How I’m calling it:
As the “virtual incumbent” malaise sets in, I don’t expect an Obama landslide in the national tally. He will probably break the 50% barrier but not by much. Where I expect the landslide will be in the electoral vote, with Obama winning at least half a dozen more states than Kerry did in 2004. If Obama wins less than 50% in the popular vote the only difference is that you won’t hear any more demands from the left to abolish the electoral college…a good thing in itself!
So how do I expect this to work? Well lets look at the states that I expect to go for Obama:
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Ohio in the Northwest. Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, and Iowa in the Midwest. California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii in the Pacific. Colorado and New Mexico in the Rockies.
What about McCain? West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri in the Ohio/Mississippi region. Alabama and South Carolina in the deep south. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah the West and Plains.
So far a very ho hum prediction…here’s where it gets interesting. I think Virginia will go for Obama while North Carolina will go for McCain, which again, isn’t all that surprising. McCain should also hold on to his own state of Arizona, and Palin’s Alaska. But I am calling Florida for Obama, and get this: Georgia, Mississippi (!), and Montana I am putting in the Obama column.
How on earth could this be? I’m calling it the “third party pivot” but its more simple to say that Bob Barr will deliver Georgia to Obama, Chuck Baldwin will be the spoiler in Mississippi, and Ron Paul (!) will do the same in Montana.
And you didn’t even think Ron Paul was running did you!? Well, actually he didn’t want to, at least in Montana…but in accordance with an archaic election law he is running there on the ticket of the Constitution Party…an organization he doesn’t even belong to! I would like him to win the electoral votes as well…but I’m afraid that there will be just enough votes to make the difference between Obama and McCain. North Dakota, with very similar demographics to Montana, will probably go for McCain…simply because Ron Paul is not on the ballot there.
So what’s the point. After all, Obama has a win even without Georgia, Mississipii, and Montana. The point is that when Republicans start to figure out what hit them, they’re going to need some signposts along the way back to sanity and putting a winning coalition back together. Those three blue states surrounded by red, surrounded in turn by blue will be the pointers saying: Let the Ron Paul freedom coalition back into the game…or the GOP is RIP!
A few more nuances. Why do I predict no comparable effect by Nader on Obama’s electoral take? Because the Nader vote is too thin and geographically uniform. In contrast there are regional clusters of Barr, Baldwin, and Paul supporters, i.e. ex-Barr constituents disenfranchised by redistricting in Georgia, the “Bible Belt” running through Mississippi and the Florida panhandle for Baldwin, and the “libertarian belt” (gee, what else could you call it) running along the 49th parallel. Also, I see ethnic and cultural differences among the white population of the southeast with people in the highlands (“hillbillies”) somewhat more likely to vote for McCain, and people in the lowlands (“rednecks” et al) somewhat more likely (!) to vote for Obama. So Virginia goes for Obama because there is a West Virginia, but the Carolinas go for McCain because there is no east and west Carolina, only a North and a South. Or something like that. I suppose one could dispute these ethnological niceties endlessly. However I am more interested in seeing the results develop through tonight and tomorrow…and see if my hypothesis holds up.
The Superiority of Voting For Principle Over Not Voting at All
As I have said in comments on several other blogs, I felt the that the most principled vote for libertarians and paleoconservatives in 2008 was for Chuck Baldwin. Many in these philosophical camps have advocating not exercising the franchise, faced with the choice of a left-socialist and a right-socialist. However not voting, which leaves no trace, doesn’t suffice to register a protest. It will be interesting to see what the total votes of third parties will come out to in the next couple of days. A high vote would express a dissastisfaction with the present two party system. On the other hand a non-vote could be interpreted as either apathy or protest, an ambiguity which of course the supporters of the system would interpret to their advantage.
