Tomorrow, the world will be a very different place. We may not feel the effects immediately, but it will be a very different place. Almost everyone seems to accept this reality. Almost everyone...
Just a few predictions found on Huffington Post
Karl Rove
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200
Matthew Dowd, former Bush strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 250 Democrats 185 Republicans
George Will, conservative columnist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 378 McCain 160
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 254 Democrats 181 Republicans
Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 343
Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 39 Republicans
House Seats: 262 Democrats 173 Republicans
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News anchor
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 353 McCain 185
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats (59 if there's a run-off in Georgia) Republicans 40
House Seats: Democrats 264 Republicans 171
Mark Halperin, Time editor
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 349 McCain 189
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 261 Democrats 174 Republicans
Chris Matthews, MSNBC host
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200
Senate Seats: 56 Democrats 42 Republicans
House Seats: 264 Democrats 171 Republicans
Nate Silver, statistician
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 347 McCain 191
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 258 Democrats 177 Republicans
Chris Cillizza, Washington Post columnist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: 312 McCain 226
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 266 Democrats 169 Republicans
Arianna Huffington
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 254 Democrats 181 Republicans
Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard editor
Winner: McCain
Electoral College: Obama 252 McCain 286
Senate Seats: 55 Democrats 43 Republicans
House Seats: 255 Democrats 180 Republicans
Eleanor Clift, political writer
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 349 McCain 189
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 265 Democrats 170 Republicans
Markos Moulitas, DailyKos founder
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 390 McCain 148
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 268 Democrats 167 Republicans
Ed Rollins, Republican strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 353 McCain 185
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 249 Democrats 186 Republicans
Paul Begala, Democratic strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 325 McCain 213
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
James Carville, Democratic strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 330 McCain 208
Senate Seats: 60 Democrats 38 Republicans
Charles Mahtesian, Politico national politics editor
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 311 McCain 227
Senate Seats: 56 Democrats 42 Republicans
House Seats: 256 Democrats 179 Republicans
Morton Kondracke, Fox News host
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 379 McCain 159
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 269 Democrats 166 Republicans
David Plotz, Slate editor
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 336 McCain 202
Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 39 Republicans
House Seats: 257 Democrats 178 Republicans
Alex Castellanos, Republican media consultant
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 42 Republicans
Dan Gerstein, Democratic media consultant, former manager of Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election campaign
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220
Senate Seats: 55 Democrats 43 Republicans
House Seats: 260 Democrats 175 Republicans
Tom Doherty, New York Republican consultant
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 331 McCain 207
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 42 Republicans
House Seats: 255 Democrats 180 Republicans
Robert Y. Shapiro, Columbia University political scientist
Winner: Obama
Popular Vote: Obama 53 McCain 47
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 259 Democrats 176 Republicans
Gary Jacobson, (University of California-San Diego political scientist
Winner: Obama
Major Party Vote: 52.7 Obama 47.3 McCain
Senate: 57 Democrats 43 Republicans
House: 264 Democrats 171 Republican
Sandy Maisel, Colby College political scientist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College 353 Obama 185 McCain
Senate Seats 59 Democrats 41 Republicans
House 265 Democrats 170 Republicans
Robert Erickson, Columbia University political scientist
Winner: Obama
Popular Vote: Obama 52.5 McCain 47.5
Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 253 Democrats 182 Republicans
Alan Abramowitz, Emory University political scientist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 361 McCain 177
Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 40 Republicans (with a run-off in Georgia)
House Seats: 256 Democrats 179 Republicans
Reminds me of the Sesame Street Game "One Of These Is Not Like The Others"
November 3, 2008
November 1, 2008
The Narcotic Farm
NPR provides a look into one of our society's first attempts at rehabilitation instead of punishment as a means of addressing the serious social problem of drug addiction.
The Narcotic Farm
The Narcotic Farm
Please Vote No on Prop 8
If you live in California, or know someone who does, please read this post.
I feel incredibly moved by what I just saw.
I have to admit that although much of my political ideology is often terribly obvious and might lead one to believe that my position on this issue could simply be assumed, in reality it has not been so simple for me. This is largely a result of the time in which I grew into political maturity.
As a Democrat whose first self-initiated volunteer experience was holding signs on street corners for Al Gore, you can imagine what kind of political disappointments I have endured and what a formative impact they have had on me. I remember liking Bill Clinton but mostly because my parent did. Ever since I have been capable of independent thought on the state of the world around me, how it came to be, and how it might be different, I have only experienced that Democrats are not good enough to be part of that process.
