How the Electoral Map Looks as America Heads to the Voting Booth

To start with, I really ought to be asleep. But, at the same time, I realized that I have an obligation to post one final look at the polls before the election begins. My blog has covered the election, particularly the electoral map polling, for months, and I will cover the electoral map until there is a declared victor.

So, as we head into Election Day, Barack Obama obviously holds a big lead, but how safe is it?

According to Real Clear Politics, Obama

• leads by 7.6 and 7.3 percentage points respectively in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, two states that are really important to an Obama victory.
• Obama leads by 5.5 and 6.2 percentage points respectively in Colorado and Nevada, two states that could clinch the election for Obama.
• Obama leads by 4.3 and 3.2 percentage points respectively in Virginia and Ohio, two states that could turn a tight victory into a solid victory for Obama, and two states that McCain needs.
• Obama leads by 1.8 percentage points in Florida, a state that had been trending Republican.
• He is trailing by less than 2 percent in Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina. if he can win a few of these states, then that would equal a landslide for the Democrat from Illinois and would signal a dramatic moment in this country’s political history.
• And he is down by less than 5 percent in Montana, North Dakota (according to Yahoo’s Political Dashboard), and Arizona. Wins in these states would give Obama a mandate.

Meanwhile, John McCain in order to win:

• Needs to hold on in Arizona, Indiana, and North Carolina.
• Needs to pull off the upset in Ohio and Florida.
• Needs to win two out of three involving Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado OR 
• Needs to win Pennsylvania.
• Ought to hold on to small but traditionally Republican states like Montana and North Dakota.

The polls though are often wrong, which will keep us all on the edge of our seats as we head into the 2008 Presidential Election.

Obama’s In Control

John McCain was desperate last night. Like a football offense looking for a hole in the defense, he switched from tactic to tactic, looking for a hole.

The senator from Arizona made a lot of cheap attacks. He brought up Bill Ayers and ACORN. But, Senator Obama stood his ground. He explained his connections to these groups clearly, and helped make them non-issues.

Senator McCain attacked on taxes, trying to tie Senator Obama to the decades-long belief that Democrats will always increase taxes on the middle-class. But Obama stood his ground, repeating over and over again that he would actually be cutting taxes for 95% of the population. Factually, that 95% has been disputed; I read today that the number might actually be 81%. However, the one undeniable truth is that Senator Barack Obama would be lowering taxes for the vast majority of Americans.

Senator McCain also attacked Obama for running the most negative ads in history. He was misleadingly trying to suggest that Obama was running the most negative campaign. Here’s the truth: Obama may be running the greatest number of negative ads in history (he’s also probably running the most positive ads in history), but in terms of perecentage of ads that are negative, McCain is running one of the most negative campaigns in recent history. Even a lot of Republicans agree on this point.

The attacks went on and on. Notably, Senator McCain tried to attack Obama’s health care plan by asking Obama how much he would be fining those who chose not to get health care. Obama said zero. McCain ended up looking awfully dumb. Poor McCain. If only he had payed more attention to the Obama-Clinton debates, then he would have known that the main difference between Clinton and Obama’s health care plans is that Obama’s wouldn’t impose fines whereas Clinton’s would. Oh well, McCain’s loss. Obama’s gain.

Overall though, Senator Obama appeared unruffled by all of McCain’s attacks. He looked presidential. By that I mean he was calm in the face of tough opposition. He spoke with reason even when his opponent didn’t. He stayed strong in the face of cheap shots and actual lies, always keeping his voice steady and his points on target. And he managed to make a few poignant lines and attacks of his own. It was an incredible night for Obama. I’m going to say it, and CNN polls confirm it: Obama flat-out won this debate, and in so doing, he probably just clinched the election.

As I thought about the debate later, I realized I am really comfortable with having Obama as my president. I’d want him to be the one facing Putin. I’d want him to be the one tackling our greatest issues. Last night, he showed his intelligence, even temperament, and strength. He showed me why he should be our 44th president.

On the other hand, McCain looked angry. And pathetic with his pandering. Could he mention that plumber anymore? And his ideas were confused. For example, he kept criticizing Obama’s spending plans, and yet McCain offered no clear vision as to how he would cut spending and balance the budget.     

