies. Government can renegotiate private contracts? What is this, communist China? And where was this idea last week when the Senate was forcing their rescue bill into the House's tied hands? What is scary is that McCain seems to have abandoned all principle and reason to score a political point. This is not good judgment. And I have convinced myself, after living through Clinton's sexual revolution debacles and this Iraq war that still seems to be me based on the premise that the end justifies the means, that we need a leader with good judgment.
What scares me more is the fiscal price tag to such a proposal. Now, this wouldn't be scary too much, except for McCain's other comments that he doesn't want to raise taxes. On that issue, in addition to the italicized portion above, McCain added this insight into his economic prowess:
"So let's not raise anybody's taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000.
To giving every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit and go out and get the health insurance you want rather than mandates and fines for small businesses, as Sen. Obama's plan calls for. And let's create jobs and let's get our economy going again. And let's not raise anybody's taxes."
These positions are irreconcilable. He says to freeze government spending, save defense, Veterans' Affairs, and "some other vital programs", which is Washington wishy washy nonsense for "everything else." At least Obama tells you that taxes are going up for some people, and in reality, for everyone. The government, and the country, cannot function without everyone sacrificing a little bit. Because of the nature of this particular crisis, that sacrifice will have to come from the wallet.
Now, I agree that there are probably a lot of wasteful programs that could be cut and eliminated completely and that may save the deficit a bit. Similarly, if the IRS went after everyone who didn't pay their legal share of taxes, we probably wouldn't be in debt at all. The problem with both candidates is that they are in favor of big government and government rescuing the ordinary people. The last I checked, most everyone is capable of handling these problems with only minimal assistance, be it from their parents or whoever.
The next four years is going to be bad for us all economically. I would hate to throw another terrorist attack or war into the mix and see how that would drag us down further. The leadership our country needs, however, isn't with a bunch of pipe dreams and mud slinging over who voted for what when and why. It's all about the economy and how we can start fixing it. McCain's plan is economically unworkable, even from a liberal Democratic standard. In fact, it's so liberal, I'm surprised the core of his party aren't rolling over in their graves.
When both candidates propose massive government spending and support the type of government interference that is, admittedly, probably necessary at this point, I am unable to distinguish which one is the Republican candidate and which is the Democrat. The fact that the Republican is advocating for the same principles that his party is rooted against only continues to reiterate my belief that we are not a two party system. And if both candidates are really just spinning the same side of one coin to try and get it to land closer to them, I think this really comes down to whose economic plan and persona will better lead our country out of these financial doldrums and back into some sort of good graces. Unfortunately for us Republicans out there, or at least those who somewhat identify more with the principles of that party, this isn't going to be our year.
But, I am more than willing to read or discuss the reasons why or why I am not right or wrong. Next time, if I remember (or when I get back from this next upcoming trip across the country), I will write a commentary regarding why students who are borrowing money better hit the books if they want to get a good loan rate. I know that if I were a lender right now, I would be renegotiating my future interest rates to be dependent on the average graduate income from that school. Business-wise, it makes great sense. Of course, if you're a slacker, you better change those habits quick.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Maybe it's time for another New Deal
I do have some thoughts on this Palin email hacking debacle, as well as a growing concern that legislative subpoenas (e.g., Rove, Palin's husband) have absolutely zero power, which seems troubling. In the meantime, however, I will simply comment on the recent financial whiplash experienced by our economy. I wrote this after the second 400-point crash on Wednesday, so it's a little dated at this point given that the SEC has finally stepped up and started to regulate short selling, which I remain convinced is part of this mess. I'm just glad I have a job and hopefully I still will have one in six months.
Two points merit brief discussion. The first is this Wall Street mess. The second is the government's intervention to fix it. Like Ben Stein, I agree that taxes are going to have to be raised (likely against those who make the most money) now is not the time to cut corporate taxes. See Ben Stein, How to Ruin the United States of America. Cf. McCain on Financial Markets (stating at a Sept. 19 press conference that "Business taxes will be cut from the second highest in the world at 35 percent to 25 percent"). I disagree that the economy will be stimulated by tax cuts for 95% of Americans because while 95% may see some sort of tax relief, much less than that will actually notice any difference, assuming it passes. See Fact Check: Obama Wants to Raise Taxes; Obama and Taxes. Cf. ObamaTaxCut.com (unexplained and quick and dirty method of estimating taxable income; not sure I would put any stock in this one, but it's something).
