Gay rain on Charlie’s day

Looks like a gay rights group is going to protest at Charlie Crist's wedding in St. Petersburg this Friday. The group is doing this to Charlie because he supported the recently passed Amendment that bans gay marriage in the State of Florida. The group clearly wants publicity by protesting at Crist's wedding because I am sure they understand that it is the citizens of Florida that passed the Amendment, not Crist himself. I don't understand why the group wasn't as vocal before the election, when their voices could have made a difference. I am all for gay rights and I am surprised the Amendment passed in a State populated by Key West and Miami, but leave Crist alone. It is not his fault.

Notes on the Election: Expectations, Mistakes, and History

First, let me start out by saying I feel privileged to have watched history last night. I think it was important for our country that Obama won by such a large margin both in the Electoral College and in the popular vote. The past two elections were so close, coming down to one State both times, that it left a lot of people bitter and divided. There are no lawsuits, no protests, just…something much different today. Last night, hundreds of students from the Washington area emerged upon the White House at 1 am and chanted "Obama!" over and over. I wish I could have been there or in Chicago and I can only imagine how Bush must have felt trying to sleep through the crowd outside as the secret service simply smiled all night and took pictures of the crowd with their camera phones not out of security but out of joy.

The expectations are high for Obama, perhaps too high. It will be interesting to see what change he will be able to bring and how fast given that Democrats don't have a filibuster proof majority and that many Democrats are centrists.

I think McCain was the best choice Republicans could have made for their pick to run in this now clearly Democratic environment. However, McCain did not run as the 2000 McCain, but as the more traditional, pandering to the right Republican nominee. He is a good man, but is with the wrong party as evidenced last night in his gracious concession speech in which he seemed annoyed and embarrassed by the booing crowd. In contrast, the huge Democratic crowd in Chicago applauded McCain. The mismatch between McCain and his crumbling party ultimately led to his major mistakes:

1. The Republicans assumed this election would be like the rest: red states stay red, blue states stay blue and try to gain a couple to win. This allowed Obama to have a 3 month lead in some places virtually unchallenged with ads and message. The result? Obama wins Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and probably North Carolina. McCain was forced to spend final and vital resources defending these states, while trying to stay offensive in Pennsylvania.

2. McCain needed money to compete so he had to please the conservative base by selecting Sarah Palin. This excited conservatives, but McCain was kidding himself if he thought he was the conservative candidate. He was able to raise more money, but it was not enough and it was too late in the election for him to be getting out a message.

3. He did not distance himself enough from President Bush. He accepted Bush's endorsement early on, but tried to down play it late in the game. McCain could have tried to run more like an independent candidate, acknowledging his party's failures and distancing himself from people in his party. I think this would have won him more votes, but he probably would not have raised enough money because his base would have sat this one out and McCain's campaign was not as technologically advanced as Obamas.

4. This is not to say that money wins elections, it does not. Obama's fundraising strength is not just in the shear amount of money, but in the amount of small time, first time single donors his campaign attracted. He used the internet in the internet age. Donations and information was easy to get online, in addition to text messages, email, etc.

5. McCain never had a consistent message and appeared impulsive. No incumbent candidate has never won the presidency when the Consumer Confidence Index is negative before the election, but McCain might have had a chance if:

A. He would have recognized the failing economy before hand and selected an economically minded running mate.

B. Not have run off to Washington in the middle of the campaign just to be there to see the first plan fail to pass.His 'country first' motto was brought into question with the pick of Sarah Palin, which combined with the appointment of almost all former lobbyists as his advisors caused me to lose trust in him.

6. While not his fault, McCain's primary season was not as long as Obama's. The longer Democratic primary caused more Democrats to be involved, at record levels, and for a much longer period. Plus, Obama benefited greatly by running a tough campaign against the Clintons. It forced his campaign to be efficient, disciplined, and consistent. It also helped set the tone early that the media would be covering Obama more and in a more positive light.

In the end, I am glad the 20 month campaign is over. The world is already responding positively to America's choice and that is a good sign. Obama's wins across the entire country make him a leader of unity, representative of us all in my mind. There will still be some who oppose him, but Obama has built his reputation and success on working with opponents. He is probably the most skilled politician we will see in our lifetime. He has literally redrawn the electoral map that has dominated our country for decades, in addition to winning against two of our most respected and talented politicians (Clinton and McCain).

He deserves it. Washington can work quickly with the right leadership; it is a myth that it is a slow town. The first 6 months of Obama's administration will set the tone and pace for the rest of his time in office. Will huge changes occur immediately? Probably not, but I suspect the "little things" like torturing people, hiring prosecutors politically, and generally pissing off the world are already off the table.

Two main things to look for in the first 6 months:

1) Does Obama take a long vacation in the first 6 months?

2) Does Obama appoint any Republicans in key positions?

I am proud, excited, and guarding my expectations for the work ahead.

The numbers confirm McCain is on the wrong side of history

I have long heard that the Consumer Confidence Index (A measure of how good people feel about the economy) is a good determinant of which party will win the presidential election. Being statistically inclined, I decided to take a look at the data and it turns out that since 1968 (as far back as I could find CCI numbers) it is mostly true.

I looked at the CC index number for September of each year before a presidential election and found that when the CCI is negative, the incumbent party has never won a single time (This event has only happened 3 times though- Bush1 in 1992, Carter 1980, and Ford 1976).

Does this mean that when the CCI is positive in the Sept. before the election that the incumbent party wins? Only about 71% of the time. Gore (2000) and Humphrey (1968) were the only candidates of the incumbent party that lost the election when the CCI was positive (although Gore did win the popular vote). Bush2 (2004), Clinton (1996), Bush1 (1988), Reagan (1984), and Nixon (1972) all won when the CCI was positive in September before the election.