And two other debate notes:

• My compliments to Bob Schieffer for asking excellent, probing questions throughout the debate. 
• Where was Senator McCain’s flag lapel? Obama was wearing one, but I didn’t see one on the Republican. Now, personally I don’t think the lapel is a big deal. But, if indeed McCain wasn’t wearing one and it gets no press, then I think the double standard is a big deal.

Campaign Strategy

Question: Why is John McCain still spending so much time and effort trying to win Pennsylvania? Ohio and Florida are far more important to his campaign. And he has virtually no chance in Pennsylvania anyway, where he’s down by approximately 13 points.

OK, well that’s enoiugh politics for one day.

Goodnight. I love you, America! No saracasm intended.

A Helpful Study Aid for the 2008 Election

Here is a chart I made to help describe this upcoming election. If it helps you see what’s going on more clearly, then great. If not, feel free to ignore it.

It’s essentially just a chart of battleground states though, with a middle point showing where the big 270 electoral vote barrier is.

BATTLEGROUND STATES (10% Difference or Less)	Obama	McCain	Lead
Iowa	51.3	41.8	+ 9.5
Oregon	49.8	40.8	+ 9
New Jersey	50.4	41.8	+ 8.6
Washington	49.8	41.8	+ 8
Wisconsin	50.3	42.8	+ 7.5
New Mexico	49.8	42.5	+ 7.3
Michigan	49.1	42.1	+ 7
Virginia	49.9	45.1	+ 4.8
270 VOTE BARRIER:     OBAMA WINS UNLESS HE LOSES ALL THE BELOW STATES AND ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE STATES
Ohio	48.9	44.9	+ 4
Colorado	49.3	45.3	+ 4
Florida	48.3	45.3	+ 3
Nevada	49.6	46.6	+ 3
North Carolina	48.2	47.6	+ .6
Missouri	47.8	47.5	+ .3
Indiana	46.0	48.5	+ 2.5
West Virginia	42.3	48.0	+ 5.7
Georgia	43.5	51.5	+ 8

CHART NOTES

States in Blue represent states Kerry carried in 2004.

States in Red represent states Bush carried in 2004.

Percentages in Blue represent Obama leads according to the most recent RCP polls presented on Yahoo’s Political Dashboard.

Percentages in Red represent McCain leads according to the most recent RCP polls presented on Yahoo’s Political Dashboard.

Obama Rides High in Recent Polling

Obama is looking great in the polls. His leads in Nevada, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Hampshire has grown over the past week. And he has recently taken the lead in North Carolina, Florida, and Missouri. All the while, he’s been holding onto significant leads in Colorado and Iowa.

Just take a look at some recent headlines.

• New Poll Shows Obama Widening Lead Over McCain in Virginia (WSLS News Channel 10 Roanoke)
• CNN/Time: Obama Makes Gains in NC, OH, WI, IN, NH
• Poll: Obama Holds Slim Lead Over McCain in Florida (The Miami Herald)
• Obama Leads McCain by 15 Points in Pennsylvania (WJAC 6 Johnstown)
• Obama leads in Ohio, Wisconsin Polls, is tied with McCain in Indiana (Akron Beacon Journal)

In other words, Obama is looking awfully good.

THE CHANGES FROM 2004 TO 2008: WHAT BUSH STATES OBAMA HOPES TO WIN

And here’s a list of what Bush states Democrats might be able to turn blue this year.

Pretty Sure Democratic Pick-Ups: Iowa, New Mexico

Probable Democratic Pick-Ups: Virginia, Ohio, Colorado

Possible Democratic Pick-Uos: Florida, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina

Electoral Vote Update: Obama En Route to Big Victory

Before I go through the particulars of how things are shaping up in the electoral vote count, I would just like to thank Susan for her comment on one of my earlier posts. Susan spoke about how we ought to change the system so that the election is decided by the national popular vote, and not the electoral vote. And I agree with her.

However, at least in this 2008 election, and probably for the next several decades of elections, we wil be using the electoral vote system, so here it comes. The latest on the race between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.