Thus, with a lot of talk and no real substance, we are left with a nearly trillion dollar deficit and nobody wanting to contribute toward it. Wake up. Taxes are going up regardless of who the president is. The only question is how far down the small business chain those tax increases will travel (which I would guess, not very far). Once we cut out the puffery, the question is whether there is any candidate who is simply going to tell the country that things are bad, people are going to have to suck it up for a little while, and together with our economic allies, the federal government (and state governments) are going to turn this economy around, and then explain how they are going to do it. Unlikely, but one can hope.
Really, I would like to see one of the candidates step up and simply say that they are going to hold Wall Street accountable for any criminal actions that may have led to this historic collapse and people are going to go to jail. That's what I want to hear. Whether it happens or not is besides the point. I just want some reassurance that the economy is not going to fold up into a new great depression. The last thing we need is hyperinflation. In the end, it's really President Bush's job to announce via a national address, but that's probably not going to happen. Hopefully one of the candidates will do so instead.
Second, this concept of government bailout of private business is appalling. Granted, perhaps government intervention is the only way that this problem could have been alleviated, and that is a good thing. See Jim Cramer, The AIG Save Puts Us on Better Footing. With our national debt through the roof, how many other business (e.g., auto industry, airline industry) going to turn to the government to bail them out of their failed business strategy? To this, I would like the candidates to address how the federal government plans on restructioning these newly acquired assets in order for them to be successful.
Granted, the government seems to on the verge of resurrecting a parallel to the taxpayer-funded bailout of the savings and loan crisis, and this may help. See Paulson, Bernanke Seek Support for an Agency to Buy Bad Debt. So will help from foreign investors. While the markets may have rebounded, there remains questions of whether this is just temporary or have we actually hit the bottom? Time will tell. If only one of the candidates to step up and say it's time for a New Deal.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Too fit to be president? Has our country become this lazy or has the media through its 24-7 coverage?
This headline makes the article almost worth reading for its ridiculousness. See WSJ's Too Fit to Be President? Facing an overweight electorate, Barack Obama might find low body fat a drawback. Now there have been some poorly marketed commercials coming out of both sides lately, and the only effect it is having is on the mental acuity of the nation. But this article puts the icing on the cake.
Regarding the McCain ad comparing Obama to a celebrity like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I agree with the majority of pundits that this is a very unfocused commercial and sends out mixed messages. I'll not consult my marketing and advertising notes for the exact reason, but I'll simply make a conclusory statement that it's ineffective.
If anything, it's playing into the undercurrent of this campaign that McCain is cranky since it reminds me of something nonsensical that my grandfather would say when he didn't like something but couldn't quite articulate why. There's nothing wrong with opinion; I just see this one being irrelevant. On the other hand, we have become a gossip hungry society complete with voyeuristic tendencies, so maybe it's more effective than I think. On the other hand, if these celebrities haven't been hurt too monetarily by their shenanigans, I doubt this ad will fare any differently when it's all said and done.
Regarding this WSJ article, is it attempting to argue something along this logical premise? Americans are fat and overweight and have positive associations with being fat and overweight. Obama is not fat and overweight. McCain is fat and overweight. Therefore Amerians prefer McCain over Obama. If this is the case, it makes no sense. Yes, maybe all of us overeat and should be in better shape. Who better to look toward than the president to set an example for the rest of the country. I remember when the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal broke and thought how many children are going to hear this story and how it was going to affect their moral compass over the years to come. I'm beginning to think, even in my own case, it had a deeper psychological impact than I initially thought. But after eight years of having a president who ran on the concept "hey, he's someone I could have a beer with" (not that that was bad), maybe it's time to have a president who is not so buddy buddy and is going to take the business of bringing America back up to speed in this world market a little more seriously.
The true mark of leadership is that people are willing to follow because they want to and are inspired to, not because they are told to. Will either candidate's promises bear fruit? Probably not. But which candidate will inspire the next generation to chase after the American Dream? Right now I think there's only one. And his campaign is a little more focused and slightly less negative.
But maybe I'm overlooking something. I'll think about it as I am working out.
Read more!
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Any former basketball player realizes the point when the game is over, so why can't Clinton do the same?
