Some refreshing historical perspective

I enjoyed this article. It made me take a step back. Link.

And So It Begins ...

... here we go folks. It's going to be a long election.

Interesting side-effect of adaptation

New Scientist published a blurb that discusses the impact on climate of placing reflective greenhouses in arid parts of Spain. Obviously not the be-all, end-all of global warming, but a nice surprise.

YAY

Breaking News 11:39 AM ET:

Connecticut State Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

(NYT)


One by one...

Which Obama Will Be President?

Will we see the hard left economic policies of Candidate Obama, or the free-market lover in the New York Times article? I hate articles written in this style, but if it's the first one, some important questions show tough times could be ahead (in my opinion)

Be Careful With The "L" Word

We're all getting excited, and who can blame us? Barack Obama has been trading at almost exactly 50% on Intrade since he locked up the nomination, but has shot up to nearly 80% in the last week and a half. Analysts are saying McCain has no shot. McCain's own campaign is clearly in emergency mode. He even conceded Michigan's 17 EVs.

But this election is not over. History shows that elections trend tighter as the finish approaches. Obama's lead is generally placed at 5-6%. I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that there's a good chance Johnny Mac could scrape back a few points, and bring him down to 3-4%.

And here's the thing - my model shows Obama's lead is less than 2% in quite a few states. In fact, he would only hold on to his core of 264 EVs, plus Colorado and Virginia, where I show him up by 3.0% and 3.3% respectively. Now this gets him to 286 EVs (interestingly, the number GWB carried in '04) which is plenty to win, but not enough to start your party early.

So I'm not trying to scare you, but there are still a few ways this could go wrong. 538 shows that if Obama loses Ohio, he's only got a 2/3 chance at winning the election, and I wouldn't consider Ohio "in the bag" by any means.

Liberally speaking, VA, CO, NV, FL, OH, NC, MO, and IN are still in play. I pity the fool who's got to win every single one of those states; nonetheless, the fat lady's still not ready to go on.

The gods are totally going to strike Frank Schaeffer down...

...because he is seriously tempting fate here.

It's exciting to read, though.

Obama Will Be One of The Greatest (and Most Loved) American Presidents

One more to start the morning...

Iceland going bankrupt?

I really enjoyed reading this article through the lens of basic economic theory. The thing that really stuck with me was dichotomy of reactions: some Icelanders (?) are rushing out and buying Rolexes, hoping to cash out their chips (read: watches) elsewhere; others have been gripped by an impressive calm of reason, as can be best epitomized by this quote from the now-bankrupt Elvis of Iceland: "'What is important at a time like this is not picking out whom to blame,' he said. 'We have a government that is trying to do their best, but we will have to see what they come up with. Maybe it is a new dawn for Iceland.'"

I fear that in the USA we have far more of the former category, with the anti-intellectualism trend winning out by a significant margin. That said, I don't think the USA has seen the worst of its bank-run potential on display yet; just wait for the government to take a controlling stake in many of the major banks. Seriously, we need to get on a discussion about the precedents being set right now, because they are a little scary.

Greenspan's new legacy

I really enjoyed this article. I am too tired to start it now, but I think a discussion about the Fed and the precedent-setting nature of its recent actions would be worthwhile.

Good article

"But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices."

"He's phenomenally good at surrounding himself with a team. I disagree with them on most issues, but I am given a lot of comfort by the fact that the people he's chosen are exactly the people I think most of us would want to choose if we were in his shoes."

-David Brooks from Huffington Post

After this I'll be done pulling stupid lefty graphics from Daily Kos, I swear...

...but again, I find this one kinda funny.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/235723/393/919/623521

Morning News Rundown

You bought one hell of a party for AIG

New website gets my hopes up by tracking the NPVIC (Wiki)

New morphing drone to be based on pterodactyl (Wiki)
Actually, this is cool. The dino in question could walk on all fours, or just two, or fly.