Being beaten into the ground in this way during such personally influential years has an affect on one's psyche. Was it possible my parents didn't know everything??? This realization is an earth-shattering moment for every young adult. But it led me toward a much more critical approach to understanding politics and the deeply held beliefs that often drive it. I began to ask questions about why I believed what I believed and why most other people apparently did not.
Although I realized it was possible I wasn't "right" on every issue, mostly I just hated it when someone assumed I was naive for holding my beliefs with such ferocity. And I swore that I wouldn't do the same to others because of my experiences; I swore that I wouldn't take someone else's deeply held, fundamental beliefs for granted.
This is how I ended up ambivalent toward gay marriage. The argument I heard most often against gay marriage was that marriage was a sacred religious institution defined first in the Bible as between one man and one woman. While I personally didn't agree with this strict adherence to dogmatic tradition, especially when so many other Biblical traditions appeared to no longer be tenable in today's society, my experiences refused to let me simply brush aside other people's fundamental beliefs. Indeed, they still don't permit such dismissiveness.
While I want to respect those who still hold their beliefs about the sanctity of marriage dearly, I cannot support the idea of denying any law-abiding, loving, constructive member of society equal rights. Most especially when the upholding of those rights does not prevent anyone from fulfilling the religious and moral obligations to marriage they have prescribed for themselves.
If Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders has the courage to purge any ambivalence on this issue from his rhetoric, it is time I do as well.
If you live in California, please, please, vote NO on Proposition 8.
I feel incredibly moved by what I just saw.
I have to admit that although much of my political ideology is often terribly obvious and might lead one to believe that my position on this issue could simply be assumed, in reality it has not been so simple for me. This is largely a result of the time in which I grew into political maturity.
As a Democrat whose first self-initiated volunteer experience was holding signs on street corners for Al Gore, you can imagine what kind of political disappointments I have endured and what a formative impact they have had on me. I remember liking Bill Clinton but mostly because my parent did. Ever since I have been capable of independent thought on the state of the world around me, how it came to be, and how it might be different, I have only experienced that Democrats are not good enough to be part of that process.
Being beaten into the ground in this way during such personally influential years has an affect on one's psyche. Was it possible my parents didn't know everything??? This realization is an earth-shattering moment for every young adult. But it led me toward a much more critical approach to understanding politics and the deeply held beliefs that often drive it. I began to ask questions about why I believed what I believed and why most other people apparently did not.
Although I realized it was possible I wasn't "right" on every issue, mostly I just hated it when someone assumed I was naive for holding my beliefs with such ferocity. And I swore that I wouldn't do the same to others because of my experiences; I swore that I wouldn't take someone else's deeply held, fundamental beliefs for granted.
This is how I ended up ambivalent toward gay marriage. The argument I heard most often against gay marriage was that marriage was a sacred religious institution defined first in the Bible as between one man and one woman. While I personally didn't agree with this strict adherence to dogmatic tradition, especially when so many other Biblical traditions appeared to no longer be tenable in today's society, my experiences refused to let me simply brush aside other people's fundamental beliefs. Indeed, they still don't permit such dismissiveness.
While I want to respect those who still hold their beliefs about the sanctity of marriage dearly, I cannot support the idea of denying any law-abiding, loving, constructive member of society equal rights. Most especially when the upholding of those rights does not prevent anyone from fulfilling the religious and moral obligations to marriage they have prescribed for themselves.
If Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders has the courage to purge any ambivalence on this issue from his rhetoric, it is time I do as well.
If you live in California, please, please, vote NO on Proposition 8.
October 27, 2008
Abaraka!
A tribute to Obama in Bambara, the most wide-spread local language in Mali.
Allah ka san chaman di Obama ma!
(May God give Obama many years!)
Allah ka san chaman di Obama ma!
(May God give Obama many years!)
Thud!
Same day, same opportunity to say something powerful. And this is how McCain chose to use that opportunity. It's like his eye is badly cut open and he can't even see what he is swinging at as he slowly begins to fall to the floor. Thud!
TKO
Obama lands his first of a probable series of knock-out punches with less than a minute left on the clock.
It is easy to forget how inspirational Obama's oratory could be. Speeches like these were what propelled him past Hillary in the primaries. But like all amazing things, his highly inspirational speeches couldn't be sustained for long stretches without people growing numb. Recall the "Obama fatigue" that began circulating throughout the news shortly after his return from a world tour this summer. So he seamlessly morphed into a much more conventional, yet adept, pol. He just kept landing persistent blows to the rib cage outside the direct vision of most spectators. We could see McCain was weakening but we couldn't understand exactly what the cause was. Obama knew that a knock-out punch would be all that more easy if he had laid the ground work in advance. This is the beginning of that last flurry of punches that will send McCain to the floor. What a finish...