As promised, I have not bothered to spend much time thinking about this election since my numbers suggested that the delegate game and debate over who has a better shot of beating McCain has long been over. (I also note that at least one website has come up with similar projection numbers without any credit to anyone... and I remember seeing something similar on NBC a few weeks ago, which i can't find right now, but didn't give it much thought. I found another blog that seems to have the same prediction though). On that point, I figure it's only a matter of time before someone at CNN or Fox News analyzes why my projection estimates are any better or worse than theirs.
Anyway, the numbers, regardless of how Indiana ends tonight, simply don't favor Sen. Clinton. Although Clinton may have implicitly adopted Yogi Berra's "it ain't over till it's over" mentality, the shot clock has wound down and the likelihood of coming back from such a deficit is beyond arrogance. I liken her chances at this point to be about as good as a 15 seed upsetting a 2 seeds (and if Obama wins Indiana, a 16 seed over a 1 seed).
A basketball coach would tell his team to stop fouling at this point; someone should clue in Sen. Clinton that the time has come to start campaigning for her opponent. Who will it be and who does she want it to be may be two different things.
In a somewhat related piece of political humor, I thought the Limbaugh anecdote about President Clinton hitting on his date was sort of funny. See Limbaugh - Bill Clinton Hit on My Date (recounting when "[Clinton] came over three or four times. He had [entrepreneur and Democratic fundraiser] Ron Burkle with him and the mayor of Los Angeles . . . He [the mayor] was going on and on about how he loved me and had to talk to me and after about a minute of talking to the mayor of Los Angeles I glanced to my left and Bill Clinton’s face is three inches away from my date").
Read more!
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Why Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Virginia are, almost atypically, the key to this election - some final thoughts about the 2008 election
Let's talk about numbers. It takes 270 points to win the presidential election. Bigger states have more points, but in the end, it's just a numbers game. So who has the easiest road to get to 270? My research, explained below, suggests that Obama can easily get to 270 against McCain, whereas Clinton can, but it will certainly be a harder battle, in over a dozen states, and if the Dems still want to try and duke out Florida and Michigan, the money is probably going to become a bigger issue in the next couple months. My prediction: Obama 320 – McCain 147 (without even considering Ohio and Michigan, or Florida for that matter). Clinton 255 - McCain 201 (leaving much more uncertainty on who can actually win, or how close November 2008 will be).
The point of this entry is just to show a different breakdown of electoral numbers; I would imagine the mainstream media will start making these projections later in the summer, but I'm positive that all three camps have started to run these numbers in much more detail than I have below.
After this entry, I am going to abstain from further comment about this election save perhaps a couple thoughts that may emerge later in the year. My understanding of the bias of the media and after giving some thought to the state of blogging, I am convinced that any further blogging on this topic (by me anyway) will simply be white noise contributing to a larger problem with this particular form of media (more on that another time).
I have run numbers based on whether Clinton or Obama is the front of the Democratic ticket against McCain. While the media has not keyed in on this yet, I see a different "battle ground" of states depending on who is at the front of the ticket. (And, ironically, I note that more media has picked up on my January 21 suggestion that only if Clinton wins the nomination would she go for Obama as VP; the opposite probably would not be realistic). Enough background.
Assuming the "typical Democratic states" stay as much, I see the following four states, and only these four states, being essential to the election this time around (with electoral votes in parentheses): Georgia (15), Louisiana (9), South Carolina (8), Virginia (13). While I acknowledge that these are quite typically Republican states, I see an unusually large amount of Republican resources being used to secure these states if Obama is the Democratic nominee. The point to all of this, as should become obvious if you examine the numbers the same way I do, is to say that Obama probably should be the Democratic nominee, and the media (and Clinton's) continued dragging out of this process is only giving McCain's candidacy more strength. This also assumes that the prototypically apathetic youth vote (captivated by Obama) comes out in droves come November. Here's how I reach this conclusion.
Based on the past four election cycles, the following states are more than likely going to go to McCain in November: Alaska (3); Arizona (10); North Carolina (15); South Dakota (3); Utah (5); Wyoming (3). These additional states are typically Republican and based on the primary turnout, I don't see any indication that they will switch "blue": Idaho (4); Indiana (11); Nebraska (5); Nevada (5); Texas (34). I do acknowledge that Texas is going to be closer than normal, but will assume that it stays Republican for my purposes because Pennsylvania (also close, will likely stay Democratic).