Cindy McCain: Obama's is "dirtiest campaign in history"

Palin debate flow chart

This is from Daily Kos, which is ....Daily Kos, so obviously break out your nugget of salt, but this is pretty funny.

random link

Sometimes interesting or provoking things come my way at work. I just registered with this program and really found it incredible that it even exists- an organized arm of a governmental project. The service is both efficient, productive, and, get this- useful. Granted, it is only for us DHS employees and affiliates, but still.

Check it out: Lessons Learned

Random thoughts on 1996 election

I did a quick read on the '96 election when I was looking to see Bill's EV total. I got a little curious about how in the hell Bob Dole, who had already been dead for 15 years, got the nomination. I came across two interesting little tidbits along the way:

Bob Dole carried 47 states. Of the remaining four, Pat Buchanan won Missouri, Louisiana, and New Hampshire, none of which have anything in common with any of the other. Steve Forbes won New Mexico. Weird. Also, Buchanan is from Virginia and Forbes is from New York, so neither carried his home state even though he carried other states (can we please call this Al Gore Syndrome?)

Also, Jack Kemp endorsed Steve Forbes over Bob Dole, before Bob Dole made him his running mate.

Oops

If you are set to receive new posts by email then you saw that earlier I reported some pretty exciting scenarios for Obama (anywhere from 318 to 375 EVs). I didn't realize I had accidentally cut the half-life on my polls from 25 to 10 days, so newer polls were more heavily weighted. That may not be an unreasonable estimation given that we had a sudden event, but I'm still going with the more conservative method.

Either way, my latest update is in the EV master thread.

Oh, and one more thought: a few polls out today indicate the race may be tightening slightly. I'll keep you posted.

Predictions for the debate

I saw the cartoon below and immediately became elated because Biden will not have to appear in public ever again before the election.





That said, I was hoping to hear predictions about the debate tomorrow night. I think McCain may attempt to continue the negative streak, but will hit a stone wall (perhaps a Stonewall is more appropriate, as many of us went to NYU) because of both Obama's ability to counter gracefully and also the town-hall style of the debate. Also because of the format, I feel it will be easier for Obama to do well; McCain is a zombie, after all. I don't really have anything else to add on this topic, so I will move on.

Question: why is there no debate closer to the election? Is this simply an effort to prevent a post-debate bump from deciding the election? Or, is it a vast, liberal media plot to prevent John McCain's sparkling personality and graceful way with words from winning over the undecideds and the weak liberals? Thoughts?

Does race really matter?

For a lot of this campaign, I've been worried - sort of closet-worried, actually, because I feel weird talking about it - about the Bradley effect - basically the idea that lots of white people are closet-racists and, when they get the polling booth, will flash back to 9/11, see how much the name on their ballot resembles "Osama," and vote McCain. Or just decide they can't handle a black president.

But this NYTimes article - which, fair warning, rambles a bit - tells me the issue of race is both more complex and less worrisome than I thought. It's a good read.

P.S. Now that the Cubs have choked, I'm even more neurotically worried about Obama, despite the polls. I really thought that this was the year for both of them.

The VP's VP

It's January 20, 2009. [John McCain/Barack Obama] is being sworn is as president. Some guy who's spent his whole life talking about how [white people/black people] are ruining this country grabs his [Assault rifle/Sawed-off shotgun] and kills the president. [Sarah Palin/Joe Biden] is sworn in.

Now, it will matter in one case more than in the other but either way it's still relevant: how does a new VP get chosen? I emailed the guy at electoral-vote.com because he knows lots of stuff like this and talks about it all the time.

Chris
If Obama or McCain die in office, how would Biden/Palin then choose their new VP?

The Votemaster
Biden: by consulting with the Senate, cabinet and others
Palin: by asking the other hockey moms on her kids' teams

Fortunately, the Senate has to confirm the appointment.

Talk about your slow-play

In poker, a slow play is when you get a killer hand early on, but wait to use it to your advantage (by betting big) until the later rounds of betting.

I wondered why Charles Keating hadn't been in the news more, or been part of Obama's campaign. Well now we know: he's got a whole website devoted to the association. I'm so glad to see Democrats with a well-run campaign.