Right now, things are looking strong for Senator Obama. He is leading by almost five points nationally when you average out all the polls. And if the election were held today, he would win with about 300 electoral votes, 30 more than necessary.

At this point, it looks highly likely that he will be able to swing Colorado (currently a 6% Obama lead), New Mexico (6% Obama lead), and Iowa (9% Obama lead) into the Democratic column. That’s 21 electoral votes right there that Bush got in 2004 that Obama will not be getting in 2008.

In addiiton, Obama might be able to swing Virginia (approx. 2% Obama lead) and North Carolina (.3% Obama lead) into the Democratic column. That would be another 28 electoral votes right there going from Bush to Obama.

Now currently, McCain is slated to receive about 240 electoral votes. But that’s assuming he wins Ohio and Florida, which are both tightly contested states. In both states, McCain leads by less than 2%, and without them, he has no chance. And in terms of Pennsylvania, Obama leads by a fairly safe-looking 5%.

So, as we head into October, it’s clear who is in the lead. Yes, the young African-American senator from Illinois is the frontrunner. Now the question is, with just several more weeks to go, can he hold the lead.

An Error in Judgment

I’ll admit it. I didn’t catch all of this Friday’s presidential debate. I watched the first hour or so, but then it got too boring for me. Both candidates were saying the same exact things as they’ve been saying for the past few months. Yes, there were a few good lines and moments, but for the most part, it put me to sleep. And my god, you’d think all politicans were deaf or something, since neither candidate ever really answered the questions they were asked.

But there was one part that stuck out in my memory after the debate was over. And that was an exchange between the two candidates over Iraq. Barack Obama hammered away at John McCain for supporting the War in Iraq, trying to show that McCain lacked judgment. McCain responded with the following comments:

 The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That’s the decision of the next president of the United States.

And on a literal level, he’s right. We will not be deciding whether or not to go into Iraq, because, well, we’re already in Iraq. But, he is dead wrong to dismiss what Obama was saying. Because, after all what a candidate felt and continues to feel about our decision to go into Iraq tells us a great deal about how he will approach North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and any other “threats” to America.

By continuing to stand by the war in Iraq, McCain is allying himself with a foreign policy that puts military over diplomacy, a policy that doesn’t shy away from unilateralism, a policy that stresses America’s right to intervene when we feel necessary. A policy that refuses to bend to the will of the world.

Ever since 9/11, President Bush has run this country’s foreign policy on what I call the strength doctrine. Essentially, this means that according to Bush and his compatriots, the best way of protecting America is through looking tough. This is the Bush foreign policy, that McCain is allying himself with. Obama, on the other hand, seems to be emphasizing the importance of diplomacy. Yes, we must be strong, but we also must talk to the world, and respect other countries, and remember that the War on Terrorism is far more than just a military struggle.

So, John McCain’s comments are wrong. His opinions on whether or not we should be in Iraq right now are highly relevant. They tell us a great deal about what a McCain administration would like. And, in my view, they remind us just how important it is that we elect Obama as our president.

 By continuing to support our invasion of Iraq, McCain is allying himself with this foreign polict

Battle of the Ads

A “Terrible” Obama Ad

As I was perusing the AOL news headlines this morning, I came across an article titled “Biden Calls Ad Mocking McCain ‘Terrible.’ The article discusses how Democratic VP Candidate Joe Biden reacted to a Democratic advertisement that took a few shots at Republican John McCain and his struggles with technology, Biden said it was “terrible.” And first of all, let me just say that I think Biden is right. The ad was rife with cheap shots.

And not only were they cheap shots, but also quite likely, were ineffective cheap shots. According to the AOL story, which was reported by the Associated Press and filed earlier today, the ad read as follows:

He admits he still doesn’t know how to use a computer, can’t send an e-mail, still doesn’t understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class“

The ad does have good substantive points, which I’ve put in bold. The problem is the cheap attacks above it take away from the overall message, which is a good one and a fair one.

MEDIA-WATCH: Biden’s Comments and the McCain Campaign

The AP article also quoted Joe Biden, as he tried to turn the attention away from Obama’s advertisement:

“Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen. McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators,” Biden said.

And then, the writer explained what Biden was referring to.

Biden was referring to a McCain ad that said Obama supported sex education for kindergartners, based on a bill he voted for as an Illinois state senator. Obama’s campaign said the ad was a “shameful” distortion of his record because the bill’s language meant young children would have been taught about sexual predators and concepts such as “good touch and bad touch.”

Now, if you’re curious as to why cheap shots and slimy negative advertising are so effective, just read this paragraph. The writer acts as if there is a legitimate question as to whether of not Obama supported comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. He presents both arguments as if they have equal merit. In an effort to be balanced, the article neglects the truth. And the truth is that the McCain kindergarten ad was a shameful distortion of Obama’s record. That’s a fact, not just something the Obama campaign said.

And Then There Were Two…Nominees!

John McCain, the Republican candidate for the presidency, is by no means an electrifying speaker. He isn’t as personable as Bill Clinton. He lacks that special warmth that Clinton brought to the table. And he lacks the power of a Hillary Clinton. Her speechs usually weren’t beautiful, but she certainly knows how to get her opinions across. And he doesn’t speak with the cadences of a Barack Obama. He doesn’t have Obama’s ability to lift up hearts and spirits. But, all the same, as he accepted the nomination and spoke, I realized that he truly does come across as a good man. He conveys wisdom and confidence. All in all, he might not overwhelm you, but he probably does leave listeners with positive impressions.

His speech was far more than a policy address. It seemed as if he was a hero telling an eager crowd modestly but proudly of his life’s travails. He spoke about prior selfishness and stubbornness in his life. He talked about when the changes he had gone through. He spoke about when he finally learned that there was something more important than doing things his way. When he finally learned that serving his nation was the best thing he could do with his life. His speech wasn’t larger than life, and that was the beauty of it. He was equal to life, but at the same time someone who seemed to have a remarkably strong handle on life. He talked about doing good in the world, and told us all the good he would do if elected. And that’s what came across to me. A good man who wants to chase the evil out of Washington D.C., and has the life experience that will equip him to do so.

But policy wise, there are a lot of holes for Barack Obama to attack. And he can begin his attack by simply asking questions.

For example, last night, John McCain mentioned that Sarah Palin had balanced the budget as the governor of Alaska. Great, but now Obama ought to ask: How do you plan on enforcing fiscal conservatism when elected president? How will you balance the budget even as you keep spending trillions of dollars in Iraq? And how will you balance it while maintaining a strong militart? And even as you decrease taxes, lowering tax revenue?

Ah, but of course, McCain promises he will cut spending. Wasteful spending. A politician’s favorite line. “I will cut waste in Washington.” Every politicians acts if they have a magic wand, and that if elected, they will take it out, and suddenly swoosh, government will work with 100% efficiency and the budget will be balanced. But, it’s time to get real. Obama, at least, has concrete ways of cutting spending, such as withdrawing from Iraq. The question is, what will McCain do to cut spending?

On Iraq, both candidates claim the surge has worked. But, rather than let the country celebrate McCain’s bold and successful stand on the surge, it is time for Obama to focus the public eye on what happens next. And he must ask John McCain: How long can we afford to keep our troops in Iraq? How long will it take to “win” this war? Would our leaving really be such a bad thing?

And speaking of Iraq, Obama ought to start asking McCain questions about the run-up to the war. Was it right to invade Iraq with no international support and at such a tremendous cost?

Obama ought to bring the entire Bush foreign policy into the national conversation. The National Intelligence Estimate says that the terrorist threat has increased since 9/11, despite seven years of our ferocious War on Terror. We are less popular in the world than we were eight years ago. We are perhaps hated more than at any other time in our history. So, what does McCain think about the Bush foreign policy? Obama promises a changed foreign policy, which will help win global support and perhaps even aid us in our War on Terror? So, the onlt question remaining is, what would a John McCain foreign policy? In what ways would it represent a change from the failed Bush foreign policy?