The following states are typically Democratic states: California (55); Connecticut (7); Delaware (3); D.C. (3); Hawaii (4); Illinois (21); Maine (4); Maryland (10); Massachusetts (12); Minnesota (10); New Jersey (15); New York (31); Oregon (7); Pennsylvania (21); Rhode Island (4); Vermont (3); Wisconsin (10). As I mentioned, Pennsylvania is the most vulnerable on this list, but I think it winds up staying Democratic.
This would put McCain at 94 to Obama/Clinton’s 220 without even getting into the close states. Granted, Texas and Pennsylvania provide big swing for either party, but I'll keep them at Republican and Democrat, respectively, for my purposes.
Based on the primary turnout, the following states are going to be close races: Alabama (9), Colorado (9); Florida (27); Georgia (15); Louisiana (9); Michigan (17); Mississippi (6); Missouri (11); Montana (3); Ohio (20); Oklahoma (7); Tennessee (11); Virginia (13); Washington (11); and West Virginia (5). This would leave about 173 "points" up for grabs, which would make the election close once again.
Assuming that all of the republicans who did not vote for McCain stick to the party ticket, the race shapes up to be pretty interesting, but ultimately a Democratic blowout depending on the candidate. I am sure that these similar number scenarios have been run at the RNC, and they have to be scrambling right now if my assumptions are correct.
I see Alabama and Colorado as both being close, with Alabama likely going to McCain and Colorado going to the Democrat (although it would be a less close if Clinton was the Democratic nominee). Florida, in all likelihood, will go to McCain. Republican turnout on that primary day was 1.9 million to almost 1.7 million, so I’m calling it red.
Georgia presents an interesting case. The average numbers of democrat and republican voters over the past four election cycles is 1.134 million and 1.353 million respectively. In the primary, those numbers were 1.046 million to .954 million. Obama won handily over Clinton in this state, drawing almost 700k to 328k (with 18k going to "other"). McCain pulled a little more than 300k, and if you assume the other 650k does not have a high attrition rate, that gives you the 954,000 republican voters. If Obama is the ticket, I think he pulls off a few hundred thousand from Clinton and edges out McCain for the 15 points. If Clinton is the ticket, I think McCain edges her out and the state stays republican. So, there is a 15 point swing depending on who is the nominee.
Iowa, Kansas, and Kentucky are usually close and usually Republican, and for my purposes, will not make a difference in the outcome.
Louisiana, like Georgia, is another interesting case. The state has been convincingly republican the last two elections after being much closer in 1992 and 1996. Democrats and Republicans both had to come out to decide on February 9, and Huckabee edged out McCain 69k to 67k and Obama throttled Clinton 220k to 136k. I see Louisiana having a similar outcome as Georgia depending on who the Democratic nominee is. While it would be less close with Obama as the nominee, I think the nearly 2:1 democrat to republican turnout indicates that this state could go blue. That’s 9 more points.
Michigan, Mississippi, and Montana will be close either way, and I am not counting them here.
Missouri is really the battleground for both parties. Obama edged out Clinton here 405k to 395k, but if you assume Edwards draws more toward Obama than Clinton, his lead increases by another four or five thousand. McCain won this one by the skin of his teeth (194k to Huckabee and Romney’s 185k and 172k, respectively). Dems outvoted Republicans 820k to 584k, and the average over the past four election cycles is nearly even, at 1.112 million democrats to 1.086 million republicans. Given the turnout, I'm inclined to give Missouri to the Democrats, and more inclined to do so if Obama is able to pull in similar numbers. Thus, there is another 11 points up in the air, with the edge going to the Democrats.
I would guess New Hampshire is going to go democratic. Primary voting for the democrats exceeded that of that state’s 4-term national average (284k compared to the average of 265k), and the Republican turnout was nearly as high (233k turnout nearly the 250k average). Presuming similar numbers, I would say this one goes to the Democrat candidate regardless of the nominee. On primary day, Clinton edged out Obama. 4 points isn’t a lot, but it’s something.
New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and West Virginia are hard to say. No matter.
I am inclined to think that North Dakota could flip, despite it typically being a Republican state. I only base that off of the 2:1 primary turnout for the Democrats. Romney won this state over McCain, and Obama had a 3:2 advantage over Clinton (12k to 7k) but compared to ND’s national average, primary day there had a relatively low turnout. Nevertheless, even if it stays Republican, its too little points too late in the process.
