EFFin' Unsound

- posted by demo kid

Crap… and I was hoping for a relaxing weekend! Instead, my head is about to explode from all the stupidity from the right-wing. You’d think that they’d realize that God hates them by now.

For example, I really enjoyed these bits from FW Conservative:

Initial Reactions to Sarah Palin

First, apparently her name is pronounced PAY-lin.

We would have known… if we, you know, had ever heard of her before.

Second, she has five kids. My wife gets strange looks and comments from people sometimes because we have five kids. Frankly, I don’t understand those people who don’t have any kids or who only have a few. But I don’t make faces at them or pretend to be surprised and say things like, “You only have two?” or “I can’t believe you’ve been married for ten years and haven’t had any children yet!”

And she has two breasts and a vagina! Which is apparently all the Republicans feel is necessary for her to get the women’s vote. Too bad it’s not working.

Third, I’m not certain of this, but apparently her husband is a democrat. If that’s true, then she’s done more to reach across the aisle and unify the country than Barack Obama could ever hope to.

I don’t know… I doubt that Obama will give Mitch McConnell a handjob for passing important legislation, but I think that Obama might be able to find some other way of “unifying the country”.

If you know what I mean.

Wink, wink.

Fifth, her son’s going to the battlefield this September, and she couldn’t be more proud of his decision to join the armed forces and fight as a volunteer soldier in the US Army. How many children does Barack Obama have in Iraq, or Afghanistan? What about Biden?

What? No, seriously. What?

If you heard a sound, that was my head exploding, either from the idea that Mr. Gardner wants to send a 10-year-old into combat… or the fact that Beau Biden, the son of Joe Biden and a captain with the Army National Guard, will be deployed in Iraq in October. From the Washington Post:

Even difficult news for the Delaware Democrat personally has added a compelling twist to his case. On Oct. 3, Biden’s son, Joseph Robinette “Beau” Biden III, will be deployed to Iraq.

“I don’t want him going,” Biden told an Iowa state fair crowd a year ago, when, as a presidential candidate himself, he learned that his son’s unit would be deployed at some point in 2008. “But I don’t want my grandsons or granddaughters going back in 15 years. So how we leave makes a big difference.”

Great how selective memory can justify anything, eh? Gotta love how Republicans think. Or rather, don’t.

Sixth, she’s pro-life, and she walks the talk. This is an issue that isn’t going away, and it is an issue that Obama is going to lose the election over. See, while Barack Obama was working to pass a bill in Illinois that would allow doctors to kill children born alive, Sarah Palin was working to defend the life of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

I love how conservatives love to perpetuate this cowardly “Obama kills babies” issue. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a great way of railroading an agenda that had nothing to do with “infants”. From Dana Goldstein:

The antis want to redefine these fetuses as “born alive” and require that doctors provide “resuscitation.” As a state senator, Obama saw BAIPA for what it was: an ideologically-motivated ploy to vilify women and doctors who choose abortion. On the state Senate floor on April 4, 2002, he explained, “This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if there are children being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”

Of course, why stop at this? Why not just say that Obama eats babies, Mr. Gardner? You could probably get some religious whackjobs to believe it.

Seventh, the ways that the democrats are trying to attack her are pathetic and shallow. I’ve seen these types of attacks, and none of them are working.

We’ve had our share of pathetic and shallow attacks clogging conservative blogs for months. If the right-wing can stoke the outright lie about Obama’s faith, Palin should be able to withstand some attacks on her as well. It’s part of the process.

On the other hand, I didn’t quite see that much restraint from the Republicans when it came to calling Obama a Muslim sleeper. At least liberals have the good sense to condemn their own when they go off on some conspiratorial tangent. (As noted in that story… it’s a trap!)

She’s really corrupt because her father’s brother’s sister’s uncle’s friend’s daughter’s husband was a state trooper and was involved in an investigation of her mother’s friend’s daughter’s son’s uncle’s involvement in… well, I’m still trying to sort this one out, but it’s apparent it’s pathetically weak.

Pfft. Misuse of power? Why would any Republican be interested in investigating that kind of stuff?

She believes we shouldn’t teach evolution in the classroom but instead we should teach creationism. This is patently absurd, and it is taking one off-the-cuff comment way out of context. She later gave a prepared statement that reflected her true position on it, but apparently those who are making this attack don’t know how to read that one.

Her quote from that debate, in response to teaching about creationism:

Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information….Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

“Teaching the debate” is a standard line of attack from Creationism advocates. Her Democratic challenger stated in that same debate:

The answer is no. The reason why is we don’t want politics in our science. We actually want more science in our politics. We don’t want to just teach all things because it may be politically correct. We want to teach the best science there is, and there is overwhelming evidence, there’s almost incontrovertible evidence that evolution is the science that, that we know. And that’s what we should always teach, to never compromise on the principles just because it’s politically popular.

The last line of that seems appropriate. Heck, the fact that Palin stated her support for creationism in the debate, and then backed down, was even worse. It was blatant pandering to her religious base, pure and simple.

She’s inexperienced. I’m sorry, but 2 years of governor and several years as mayor is more experience running something than a lifetime as senator. Senators debate and form consensus, governors govern and make things happen. The American voters have consistently chosen executives over senators because of this. Honestly, among the four on the presidential tickets, she’s the most qualified to actually lead the free world.

I think I would enjoy watching a staredown between Putin and Palin, on some dark level. Seriously.

First of all, this hasn’t been the first position that Palin has been inexperienced to serve in:

During her first run for mayor, critics complained that Palin, at 32, was too young and inexperienced. The Wasilla mayor was a full-time, $68,000-a-year job. They objected to a quiet campaign by some Palin supporters raising emotional issues like abortion and gun control, which had no apparent tie to municipal politics.

And it’s consistent even now. Here’s Mike Doogan, writing in the Anchorage Daily News:

Sure, I suppose that many Alaskans are feeling a surge of pride that someone from our state has gotten a spot on the big stage. And most Alaskans like Palin. I know I do.

But let’s be honest here. Her resume is as thin as the meat in a vending machine sandwich. I’m thinking being mayor of Wasilla doesn’t qualify her. And she’s less than two years into her first term as governor. Except for her high-profile gas pipeline legislation — which I like a lot — she doesn’t have much to show. Oil taxes? Most of that work was done by the legislature. Ethics? Ditto. And her role in killing the much-touted Bridge to Nowhere? Talk about coming in after the battle is over and bayoneting the wounded.

And there’s a growing sense that the government isn’t running all that well, that all that’s keeping the wheels from coming off is that 25,000 state employees show up for work every day.

The long and short of it is this: We’re not sure she’s a competent governor of Alaska. And yet McCain, who is no spring chicken, has decided she’s the best choice to replace him as president if he should win and then fall afoul of the Grim Reaper.

Admittedly, Doogan is a Democrat, but there are Alaskan Republicans willing to criticize Palin as well.

The American’s people reception of Palin has been positive, unlike Biden’s reception, and that’s apparent in the polling.

What polling are you looking at? These figures don’t bode well for McCain’s choice.

What is even more telling is that the part of the Republican Party that John McCain turns off—people like me whose primary concerns are the conservative platform—are once again invigorated over having a true fiscal, defense, and social conservative like her on the ticket. John McCain may have been able to win without our support, but he is definitely going to win with it.

Defense! Yes! She’s… umm… strong on defense by her willingness to stand tough against… umm… polar bears? By denying them protection as threatened species? I hate to break it to Mr. Gardner, but Alaskan defense policy is probably not something to base a campaign on.

Seriously, why would anyone want her even close to the Oval Office for four years? Go home, Mr. Gardner. You’ve lost.

But all of this is par for the course, I guess. Even from the start of her career, there were plenty of religious nuts willing to go to bat for Palin, and conveniently ignore the facts (or lie, depending on your perspective) while doing it:

Palin doesn’t brandish her religion on the campaign trail, but that doesn’t prevent others from doing so. After she was first elected mayor, her predecessor, John Stein, objected that a Valley cable TV program had hailed her as Wasilla’s first “Christian mayor.” In a column for the local newspaper, he named eight previous mayors and added that he, too, was a Christian, despite a name that led some voters to suspect “I must be a non-Christian, have non-Christian blood or at least have sympathized with a non-Christian sometime in my career.”

- posted by demo kid

(I can’t help but link to this and this with a title like that.)

Anyway, I have a much longer post on deck about the absurdities of FW Conservative’s paean for creationism. It’s really not anything new, but since the Republican vice-presidential nominee thinks that it’s important to give creationism any kind of focus over… well… actually teaching kids science, it does seem to gain a little bit of importance.

What is interesting to me right now about this VP pick is the sheer number of comments on both the left- and right-wing political websites locally. Hundreds of comments per thread of trash-talking. It’s amazing (and I’m participating of course), but it’s just a little bit depressing.

The reason why I’m depressed? Because the Republicans have seen fit to shoot their wad over a blatant pander, and many Democrats in the blogosphere have taken the bait. Sarah Palin is not a serious candidate, just like Geraldine Ferraro was not a serious candidate a generation ago. Palin is a walking trap for Barack Obama, and especially Joe Biden. That is it. She is there for the gaffes that she can elicit from them, and after the fact she will be pushed off into a corner office. This is no victory for feminism, or for women, to have a weak candidate in that position.

I’ll agree that sometimes, you need to roll a hard six. This is a last ditch for the McCain campaign to get some momentum, and who knows? It might just pay off for them. (Personally, it seems like this ratfucking has been well-planned for weeks, but that’s beside the point now.) But this is not the right team to run a country, and the propaganda machine on the right is working overtime to convince the American public otherwise.

Obama’s been the shrewdest campaigner in decades, and I don’t think that this trap is a game-ender, merely a game-changer. I’m just hoping that they leverage Clinton to shred Palin to bits sooner rather than later, so that they can truly land a finishing blow to end the McCain campaign.

The inmates of the asylum are practically tickled over the Palin announcement.

I don’t want to discount the fact that this puts a new spin on the election, and heck, after a week of a Democrat love-in, I’m willing to let them have their moment. This does give the Republicans a little bit of tempo, tempo that can really only be countered with some hardcore Clinton involvement. (I would take a guess that Clinton could pick from any job she wants in an Obama administration this afternoon…)

But it strikes me as rank hypocrisy that the concerns that the right-wingnuts were crowing about with Obama are suddenly ignored with Palin. Yes, I’ll agree that Obama’s experience is an issue, but for me, taking the country in a different direction should involve some new blood. I was not willing to get wholeheartedly behind Gore or Kerry, but I think that this guy is the real deal. To listen to argument after argument about Obama’s lack of qualifications from the right, though, and then to hear about how less than a term in office as governor of Alaska somehow makes her the second coming and perfect for the job is laughable. To say that identity politics were at the heart of the Obama campaign, and then to nominate someone specifically as PUMA bait… well… that’s no different. I’m under no illusions that the Democratic Party is not subject to hypocrisy from time to time, I don’t doubt that the Democrats dwell on hype and image and the like, but I’m amazed that some deluded souls can actually criticize Democrats and believe that the Republicans are not subject to these same problems.

But speaking more broadly, though, this actually does call into question McCain’s judgment to me. The vice-presidential candidates mean different things for the different tickets this year. For Obama, his decision was akin to Bush’s in 2000… he needed to supplement those areas in which he was weakest while providing that core appeal to the electorate. I honestly believe that the Obama-Biden team will work well. But for McCain, though, this wasn’t supposed to be a Dan Quayle either. In fact, this was about choosing someone who would have a greater-than-normal chance of succeeding him during his term. (72 years old, and a cancer survivor… you do the actuarial calculations.) In effect, his vice-president does need to be able to succeed him from day one, and Palin’s resume does not inspire confidence in me in the slightest. Palin really shouldn’t inspire confidence in anyone in the slightest.

(In fact, Palin was probably picked solely to try to get a few good gaffes out of Joe Biden.)

I will hand it to the Republicans, though… her nomination fit very, very neatly into their narratives, and Democrats are not the only ones that can stage a show. At this point, it will be a knife fight until the very end. Unless either or both of them really screw up during the Republican convention, this will be a long election season.

- posted by demo kid

Please excuse me for not posting too much lately! Between work and watching convention coverage, I haven’t had as much time to post. But seriously… after Obama’s speech tonight, I am psyched. The Republicans have a pretty high bar to reach now, and they’re not on great footing going into their convention. And unfortunately for them, God didn’t respond to the prayers of conservatives to rain out the Democrats because He, in fact, hates Republicans.

Not only that… but apparently Rossi not only dropped the Republican Party for the “GOP Party”, but he’s also running commercials to latch onto Obama’s coattails. Brilliant. Wonderful statement about the loyalty the state GOP party feels for the national Republican party.

So, back to the Presidential race. What does our favorite political science professor have to say about the state of things?

As we enter the last 70 day sprint to November 4th, there is a new poll out every day. Earlier this week, most of them showed Sen. Obama with a slight lead over Sen. McCain. After having picked his running mate and had two days of convention material, Obama’s lead has actully turned into a deficit. In all my years as a political scientist, I have never seen that happen. Regardless, it is a close race. At this point, anything can happen. And by anything, I mean anything—even a tie.

Of course! I mean, Dukakis managed to leverage his 17 point lead to victory in 1988. And who can forget John Kerry carrying his seven point lead into the general election?

Face it… the polls now have little to do with the final results. Otherwise, we would have called the race for Obama a few weeks ago. The races now are all about tempo, and while neither candidate is able to maintain the tempo during the entire campaign season, the Obama campaign has been doing a masterful job of controlling the tempo when it has really counted.

I will be the first one to admit that there are a few wildcards left in this election season. McCain’s VP pick tomorrow might cause a stir, but unless he picks Jindal it’s going to be largely anticlimactic. (I, for one, would like to see Biden fight the Romney-bot.) The Republican National Convention is looking beset on all sides, but there’s the possibility of rabbits being pulled out of hats. (Who knows? They might exhume Reagan on stage or something.) And the debates are the really big unknown… probably dependent on who can get the other to make a gaffe first. (My bet is on McCain.)

But make no mistake about it… in this election, the Republicans are on the run, even despite some of the pathetic, despicable examples of ratfucking.

We don’t elect presidents by popular vote in the United States. We elect them with our Electoral College. In all, there are 538 “electors” that will pick our next president. [In the interests of full disclosure, yours truly is one of 22 people that may be an elector for the state of Washington.]. Because there are 538 electors, it is possible to have a 269 to 269 tie in the Electoral College. This has never happened before. It might this year.

I truly doubt that you are going to be an elector, Professor Manweller. Sorry to dash your hopes.

According to the Realclearpolitics compilation of state polls, Obama clearly leads in states totaling 238 electoral votes. McCain clearly leads in states totally 163 electoral votes. But, most of the remaining “toss up states” are traditionally Republican states (Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, Nevada). If McCain wins his 163 votes plus the states just mentioned, he will have 245 electoral votes—a seven vote difference.

Of course, the polling doesn’t quite suggest that this is the case. The poll results on my own pet electoral projections website (sorry, Darryl) suggest that Obama is extremely competitive, especially in Nevada and Virginia. If wishes were horses McCain may get ponies here, but he’s going to need to work much, much harder than he has been lately. (Especially after the Democratic Convention.)

Now lets give Obama the traditionally Democratic state of Michigan (17 votes), and the two trending Democratic states of Colorado (9 votes) and New Mexico (5 votes). That gives Obama the magic 269 votes. McCain would then have to win Ohio (20 votes) and New Hampshire (4 votes) to give himself 269.

Again, “have to win” does not equal “certainly will win”. Obama is ahead in New Hampshire, McCain in Ohio, so assuming that they’ll both fall to Republicans is wishful thinking of Kerry-like proportions.

This is not unrealistic given that Ohio went for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and New Hampshire could easily go back to its traditional Republican column after a brief spat of insanity in 2004.