It is easy to forget how inspirational Obama's oratory could be. Speeches like these were what propelled him past Hillary in the primaries. But like all amazing things, his highly inspirational speeches couldn't be sustained for long stretches without people growing numb. Recall the "Obama fatigue" that began circulating throughout the news shortly after his return from a world tour this summer. So he seamlessly morphed into a much more conventional, yet adept, pol. He just kept landing persistent blows to the rib cage outside the direct vision of most spectators. We could see McCain was weakening but we couldn't understand exactly what the cause was. Obama knew that a knock-out punch would be all that more easy if he had laid the ground work in advance. This is the beginning of that last flurry of punches that will send McCain to the floor. What a finish...
WFTV or WTF V
This interview from WFTV is crazy. If you feel that Obama and Biden have a socialist agenda go ahead and ask that. But what is going on here is beyond contempt for basic journalistic integrity. These are radical talking points, not investigative inquiries. I think WFTV might better be labeled WTFV, as in What The F#*@ Vision.
It's Over
One could have reasonably concluded this a week ago but I believe it is undeniable now. If there was an October Surprise it would have been played by now. Even if McCain does pull something out of his sleeve, Obama's crisis management skills have been on full display this election season several times and they've been masterful. This edited clip from TPM sums it up pretty well.
Regardless of the fact that this clip has obviously been processed through the "filter of the biased media," it cannot take away the things people are saying and most importantly who is saying them.
Regardless of the fact that this clip has obviously been processed through the "filter of the biased media," it cannot take away the things people are saying and most importantly who is saying them.
October 25, 2008
Law School
I just got my LSAT score back. When I look to the statistics from the 2008 incoming class at the University of Washington, I notice that there were 44 people last year who applied to the law school in my score/GPA range. 2 were accepted. Some pop culture wisdom seems appropriate here.
What the heck. I'm going for it.
What the heck. I'm going for it.
Vote No on Prop 8
I found these two videos over at Ezra Klein.
Ezra's take...
I think the Prop 8 opponent's strategy is telling of just how far we have come that it is even a plausible scenario that there are more people who either support or tolerate gay marriage then are threatened by it.
(Italics mine)
Ezra's take...
The messaging of these ads is pretty interesting: They're aimed more at turning out supporters than convincing opponents. The message is fairly clear: You can be a troglodyte, or you can step forward into the future. There's the chance that the ads will turn off as many voters as they'll turn on, but the Prop 8 opponents are making a simple bet: That when activated, their base is bigger. It's not a bet I've seen gay marriage proponents make before, and it suggests that their polling and data shows the issue changing rapidly enough that they feel able to run a campaign that attempts to win, rather than just tries to avoid losing.
I think the Prop 8 opponent's strategy is telling of just how far we have come that it is even a plausible scenario that there are more people who either support or tolerate gay marriage then are threatened by it.
(Italics mine)
October 24, 2008
Prescience
If you can get past the slapstick and presentational differences between Chris Rock and Barack Obama there are some amazing similarities between the dichotomy portrayed in this clip (from the movie "Head of State" released in 2003) and the one that has emerged during this election. I especially like the "knock 'em out" line referring to parental responsibilities.
(Video found on Slate)
(Video found on Slate)
October 23, 2008
Collective Preferences and Voting
I am loving my econ class. I just wanted to state that again.
A fun question brought up in class: "Can a voting mechanism always find a socially-optimal allocation?"
Let's begin with the following voter preference scenario...
A brief (and probably obvious) explanation. Person 1 prefers "policy option" A to policy option B. And person 1 prefers policy option B to policy option C. And so on for persons 2 and 3.
Basic logic dictates that if someone prefers A to B and B to C, then through the transitive property that person should prefer A to C. But look at how the above preferences when processed through a voting mechanism yield an illogical outcome.
If policy options A and B were on a ballot A would win because persons 1 and 3 would vote for it while only person 2 would vote for B. Likewise, if options B and C were on the ballot, B would win because persons 1 and 2 would vote for it while only person 3 would vote for C. So clearly we have established democratically that collectively the group prefers A to B and B to C.
But look what happens if you put options A and C on the ballot. C wins because persons 2 and 3 would vote for it while only person 1 would vote for A. This now has given us the following illogical result.
Collectively, the group prefers A to B and B to C. But it prefers C to A.
As it turns out, the only way for a voting mechanism to yield a socially-optimal (and logical) result is if the individuals have an identical preference ordering.
A fun question brought up in class: "Can a voting mechanism always find a socially-optimal allocation?"
Let's begin with the following voter preference scenario...
A brief (and probably obvious) explanation. Person 1 prefers "policy option" A to policy option B. And person 1 prefers policy option B to policy option C. And so on for persons 2 and 3.
Basic logic dictates that if someone prefers A to B and B to C, then through the transitive property that person should prefer A to C. But look at how the above preferences when processed through a voting mechanism yield an illogical outcome.
If policy options A and B were on a ballot A would win because persons 1 and 3 would vote for it while only person 2 would vote for B. Likewise, if options B and C were on the ballot, B would win because persons 1 and 2 would vote for it while only person 3 would vote for C. So clearly we have established democratically that collectively the group prefers A to B and B to C.
But look what happens if you put options A and C on the ballot. C wins because persons 2 and 3 would vote for it while only person 1 would vote for A. This now has given us the following illogical result.
Collectively, the group prefers A to B and B to C. But it prefers C to A.
As it turns out, the only way for a voting mechanism to yield a socially-optimal (and logical) result is if the individuals have an identical preference ordering.
October 22, 2008
It's Been A Rough Year...
A friend points out a sad truth for Seattle sports fans.
After watching our poor pathetic Seahawks lose yet another game last night, I was sad and embarrassed to hear one of the commentators sum things up for our city:
"So, the Seahawks are one and five, the Huskies are zero and six, the Mariners have lost 101 games, and their basketball team moved to Oklahoma City. It's been a rough year for Seattle."
Why yes, yes it has. Thanks for pointing that out. Ugh, totally tragic.
Yes... Totally
Economic vs. Social Populism
Dick Morris argues completely against my posts on income disparity in his recent article, "The Populism Divide." Not too surprising given the source but I do agree that a dichotomy of economic vs. social populism has emerged as an (if not the) issue driving this election. Dick concludes that social populism has made a comeback as if it is going to represent a real challenge to the economic populism of Obama (to be honest its Edwards' issue which almost every other democratic candidate usurped). Social populism won the day four years ago, leaving the democrats dumbfounded at how they lost the election on "values." But when the economy is in the tank as it currently is, people know that social populism is a luxury they can't afford right now. I think that has been pretty obvious over the last few weeks and will be made even more so on Nov. 4th.
October 21, 2008
Income Growth Despairity part 2.
Some more economic food for thought. Take a look at the first significant spike. The crash of the stock market followed immediately. Now look at where we are heading right now.
Perhaps this financial crises should not be as surprising as it has been and perhaps there are policies that could have been implemented to avoid such income disparities. This evidence does not prove causality but it does suggest that there may be a reasonable link.
Perhaps this financial crises should not be as surprising as it has been and perhaps there are policies that could have been implemented to avoid such income disparities. This evidence does not prove causality but it does suggest that there may be a reasonable link.
Income Growth Despairity
I am taking a fascinating class right now in microeconomics. This wasn't my favorite class as an undergrad but at a public policy school you get the chance to think about some basic principles of economics in terms of policy (of course) and how making certain policy decisions will have certain impacts. Today we were discussing various types of efficiency models and comparing efficiency and equity.
Over the last 20-30 years people have debated the efficacy of trickle-down economics. The question is does trickle-down economics do what its name implies? Does it trickle down and reach those at the lower strata of the socio-economic classes? What I saw in class today seemed to suggest convincingly that it doesn't and in fact did more to create income growth inequity than any other economic policy between 1947 and 1979.
Take a look at the following slide from today's lecture.
Now look at the data between 1980 and 2005.
Leaves an impression, huh?
Over the last 20-30 years people have debated the efficacy of trickle-down economics. The question is does trickle-down economics do what its name implies? Does it trickle down and reach those at the lower strata of the socio-economic classes? What I saw in class today seemed to suggest convincingly that it doesn't and in fact did more to create income growth inequity than any other economic policy between 1947 and 1979.
Take a look at the following slide from today's lecture.
Now look at the data between 1980 and 2005.
Leaves an impression, huh?
October 19, 2008
The Powell Endorsement
The significance of the Powell endorsement is not that it happened so much as the way in which it happened. He single handedly repudiated all the disjointed elements of McCain's strategy. He helps us realize that the haphazard way in which he has run his campaign should be a warning about the way he would run our country. On the flip side, one of the most compelling arguments for Obama, in my mind, has been his politically and intellectually mature and deliberate approach to his campaign and what that tells us about how he would run our country.
(Video found on Daily Kos)
October 16, 2008
Electric Sheep
I can't tell if this guy is super- or sub-human. I keep waiting for him to say, “My mind is going, I can feel it. I'm afraid,” the famous last words of HAL. He is definitely not normal, but often times the world's geniuses are not.
(Dime dropped by Micah)
(Dime dropped by Micah)
McCain at the Al Smith Dinner
This is the respectable McCain that I think most of us have forgotten exits.
McCain shows some tremendous grace here. I wonder how much of the unbecoming behavior we have seen over the last few weeks is more a sign of poor judgement in letting himself be over handled by advisors. It happens to many people who run for president and usually results in that person losing. It happened to Al Gore and it happened to John Kerry, although it looked very different coming from the DNC. I wonder what McCain's campaign would have looked like had he not surrounded himself (or at least let himself be surrounded) with some truly cynical people.
McCain shows some tremendous grace here. I wonder how much of the unbecoming behavior we have seen over the last few weeks is more a sign of poor judgement in letting himself be over handled by advisors. It happens to many people who run for president and usually results in that person losing. It happened to Al Gore and it happened to John Kerry, although it looked very different coming from the DNC. I wonder what McCain's campaign would have looked like had he not surrounded himself (or at least let himself be surrounded) with some truly cynical people.
Musical McCain
This was too good not to post. Who knew McCain could actually be funny? His attempts at humor on the stump seem less successful.
john mccain does streisand
For more musical politicians go to Time Magazine online. There are some doozies in there. I really like John Ashcroft's Let the Eagle Soar.
john mccain does streisand
For more musical politicians go to Time Magazine online. There are some doozies in there. I really like John Ashcroft's Let the Eagle Soar.
Drunk Pumpkins
This has been circulating for a couple of weeks now but it is entertaining enough to warrant posting!
It is pretty similar to what my Peace Corps group created in Mali a few years ago for Halloween but where only watermelon were available and the supposed catalyst was giardia not alcohol.
It is pretty similar to what my Peace Corps group created in Mali a few years ago for Halloween but where only watermelon were available and the supposed catalyst was giardia not alcohol.
Substance, finally... mostly
Health Care
Now McCain does have a point to make here on Health Care but he just didn't make it well. What he should have asked is, "Why do you think it is a good idea to force people to buy health insurance for their children? Shouldn't that be up to the parent's discretion?" That would be a legitimate question. The reason this was a legitimate debate moment despite McCain not asking this question is because he was trying to get at a fundamental difference in philosophies between the two candidates on Health Care. He was trying to establish that there is an option in this election. Either you believe in everyone pitching in to reduce overall health care costs or you believe in your personal freedom to choose what you want to do with you own health care. McCain just posed the question poorly.
Taxes
Again, fundamental differences in philosophy. Either you believe in Reagan's trickle-down economics or you believe that middle class America is the backbone of the economy. Regardless of whether Obama's plan will actually work to get this economy going again, I think Obama is going to win this debate because trickle-down economics is exactly was hasn't been working the last eight years during the Bush administration. The tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy was supposed to create millions of new jobs for middle class Americans. Of course, we know that that hasn't been the case.
Roe v Wade, Supreme Court Justices
McCain had a very respectable answer here (whether of or not you agree with a litmus test approach) until the end when he said, "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test." I could be interpreting this incorrectly, but it sounds to me like he is saying that supporting Roe v Wade is evidence that you are not qualified. If that is what he is saying than there is a litmus test for Mccain. I am not arguing wether or not there should be a litmus test but you can't have it both ways.
Other thoughts:
There were also great exchanges on trade and climate change. Overall, I think the voters who watched the debate are the ones who really won. Bob Schieffer was by far the most effective moderator. For the full transcript go here.
There were also great exchanges on trade and climate change. Overall, I think the voters who watched the debate are the ones who really won. Bob Schieffer was by far the most effective moderator. For the full transcript go here.
(Completely shallow and substance-free thought: Do John and Cindy McCain look like a scary Halloween couple in the picture above?)
October 15, 2008
QRM
School is starting to settle down a bit. The first few weeks were pretty chaotic as I tried to balance the demanding work load with studying for the LSAT (done!!!!) and two weddings. I feel like I can really start to focus on school now.
October 14, 2008
Hiatus
The last few weeks have been incredibly busy. So much so that I completely abandoned this blog. I am hoping now that I have some major events behind me (LSAT, two weddings, and starting grad school), that I will be able to give this site some more attention. It was a horribly inopportune time to become busy given all the action over the last few weeks. I really regret not being able to post on the first three debates although being busy was a great excuse to not have to pretend I know anything about the economy, what drives it, and what solutions seem most practical. Hopefully I'll be back tomorrow with something insightful or, at a minimum, entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