South Carolina is typically republican, but I think Obama could pull this one in for the democrats (presuming Edwards support helps). Turnout for Democrats, as in New Hampshire was nearly the national November average (530k voted compared to 552k four-cycle average). On the republican side (on a different day), 442k came out to vote (compared to 718k average). McCain won with 33% of the vote, and Obama nearly 55% to Clinton’s 27%. If Obama can pull Edwards supporters, he nearly doubles that of McCain, and still edges him out if you put together McCain and Huckabee’s combined vote. Clinton, by comparison, came up a bit short against McCain (141k against 147k). I would count this state as +8 for the Democrats if Obama is the nominee, and +8 for the Republicans if Hillary is.
Tennessee is another close one. On both sides, primary turnout was about half of that state's 4-year voting average. Clinton won this state pretty handily over Obama (332k to 250k), and Huckabee took McCain on it. This is going to be another battleground state for 11 crucial points, regardless of who the nominee is. I'm inclined to give it to the Dems, however based on the primary turnout (which, may have been in part due to Obama).
Washington and Virginia are typically close. Washington has gone democratic by a slim margin each of the past four election cycles, and I would imagine it would stay the same this time around. Washington went 70:30 for Obama over Clinton on February 9, and Clinton would have beat McCain, but counting Huckabee and Paul, it would be close like normal. I think if Obama has the nominee, Washington is won handily by the Democrats, but if Clinton is, she still wins, but it makes for a much tighter race. +11 for Democrats.
Virginia tends to go Republican, but given the turnout, I’m inclined to think that Obama can pull in huge numbers and possibly a huge upset. Voter turnout for the Democrats was 75% of the 4-year average (970k compared to the 1.2 million average). Republican turnout was far less than the average, almost 500k compared to 1.3 million. This was another state where Obama had a nearly 3:2 advantage over Clinton. Obama’s 623k would have beaten both of McCain (244k) and Huckabee’s (200k) votes combined; Clinton as nominee (347k) would make the race much closer, and probably once you factor in the regular average, would go to McCain. So, this is another 13 point swing depending on whether Obama or Clinton is the candidate.
If my 220-94 initial number is correct, then the Democrats would need only 50 more points to win. Assuming Washington stays blue, that puts the Democrats only 39 points away from locking in a victory without even worrying about Ohio, Florida, or Michigan. This assumes that the Democrats hang onto Pennsylvania.
Thus, I see this election most easily coming from just four states: Georgia (15), Louisiana (9), South Carolina (8), Virginia (13). The 45 points give the Democrats the victory without even worrying about the typical "swing" states (Florida, Ohio, Michigan). New Hampshire is unnecessary, but certainly provides another four point cushion.
If those states that typically vote Democratic stick with their party, the race really could come down to winning these four states. The rest, while important for the winning party to take in order to try and unify the country, are "battles" as usual, but only if the campaigns are as they have been for the past two cycles.
As I have explained, each of these four states (Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Virginia) was won convincingly by Obama in the primaries, and given the increased voter turnout in each of them, the Republicans would be foolish to think these are a lock if Obama is the candidate. If Clinton wins the nomination, however, these states are as up in the air as Florida, Michigan and Ohio. Just looking at the numbers, McCain fares a much better chance against Clinton than Obama. While both races may be ultimately be close, it’s no wonder that McCain and the Republicans would rather have Clinton at the top of their ticket. My question is why the Democrats haven't thought this one out in this fashion yet. Maybe they just want to lose.
I'm sure both parties have better access to voting information than I do since mine is based simply on data in the public domain, and have superior mathematicians and statisticians who can analyze it and make more educated projections. Nevertheless, if Obama wins the nomination, it seems that he pulls from a broader spectrum of voters, which only diminishes McCain’s chances. Clinton seems to pull from the same pocket, which lends itself to a similar 50/50 split.
Without counting Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia, my prediction scores of the electoral college are as follows: Obama 320 – McCain 147. Now, Ohio and Michigan (and Florida) and the other states are all important for the good of the country, but even if it's close, these other states won't make up the difference if the Democrats focus on and win these four states.
If Clinton is the ticket, I see a lot more states up in the air (including these four), although realistically, Clinton probably has the edge out all things considered. Relevant to my point, the closeness of Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia may keep them Republican, and leave Tennessee even more susceptible (hence I don’t count it either way). These four or five states swinging the other way puts her at 255-201, and in a similar battle to that of 2000 and 2004.
