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:

McCain Falls into the Clinton Trap

By selecting Sarah Palin, Senator McCain has effectively fallen into Senator Obama and Clinton's trap. In a last ditch effort to win over Clinton supporters, McCain thinks simply picking a woman, any woman, will gain votes. By doing so he is insulting female voters by suggesting that women have no regard for real policies and stands on issues. He is forgetting why Clinton appeals to women in the first place; pro-choice, popularity, real experience, and overcoming personal and professional obstacles. None of which Palin has. Instead, she is a life time member of the NRA (which is important to Clinton supporters I am sure) who has served only a little over a year as a governor of a State with relatively small problems and a small population. Before being governor, most of her experience is as a mayor and council member of a town smaller than Obama's original district in Illinois (~9,000 people). Obama may be inexperienced, but he looks much more experienced compared to Palin; who may have an actual chance at being president if elected.

McCain wanted to serve with someone he is "comfortable with"; it is not surprising then that he would pick an attractive young woman to serve with him. Standing next to each other, he stands out as a creepy old man. The two could not contrast more standing next to each other. It is like watching a grandfather watch his granddaughter at cheerleading practice when she talks. The images of them together ultimately bring to mind the accusations early in the primaries that McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. Using a woman politically, just because she is a woman, is sexist and perfectly illustrates how McCain fundamentally "does not get it". Palin represents the type of woman conservatives think women should be: motherly, wholesome, and a beauty queen that won't outshine her partner.

Inevitably, Palin will screw up once in a while as she lacks the political experience Clinton has (even experienced hands make mistakes). I worry that this will actually hurt women in the future. Because when someone is promoted to a high status position that s/he is not well suited for and things go wrong, anything about that person (like their sex) could potentially be criticized. If McCain loses, which it looks like he will now, there will be a tendency in some people to blame the failure on Palin as the woman, not Palin as the inappropriately appointed vp.

Announcing his choice on his birthday only brings attention to the fact that he is very old and that there is a high probability that the vice president will have to replace him. This singular fact will dominate his campaign from now on. Picking the vice president is the first major decision a president has to make and McCain flinched. Picking Palin only shows that McCain is impulsive under stress and does not consider experience to be important. This decision virtually gives his party no ground to stand on when arguing against Obama's experience and youth. Clearly, he has put politics not country first.

Palin will certainly rally McCain's base, but he will need more than them to win this election. The McCain-Palin ticket is now running on the "reform Washington" platform that Obama has already strongly established. The "reform Washington" message does not come across well when it comes from the same party that created the need for change in the first place. There is more at stake than simple corruption and ethics in Washington; what about the economy? No incumbent party has won the Whitehouse when the consumer confidence index is this low. McCain has certainly shaken up the campaign trail, but it did not need shaking. The candidates were virtually in a dead heat, but now as the dust settles Obama will certainly emerge. Obama is a smart man that is a master at politics (he beat the Clintons) and I have not even mentioned Biden.

Religion in Politics?

(Having just watched the religion in politics debate) It seems to me that evangelicals are willing to watch the world burn as long as abortions are illegal. Why does this singular issue dominate this demographic in an election year when so many other issues are at stake. What good does it to bring a child into a world full of poverty, unaffordable healthcare, endless war, and corruption? Maybe any given child will be able to fight those issues by being born I guess. Fine. but I don't understand why evangelicals can't find common ground on this issue by focusing on reducing the need for abortions all together; promoting responsible sex, communication between adults and children; reducing the stigma of sex. The past 8 years have had an administration that takes the pro-life stance; promoting abstinence over responsible sex and abortions have not decreased. Maybe there are different approaches.

This election season strikes a cord with me. The past 2 election cycles I have felt extremely disappointed. I actually started my Peace Corps application 4 years ago when Bush was reelected because I wanted to leave so badly. But I am still here, my application is being processed and never before have I felt more compelled to be involved politically. I guess I am just frustrated. I liked John McCain before he started taking the pro-Bush approach. This is a mistake that will cost him and I don't understand why he is doing it. It seems like the Republicans put forth the next person in line; the guy who was"owed his due" (to quote Carl Rove upon the passing of tax breaks for the richest americans). However, I have been for Obama since before the Iowa primary because I understand that when you elect someone you are not just electing one person. You are electing someone's ability to appoint people in important positions; which Obama has. Instead of McCain saying "I don't understand the economy", Obama's approach is "This is a complicated issue that deserves the right people regardless of party affiliation", which I respect and can stand behind.