Notably, these contests were all between a challenging party and a person that served as vice president or president in the previous administration. What happens when we have an election between two non-incumbent persons of previous administration (like now, between McCain and Obama)?

In the past Century, this only happened twice: In 1928 between Hoover and Smith and in 1952 between Eisenhower and Stevenson. I could not find CCI values for these years, but I think there are some relevant comparisons between those elections and the McCain-Obama election.

In 1928, Hoover (Republican) won the election largely because he was associated with the economic boom happening at the time (although the Depression would soon follow after his election). Additionally, Republican indiscretions of the previous administration had largely faded away. No other democrats were anxious to even face Hoover. Smith, his opponent was a victim of the anti-catholic and prohibition sentiment at the time. In hindsight, it appears Hoover benefited from a positive CCI economy (the republicans were incumbent).

In 1952, General Eisenhower (republican) won the election against Adlai Stevenson. At the time, Harry Truman was the incumbent democratic administration, but he decided not to run for re-election because his approval ratings were the lowest in American history at the time (only Bush2 and Nixon have surpassed this prestigious record). Additionally, Americans were growing weary of the Korean War and wanted out. However, 1952 was one of the largest growth periods in American history due to the post war industrial boom. It appears that Stevenson (the incumbent) lost the election in a positive CCI economy.

What do the elections of Eisenhower and Hoover tell us?

1. The incumbent looses even with positive CCI when the incumbent party has low approval ratings and is responsible for an unpopular war, even if the economy is good.
   
2. If the economy is good and there are no other distractions (like wars, low approval ratings, controversies), the incumbent party will remain in the White House.
   

These two insights combined with the observations that no incumbent party has won when the CCI is negative is telling. This past August, the CCI was around negative 44. Unless the CCI increases by 100% in the next month (which is very doubtful) the prospects don't look good for McCain.

 

 

 

There can be only one- Bump that is

McCain has gone to the far right in an election that relies on centrists voters. Although, people are forgetting McCain never really had a win-win pick for vice president in the first place. All of his choices were too far right for the left (Huckabee, Romney) or too far left for the right (Lieberman). Ultimately, he went right because he needs the money and the saber rattling to be competitive and it appears to be paying off a little. However, McCain will still be limited by federal funds soon, so the financial impact won't help long. Plus, given that Obama has long been out-fundraising McCain by 2 to 1, he will probably never realistically level the money generating playing field, but at least something is better than nothing.

The media and others are certainly attacking Palin because they don't know her. She is a pick that was not on the main radar screen and therefore the media feels we must know everything about her; good and mostly bad. The media and world was introduced to her the Friday before Labor Day weekend; when most people (including big name anchors) are off work. The Palin pick, along with Gustav has clearly carried over into the convention. When Biden was picked, there was no real controversy because everybody knew him, anticipated the pick by small hints here and there from the Obama camp, and the democrats subsequently had a successful, distraction free convention.

Past trends don't look good for McCain. Looking at the 2004 presidential race, Kerry took and maintained a marginal lead over Bush after his convention, but this was virtually shot down after the republican convention in late August. One problem for Kerry was the conventions being so far apart with the republicans convening last; giving them plenty of time to counter-act the attacks and progress made by Kerry months before. In September, immediately after the '04 RNC, Bush took a huge lead and maintained it. The Bush convention went well and covered all the bases. This time around, the conventions are right on top of each other, so there can be only one bump and it will go to the party with the most successful convention. The republicans have barely had enough time to roll out a VP pick in response to the Dems VP pick (1 week); let alone introduce her, clear the dirt and controversy away, and let people get to know her. That's a big order for Palin's first significant speech ever. On top of that, McCain still has to say exactly what he will do for the country; what his plan is, and distance himself from Bush, etc. By the way, did you know he was a POW? McCain doesn't have much time to do all this (his convention is more than half way over and we are still hearing Palin controversy and there are 3 more hurricanes coming). If the organization of his campaign and the convention so far are any indications, he won't be able to pull it off and the democrats will increase or maintain their ~8 point lead (which includes polls that overlap with the Palin announcement).

Once something sticks (or doesn't stick...like a clear message) to your campaign in September, you don't really have the time or flexibility to change voter's opinions.

Palins first mistake: Mentioning Hillary

Note to Palin, Don't mention Hillary at a Republican Rally. Doing so tends to lead to boos and makes it hard for people to see beyond the rumors that you were picked mainly to bring in Hillary votes.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/30/palin-booed-for-mentioning-hillary-clinton/

Interesting article claiming Palin's son is actually the son of her 16 year old daughter... I wonder if this will get legs or if there is nothing to it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

Gustav is proof God doesn’t want Republicans re-elected

To borrow a line from Pastor John Hagee, who you might remember said in 2006 (referring to Hurricane Katrina and homosexuals) "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that", it now appears that God does not want Republicans to win by sending Gustav barreling towards New Orleans during their convention. The Republicans have discussed rescheduling their convention (no small feat) and Bush and others have considered not attending, but it does not matter if they go with business as usual or not. The damage of Katrina has been done and nobody will forget how badly the Administration botched the job.

If they cancel the convention, it shows that they are embarrassed by Katrina. If they go through with the event, they will surely mention New Orleans throughout their convention, but this will only open old wounds. Already, the news is covering Hurricane Gustav regularly, which must be a nightmare for them on the eve of convention and on the weekend of VP announcement. Oh well, God works in mysterious ways.

FYI, Pastor John Hagee has endorsed McCain, although McCain has rejected the endorsement.

UPDATE: Looks like the DNC took my joking play on Gustav and Hagee seriously, Ooops: