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.
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.”
“Friends of Ron Paul” has been away from the keyboard for a while engaged in a variety time consuming tasks at the day job, including being a full-time administrator of Confucian scholarly examinations. But we have kept our eyes on the early primaries, and the prospects of a Ron Paul Presidency.
In all candor, we are not pleased. 10, 6, 4, 3… Is that the Fibbonaci series in reverse? No, it’s the percentage of the Ron Paul vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses of the Midwest, East, and South. Well, there was that 15% in Nevada…but let’s face it, that’s the place where even the most conservative people turn into high-rollers. He should have done better. See my post on “The New Hamsters” regarding various hytheses as to why the Ron Paul revolution hasn’t spread further from its determined and heroic hard core.
So where to we go from here? Well, there are still a few credible Paulistas who can smell the fresh cut grass of the White House lawn, I wish them well…and I want some of whatever it is they are smoking! The plausibility of this kind of scenario hinges on the prospect of all the other candidates droping out until only Paul and the front-runner are left standing, with Paul finally coming into his rightful share of media publicity. Even a three person race is no good, since it only takes two to tango and we all know what happened to Edwards. But would even a two person race before the Republican national convention generate publicity for the good doctor. Knowing the mainstream media as we do, isn’t it far more likely that they would simply annoint the front-runner and set up more encounters between him and the Democrats, skipping any intra-Republican politicking?
So what about the third party gambit. First of all, Dr. No has said “no” to that one from the start and his wishes should be honnored. But of course, if it is down to two neo-conservative/neo-liberal big-spending, executive expanding, warmongers, no self-respecting Paulist could vote for either party…so the third party gambit is an option to be held in reserve.
Fortunately there is another posibility which is quite plausable. This is the prospect of a hung convention more or less evenly ballanced between a McCain and a Romney block. In this case a third force could play the role of a kingmaker. Unfortunately Huckabee would like to play that role, shutting out Paul again. It all depends on how the mathematics sum up after Super Tuesday. If Huckabee’s votes when factored in to those of the weaker candidate (of course he gains less clout supporting the stronger candidate) still fall short of the winning number by a margin less than the strength of the Paul block, then Paul becomes the kingmaker. This doesn’t mean that Paul himself would become president…it just means that he would have an indefinate amount of time to educate the Republicans holed up in the Twin Cities as to how they could win a national election using honest and ethical means. It could actually result in an attractive Republican candidate…say Hagel of Nebraska, or Olympia Snow of Maine…the latter being the perfect antidote to Hillary!
But all of this is speculation, if not quite “idle” speculation. Now its crunch time for Paulists campaigning in the remaining states. Afterwards we’ll have to see how the numbers turned out on Super Tuesday. Until then anyone interested in mathematical games would do better with the Fibbonaci series.