I think my bottom line is clear. Republicans have a much easier road to election victory with Clinton as the front of the Democratic ticket; it becomes much less certain and vulnerable if Obama is. That being said, I fail to see why Clinton is so adamant about being on top of the ticket and the media continues to tout this whole process as being Clinton against the world. I thought the point of either party is to put up the candidate they think has the best chances of unifying the country. Perhaps I am being naive. Hasn’t this country been divided for long enough though?
My conclusions are based on my research on this subject (based in part on CNN's primary data, the national archives, and Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections (compiling historic election data)).
Thursday, February 14, 2008
All this call for change - aren't the candidates capable of doing this now as senators?
The other night on one of the channels, I heard Former Speaker Newt Gingrich remark that any of the three candidates could walk the walk right now in Congress in their positions as Senators. Of course, since Obama and Clinton are far junior to McCain, he implied that really only McCain could gain from this, and in reality, probably had more to lose by trying. Moral of this snippet? It seems to imply that the Senate has no real power. Perhaps, perhaps not. I couldn't find this transcript, but he makes this same general point here. See generally Gingrich Warns of GOP Catastrophe.
I was speaking to one of my friends in Ohio, who is a minority, who made an interesting argument that Obama could either be the greatest president ever, or run an administration with Carter-esque results. And while fifty years down the road, history may judge both Carter and Bush favorably, the immediate impact if he screws up could deter future minorities from succeeding. He argues that Obama is better off as VP for a few years. I have to give his argument more consideration, but his point was interesting enough. I found a similar argument online (although I can't find it now; I think it was an op-ed piece somewhere).
I do want to write about some interesting legal articles I've come across the past few days; perhaps I will have more time to get to them over the weekend. But, just in case, here's a snippet:
Snipes Trial Offers IRS Perfect Script. I wonder which Court of Appeals clerk is going to get to play with this one?
Recusal-Go-Round Continues at West Virginia Supreme Court. My judge pointed this one out to me the other day as an example of how not to do things if I ever become a judge. Bottom line: What a mess.
And finally. Secrets of the Great Seal Revealed. Despite the conspiracy theorists' beliefs, National Treasure is merely a fiction. I would think that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle, but closer to what the government says. After all, our national bird almost was a turkey.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
How quickly the news reports
As I mentioned a few days ago, I'm saving my results based on my online news reporting article until Sunday. In checking out tonight's headlines, however, I saw that the VA polls closed at 7. Since it's a little after 7 now, I figured that it would take a few minutes (at least) before a "winner" could be reported. After all, Huckabee just made some ridiculous comparison of Washington State's voting process to that of the Soviet Union, so one may think that perhaps waiting a bit could be a more prudent course. Apparently it is not.
With 0.0% actually reporting, CNN reports that Obama is the projected winner. I must assume that article was written hours ago and they were just waiting to hit the "publish" button. We'll see if someone from Hillary's campaign cries out "Konstantin Chernenko!" or some other silly nonsense.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
As predicted, Super Tuesday results in a super disappointment depending on who you talk to
I see that the Washington Times has picked up on a comment that was discussed briefly a few weeks ago in response to my post about a theoretically united Democratic ticket consisting of Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama. See Hillary the Lesser Threat to McCain. With it looking more and more like Hillary and Obama will be duking it out until the bitter end (leaving the Republican machine to begin focusing its efforts behind McCain), it will be a wonder if the media can oversaturate the voting public anymore than it already has. Somehow, I’m sure they will find a way.
The news also reported today that Clinton dipped into $5 million of her own money and that her reported assets are somewhere between $15 and 50 million, and, I would guess, probably even less given the stock shock we have been through the past few weeks. What I am wondering is whether this is a sign of a healthy campaign. I have no idea, but given the red text Drudge used in reporting it, I'm guessing probably not.
In today’s world, I guess you really have to be in the top-top tax bracket with disposable income I can only dream of in order to run for president. That, and having the endorsement of some wealthier deeper pockets or organizations certainly helps as well.
