What a long, strange trip it's been
Nov. 3rd, 2008 03:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penfield"The world is wearied of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians."
- Benjamin Disraeli
Nearly 11 months ago, as the race for the U.S. presidency was moving from the theoretical to the practical, I endorsed Senator Barack Obama in this space.
Over those 11 months, there have been times when Obama disappointed me. For example, I think his protectionist stance on trade -- whether it is simply part of an appeal to midwestern middle-class voters or a key plank of his agenda -- is short-sighted and potentially problematic for the global economy. But my hope is that his economic advisers, many of whom are veterans from the Clinton administration, will take a more pragmatic approach to trade.
It's hard to find much fault with Obama's campaign, since he has been in the lead for much of the way and especially since his focus all along has been a strong "ground game" in the battleground states. But there were instances, in my opinion, when he could have been more aggressive with his opponent. But I suppose this measured, thoughtful reaction to attacks would be a diploamtic asset -- in contrast to McCain's often bellicose posture.
There have been moments when Obama's lack of experience has indeed shone through. And it is an open question in my mind as to whether he really is ready for the job. In the best of circumstances, much will depend on the individuals with whom he surrounds himself. If he chooses advisors and appointees with the same deliberate wisdom that has governed his campaign, he will be well prepared. If, however, he gives in to the temptation to assemble a partisan task force to enact and enforce Pelosian dogma, it could be Bush II, II.
I continue to believe in his judgment, his character and his wisdom. So I continue to believe that he is the best choice for president.
John McCain had a chance to convince me otherwise. Though his approach has been circuitous, he has made compelling arguments on national security and taxes. And I can't help but think that his fealty to the right wing is a campaign facade and the independent-minded John McCain of 2000 is still in there somewhere.* But his selection of Governor Sarah Palin, an anti-intellectual social reactionary, pretty much eliminated any sympathy for the GOP.
*Here's something I wish Obama had brought up in one of his rallies or debates: McCain and Palin seem to revel in branding themselves "mavericks." But is a maverick such a good thing? Aren't mavericks rash, random and uncontrollable? Aren't mavericks dangerous? Let's look at famous mavericks in history: the NBA's Dallas Mavericks have never won a championship and are mostly known for totally imploding just when things look like they're going well. Television's Bret Maverick was a gambler, brawler and con artist in the old west. Perhaps most famously, Tom Cruise's "Maverick" in Top Gun defies military orders, endangers his entire unit, gets his partner killed and has loads of unprotected gay sex. (I assume. I've never actually watched until the end.) We all know mavericks in our lives: mavericks are assholes. Is that the kind of person we want enforcing our laws, commanding our armed forces and safeguarding our missile codes?
In June of this year, just after Obama officially claimed the Democratic nomination, I asserted that McCain would ultimately win the election. Despite the polls and analysis from people much smarter than I am (I'm thinking specifically of Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com), I'm going to stick with my prediction, based on the following mini-predictions:
I'm putting the following states in Obama's column: California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), D.C. (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Jersey (15), Minnesota (10), New Mexico (5), New York (31), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Virginia (13), Washington (11) and Wisconsin (10). That's a total of 266.
And I'm giving the following states to McCain: Alabama (9 electoral votes), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Florida (27), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3). That's a total of 272.
It really all comes down to Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Most indicators have these states tilting toward Obama. But I have lingering doubts about Obama's ability to convince these salty middle-class voters (and Florida's contingents of jews and veterans) that he's their man; McCain and the GOP have been pouring resources in to those three states for the last week and I think they'll get some traction.
But I could be wrong. I hope I am.
- Benjamin Disraeli
Nearly 11 months ago, as the race for the U.S. presidency was moving from the theoretical to the practical, I endorsed Senator Barack Obama in this space.
Over those 11 months, there have been times when Obama disappointed me. For example, I think his protectionist stance on trade -- whether it is simply part of an appeal to midwestern middle-class voters or a key plank of his agenda -- is short-sighted and potentially problematic for the global economy. But my hope is that his economic advisers, many of whom are veterans from the Clinton administration, will take a more pragmatic approach to trade.
It's hard to find much fault with Obama's campaign, since he has been in the lead for much of the way and especially since his focus all along has been a strong "ground game" in the battleground states. But there were instances, in my opinion, when he could have been more aggressive with his opponent. But I suppose this measured, thoughtful reaction to attacks would be a diploamtic asset -- in contrast to McCain's often bellicose posture.
There have been moments when Obama's lack of experience has indeed shone through. And it is an open question in my mind as to whether he really is ready for the job. In the best of circumstances, much will depend on the individuals with whom he surrounds himself. If he chooses advisors and appointees with the same deliberate wisdom that has governed his campaign, he will be well prepared. If, however, he gives in to the temptation to assemble a partisan task force to enact and enforce Pelosian dogma, it could be Bush II, II.
I continue to believe in his judgment, his character and his wisdom. So I continue to believe that he is the best choice for president.
John McCain had a chance to convince me otherwise. Though his approach has been circuitous, he has made compelling arguments on national security and taxes. And I can't help but think that his fealty to the right wing is a campaign facade and the independent-minded John McCain of 2000 is still in there somewhere.* But his selection of Governor Sarah Palin, an anti-intellectual social reactionary, pretty much eliminated any sympathy for the GOP.
*Here's something I wish Obama had brought up in one of his rallies or debates: McCain and Palin seem to revel in branding themselves "mavericks." But is a maverick such a good thing? Aren't mavericks rash, random and uncontrollable? Aren't mavericks dangerous? Let's look at famous mavericks in history: the NBA's Dallas Mavericks have never won a championship and are mostly known for totally imploding just when things look like they're going well. Television's Bret Maverick was a gambler, brawler and con artist in the old west. Perhaps most famously, Tom Cruise's "Maverick" in Top Gun defies military orders, endangers his entire unit, gets his partner killed and has loads of unprotected gay sex. (I assume. I've never actually watched until the end.) We all know mavericks in our lives: mavericks are assholes. Is that the kind of person we want enforcing our laws, commanding our armed forces and safeguarding our missile codes?
In June of this year, just after Obama officially claimed the Democratic nomination, I asserted that McCain would ultimately win the election. Despite the polls and analysis from people much smarter than I am (I'm thinking specifically of Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com), I'm going to stick with my prediction, based on the following mini-predictions:
I'm putting the following states in Obama's column: California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), D.C. (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Jersey (15), Minnesota (10), New Mexico (5), New York (31), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Virginia (13), Washington (11) and Wisconsin (10). That's a total of 266.
And I'm giving the following states to McCain: Alabama (9 electoral votes), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Florida (27), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3). That's a total of 272.
It really all comes down to Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Most indicators have these states tilting toward Obama. But I have lingering doubts about Obama's ability to convince these salty middle-class voters (and Florida's contingents of jews and veterans) that he's their man; McCain and the GOP have been pouring resources in to those three states for the last week and I think they'll get some traction.
But I could be wrong. I hope I am.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Some thoughts
Date: 2008-11-06 06:46 pm (UTC)http://www.pollster.com/blogs/actual_vote_margin_by_preelect.php