Obama needs to take McCain and the Republicans on. Say that the Republicans have failed us in this War on Terror. Put the pressure on McCain!

And on taxes, Obama needs to focus in on those Bush tax cuts. He needs to ask tough questions: Was it really necessary to cut taxes on the wealthy in this country? Is it really responsible to keep taxes low on the rich, at a time when our defecit is soaring and our middle class is suffering?

Simply put, John McCain gave a good speech last night. But it wasn’t enough to erase the failures of the last 7 years, and the questions about the next 8. Obama needs to ask them. And answer them.

Thompson Dazzles in St. Paul but Questions Remain

The XCel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota was filled with energy Tuesday night. Yes, after four very difficult years for the Republican Party, the Republicans brought it last night in the first real night of their 2008 national convention.

For all the star attractions of last night’s proceedings (George W. Bush, Laura Bush, and Joe Lieberman), the clear winner of the night was former Tennessee senator and presidential candidate Fred Thompson who delivered a powerful address in prime-time. He first told the life story of John McCain with humor and power. He certainly had me laughing. And then, when he was done, he launched a significant policy attack on the Democrats and Barack Obama, making it clear that while the issues may be leaning in the Democrats’ favor, the Democrats still have a lot of work to do.

Because the fact is, the Republicans have some pretty good arguments to make. For example, on taxes, Barack Obama assured the American people that he would only be raising taxes on the wealthiest 5% of the population. Yet, Thompson found the hole and attacked it. He pointed out that by raising taxes on businesses, far more than the top 5% of the population could end up being affected. Now, I don’t know enough about the economic particulars to judge the full merit of Thompson’s point. But the clear fact is that Obama has a lot of work to do in order to help rid the Democrats’ (including himself) of their reputation as tax-raisers. And, the Democrats will need to fight hard on the issue of off-shore drilling. And they will need to remind people that the budget was balanced under Clinton, not Bush. And on the issue of Iraq, the Democrats will need to prepare for a substantive debate on whether or not the surge has worked, and what “victory in Iraq” means, and what is actually plausible there.

Another idea that kept coming up was the corruption and inefficiency of Washington D.C. First of all, the whole spectacle was kind of hilarious, because in both conventions, we’ve had all these senators and politicians yelling about the gridlock in Washington. So, everyone seems to agree that gridlock is a bad thing. Yet, how many of these senators who are complaining are actually doing something about it. And, honestly, none of them acknowledged the important point that this type of inefficency is built into the unique system of American democracy. So, before we attempt to rise above the gridlock, let’s stop blaming it on each other and acknowledge it’s constitutional origins. And then, let’s try to move on, and get things done for America’s sake. Also, I found it funny how Republicans argued that Barack Obama has done absolutely nothing to take on Washington. Obama played a major part in passing ethics reform upon his arrival in Washington D.C. I guess the Republicans just forgot about that one.

Last night, Bush remarked that “we need a president who understands the lessons of September 11th.” I would argue that President Bush and the Republican Party actually understand very little about September 11th. As a New Yorker who saw the burning embers of the towers with my very own eyes, I deeply appreciated the President’s moving words following 9/11, but I also deeply question his understanding of the event. For a while, he understood that we needed to attack Afghanistan and remove those who had attacked us from power, yet while he made the right choice to go to Afghanistan, he later made the wrong choice in leaving Afghanistan for Iraq.

Certainly, Bush’s understanding of 9/11 is very shallow. He understood that we needed to fight back, yet never attempted to delve into why we were attacked in the first place. Any solution to the terrorist problem must involve a through investigation into why significant numbers of Muslims around the world are drawn to join or provide support for terrorist armies. Bush, however, failed to grasp the basic concept. And Republicans still fail to grasp this simple but crucial concept. Take Thompson, who claimed that the only way to protect America is to go on the offensive. This statement is as incorrect as it is simple. To fight terrorism doesn’t simply mean to grab the gun. If Republicans fail to understand this after seven years, then maybe it’s time for new leadership.

I would argue that we need a president who not only understands the lessons of 9/11, but also understands the lessons of the last eight years. Mistakes were made. This is our chance to fix them. Let’s not screw it up. Let’s make America and the world proud again, proud enough so that the world can say “We are all Americans” once again.