Notwithstanding these comments, at some point soon, one has to start speculating about the VP candidates. CNN’s Jack Cafferty agrees with my earlier point that Clinton & Obama could thrive on the same ticket (which I still think only works and is a possibility if Clinton wins the ticket, and even then I agree that the possibility is diminishing daily). As strong as that ticket might be, and I’m not entirely sure that it would be in either scenario, I just wonder how strong it would be against something like a McCain-Rice ticket (notwithstanding the fact that Rice seems to have stayed silent on the subject). Rendell has some appeal for VP that could counterbalance that particular hypothetical, but I’m not sure if either of the front runners would go for him.
Personally, I wonder whether Obama or Clinton would go for a republican VP candidate in order to bridge the gap. While the party may think that is a ridiculous idea, perhaps the voting public and the independent voters who would otherwise slightly favor McCain may not. Time will tell.
In clerkship news, I have finally caught up on my work after the six month mark. And, I didn't get the prize in the king cake, but I think it's a pretty nifty tradition that I will take to the east coast law firm litigation department next year if they don't already do it. Coming up soon will be a six-month review and my thoughts as to what I expect/hope to accomplish over the next six months. Doesn’t this sound presidential?
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
All this election coverage reminds me of one of the greatest Simpson's quotes ever
As Marty McFly said in Back to the Future, "this is an oldie but a goodie." The incessant election coverage tonight reminded me of a great Simpsons quote (from Treehouse of Horror VII):
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
Because in the grand scheme of things whatever California decides tonight has little bearing on any of my work tomorrow, I am going to bed. I can find out in the morning with the rest of the east coast.
And, I even went ahead and cast my vote toward a losing candidate today. Did this essentially throw my vote away? Probably. It was still fun though.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Some strategery in light of the pending Super Tuesday
Here are some of my thoughts regarding the upcoming "super" primary event, esp. since Sen. Kennedy put the smackdown on Billary over the weekend. Some of my less humorous remarks are repeats from my entry last week; a little is new.
The way I see things playing out at this point is that McCain is going to win the Republican primary. Assuming that is the case, I think that the only Democrat that will be able to beat him will be Sen. Obama. Here is why.
Both McCain and Clinton (to the extent that the previous exit polls support my theory) are targeting the same 65+ market segment. Neither one has done much to woo the young vote. Obama, by contrast (and for whatever reason that is unimportant to this entry), has seemed to be able to rally the typically apathetic youth vote. If Clinton wins the Democratic primary, I don't see her being able to motivate this same youth demographic to bother to come back out in November.
If Clinton does win, we're left with two Washington-centered old-timers courting the same old tired baby boomer vote. Nobody on television (save certain squirrelly pharmaceutical commercials advertising products with questionable side effects, see, e.g., Aaron D. Twerski, Liability for Direct Advertising of Drugs to Consumers: An Idea of Whose Time has not Come) caters to this demographic; why should the presidential candidates be any different?
How much longer will it last before these "old folks" realize that they are past their prime? Retire already and give our economy a boost by spending your hard earned savings. And think how many jobs will be created when this vacuum gets started? There's a platform to rally behind.
The reason why, I think, Obama has been able to rock the youth vote is the same reason I've been saying all along (and in some respects, I would speculate the same reason President Kennedy was able to pull the same stunt in 1960): The younger generation is tired of so-called "old" Washington. Obama has, for better or for worse, been able to stay above that stigma. Assuming he emerges as the victor, I'm not that surprised that Sen. Kennedy has endorsed him. At this point, the Democratic party has to be thinking, who can beat McCain? Certainly they can't say with a straight face that it will be Hillary. Regardless, I submit that neither McCain nor Clinton (old or new) will have the same pull among youth that Obama has shown, and if Obama isn't in it, I see a string of "I told you so" comments emerging from our liberal press because the youth vote will remain at its traditionally low levels of participation.
But that overstates my position somewhat. The youth (meaning 18-34 demographic) will come out in droves if they think someone will come in and champion the cause for change. I think that Obama is the only viable Democrat who can pull this off. And, if he doesn't, well, then it won't really matter who is the Democratic nominee, does it? The true test of whether my hypothesis is correct will be revealed on Election Day.
What I find more interesting at this point, is who McCain would pick for a vice president. Regardless of whether it's Clinton or Obama that he (or whoever) is running against, the red guys are going to have to find someone who can spark or take away votes from the blue guys. I would think that the best person to do that is Condoleeza Rice. I can't say I'm the first person to posit this, nor will I be the last once McCain has his golden ticket. But mark my words, it's only a matter of time before the press picks up and figures out what is good or bad about this idea.
We'll see what happens next.