As much as I respect the persons and positions of the non-vote strategists, this is likely to be a bad year for them. This campaign has generated tremendous energy, particularly among the Obama side, but also among the Republican base after the nomination of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate. Hopes that a mounting historical trend of nonparticipation in the electoral process would delegitimate the political system are likely to be dashed in the immediate future.
About Baldwin I have no regrets. The Constitution party is a half-baked idea who’s time has yet to come, and probably never will as long at it is run by factuous amatures. But Baldwin addressed issues with dignity and using the rhetorical conventions which were once the halmark of the American republic. Even on those issues where I disagree with him he has argued with logical coherence…never pandering to his audience, but rather trying to evoke in them a renewed committment to higher principles. In short, a political strategy which is guaranteed to result in defeat, since it over-, rather than underestimates the intelligence and morality of the electorate. John McCain has persued the opposite strategy…and he is going down in defeat anyway…taking his honor with him.
For that reason I don’t consider my vote for the Baldwin/Castle ticket wasted…quite the opposite!
Patronizing the Opposition, Loosing the Base
Just when you thought the McCain/Palin ticket couldn’t call its plays any worse…they’ve decided to pal around on the comedy circuit. Oh yes, we know what they had in mind. One of the strong points of the ticket is supposed to be the image of “just folks.” I’m not sure that military brahmin McCain can pass muster as a latter day Sad Sack, but the Governor of Alaska as Little Miss Average certainly was the real thing. But by going from the butt of prime time comedy to full time participants they may have finally overplayed the cracker barrel cousin card.
McCain apologized twice on the Letterman program for a previous no show. Is this supposed to demonstrate his humility? Any one who thinks so can also be excused for thinking that the momentary suspension of his political campaign had any effect on America’s economic debacle. As far as Palin’s humiliating appearance on Saturday Night Live is concerned, the less said the better.
Pehaps some people in their respective staffs remembered (giving them more credit for acuity than they probably deserve) the gracious and enjoyable appearace of Rep. Ron Paul on Comedy Central. If so, the analogy was a mistaken one. Comedy Central was sympathetic to the Good Doctor from the outset, and Paul’s genuine (not feigned) humility showed through in its usual light handed way. If there is a lesson to be learned here, and from Palin’s appearance on SNL in particular, it should be phrased as a general political rule: Don’t accept invitations from media where the chief intention is to humiliate your candidate. Of course Palin’s handler’s cant understand the distinction between a journalistic interview where their candidate might disgrace herself unintentionally and intentional degradation. That sort of thing is painful to watch.
And have not doubt about this: the base is sure to be offended too. The crackerbarrel cousin set has a fine nose for the distinction between “just josh’n” and being made a fool of. The SNL skit was of the latter ilk.
There are only two candidates major or minor who have the gravitas which contemporary Americans crave…no matter how much they may claim to love their MTV: Barry Obama and Chuck Baldwin. On various grounds I prefer the latter.
Barr? No gravitas there I’m afraid. Nader? Perhaps humorous in the sense of another SNL spinoff: ”Groundhog Day.”
Is Ron Paul “big in Japan”? You betcha! According to the world opinion polling site whowouldtheworldelect.com Ron Paul is already first choice for US President throughout the world, or at least among those savvy enough to express their opinion on the net. Japan is no exception to the world trend, with the following results for those contending among the two major US parties:
360 votes for Ron Paul, 108 votes for Barack Obama, 56 votes for Dennis Kucinich, 42 votes for Rudy Giuliani, 22 votes for Mike Gravel, 19 votes for Hillary Clinton, 17 votes for John McCain, 8 votes for John Edwards, 8 votes for Fred Thompson, 3 votes for Sam Brownback, 3 votes for Tom Tancredo, 3 votes for Mitt Romeny, 2 votes for Bill Richardson, 1 vote for Mike Huckabee, and 1 vote for Duncan Hunter.
No big surprises here for the seasoned Paulist observer. Hopefully his message of voluntary, as opposed to coerced, internationalism, is getting recognition.