In other political notes:

When I saw Joe Lieberman speak last night, I began to wonder why the Democrats didn’t seize the opportunity, and have Lincoln Chafee, the principled former Republican senator from Rhode Island, speak at their convention.

Separately, in his speech last night, Bush mentioned something about angry liberals, which reminded me of how odd the portrayal of liberals is in this country. We’re angry but aloof and all at the same time. I just don’t get it. And how can he say we’re angry, when his is the party of Michael Savage and Ann Coulter. The real truth of the matter is that both sides have misplaced anger (from Jeremiah Wright to Coulter). Both sides also have optimists and pessimists, moderates and extremists, pragmatists and idealists. Even in a time of bitter partisanship, we ought to be able to admit that the two parties do have certain human elements in common.

And that’s all for last night’s proceedings. I’ll have more thoughts tomorrow following the Palin speech. Thanks for reading. Good night.

Peak in the Rockies?

After Barack Obama finished his speech tonight, I felt somewhat dissatisfied. Yes, it was a good speech, but I certainly didn’t think it was great. I didn’t feel as if he had really painted a clear picture of what this election will be about. So, I quickly turned to FOX News to see their reaction to Obama’s speech, because I knew that if Obama’s speech was flawed, then FOX would be the first ones to point that fact out.

But FOX loved his speech. Almost every single person they put on said that Obama had succeeded. William Kristol, who isn’t exactly an Obama fan, said that his speech not only met the enormous expectations, but exceeded them. Even while attacking Obama’s lack of experience and various other items about the Democrat, almost every single person at FOX praised his speech. They said he had come down from the mountaintop, and that he had spoken to the people of America with great power and skill.

Personally, I didn’t feel he did that great a job communicating the issues. I felt like his attacks on John McCain were fine, but not as well delivered as Joe Biden’s. And I thought he left himself awfully vulnerable to return attacks. At one point, he attacked John McCain, arguing that McCain has used fear tactics against Obama because McCain had no record to run on. Not a smart attack, especially given that Obama doesn’t have that much of a record to run on himself, and especially given the fact that Democrats have spent the last three days painting McCain as a man who would ruin America. The Democrats have tried to scare voters as much as the Republicans have, although the Democrats’ attacks tend to focus on policy whereas the Republican ones tend to focus on less noble and relevant topics.

But whether or not Obama’s speech was good, what’s most important to remember is that this really is a very simple election.

On taxes, the Republican stands by the Bush tax cuts, even though the tax cuts apply mainly to the wealthiest Americans, increasing our nation’s debt and doing very little to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. The Democrat, on the other hand, wants to lower taxes on the majority of Americans, while restoring taxes on the rich.

On energy, the Republican candidate acts as if off-shore drilling is the answer to all our problems. Yet, according to the Boston Globe:

It would take at least a decade for oil companies to obtain permits, procure equipment, and do the exploration necessary to get the oil out of the ground, most industry analysts say. And even then, they add, the amount of new oil produced would probably be too small to significantly affect world oil prices.*

Ultimately, off-shore drilling would do very little for our country. It certainly doesnt qualify as a solution to our energy crisis. And McCain claims to support clean energy initiatives, but his Congressional record says differently. Barack Obama, on the other hand, knows that in order to reduce our dependence on the Middle East, we must ween ourselves off of oil, and he knows that the way to do that is through alternative energy sources. He understands that America is struggling, and that alternative energy provides us with a chance to take leadership in the world. Rather than import oil from the Middle East, we could get our energy from American sources that are patrolled by American workers.

On these two issues and a host of other issues, the Democrats don’t need soaring oratory. They just need to be blunt and staightfoward. The truth doesn’t lie, and in this case, the truth is in the Democrats favor. This is our election. We’ve got the money advantage. And we’ve also got the facts on our side. This is an election that the Democrats shouldn’t and can’t afford to lose.

* Wangsness, Lisa. “New Offshore Drilling Not a Quick Fix, Analysts Say.” The Boston Globe. 20 June 2008.