And here we go… traditional liberal academic bias!

What happens then?

That’s kinda like asking what happens when you flip a coin and it lands on the edge.

Having given us a system that could result in a tie, our Framers also set up a tie breaking system. According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives gets to pick the next president. The catch however is that each state gets one vote. The Idaho delegation gets one vote and the New York delegation gets one vote. As a past referee, I am troubled by the obvious unfairness of this system. As a past resident of Idaho, I can live with it. Of course, given there are 50 states (D.C. gets 3 electoral votes but does not get to play in the tie breaker because they are not a “state’), we could have a tie there as well. In that case, they would keep voting until a president is selected.

If you’re looking at “unfairness”, the Electoral College system and the representation of states in the Senate aren’t really “fair”. The fact that the District of Columbia experiences “taxation without representation” isn’t really “fair”. The fact that the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election isn’t “fair”. A rule that hasn’t been applied for 208 years is just an anomaly in comparison. A deadlock would be disastrous, yes, and I think that a cool tiebreaker would be great to add to the Constitution, but there are bigger fish to fry with regards to unfairness in elections in this country.

So, who would win if the race got tossed to the House? We can’t know for sure because the current House does not get to pick.

Well, if you are looking at House and Senate, it’s a little bit of a no brainer that the Democrats lead in state delegations, and are looking to expand that lead. I don’t think that this is going to be a question… but keep on clinging onto hope. It’s not just for Democrats.

The new House elected Nov 4th, 2008 gets to pick. However, we could follow the statistics that 99% of all House members are reelected and use the current breakdowns to guess.

And I’m assuming that the five members that aren’t reelected are Republicans, right?

In that case there are currently 28 states that have a majority of Democrats holding House seats, 20 states with a majority of Republicans and two states with an even delegation. So, assuming a party line vote for president and even if McCain picks up the two tied states, Obama becomes the next president if the Electoral College ends in a tie.

A very long, anticlimactic statement, eh? I mean, that much buildup… just to hear that Republicans will lose.

If you’re McCain, that means you have to find one more state to slide into your column. The most likely candidates are New Mexico and Colorado, both of which are within the margin of error.

They’ll be battleground states, that’s for sure. But I think that after the Democratic National Convention, even those battles are going to be uphill ones for McCain.

What is interesting about this narrative (and the Rossi ad buy), though, is that Republicans are really starting to lose control of the message at the national level. Constructing crazy scenarios is a natural part of political wishful thinking of course… I was hoping, for example, that Obama would take Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Missouri, and that’s probably not quite going to happen in reality. But even with a starkly realistic view of things, McCain is still in big trouble. Heck, I never thought I’d see the day when a rousing defense of Hillary Clinton would be an integral part of Republican strategy… that alone should be a sign.

One thing is clear, though. Constructing a scenario where your party just barely squeaks out a win is a sign that straws are being grasped.

First of all, as a side note, I’m really interested in picking up Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State when it comes out in a few weeks. People that try to divine voting patterns in this country according to “arugula-eating latte sippers” versus “beer-drinking good ol’ boys” are, quite simply, full of shit. Actual voting patterns do not follow many of the stereotypes that we think, and it looks like this is the first methodologically sound book to examine this. I’ll definitely share some insights afterwards.

Anyway…

As much as I might fundamentally disagree with Mr. Six-String Samurai and the other contributors at (un)Sound Politics, I’ll give them some respect for knowing their stuff. (Different levels of respect, of course. I’ll still give Don Ward no quarter.) While they may dwell on Republican talking points, actively fearmonger, and often even drag the art of mudslinging further down, local conservatives have their champions, and we liberals have ours. I think ours are funnier, but still.

(Yes, it’s another lovefest.)

But if real crackpots are what you want, it is a really trip to look at their “public blog”. Not something that I found right away, but let me tell you, when the wingnuts come out, they really come out. Particularly choice posts from this month:

• A suggestion that all veterans should get in-state tuition. Great if the GI Bill and signing bonuses weren’t already in play, and if the WSRP wasn’t already hammering away about the budget. And heck, didn’t some political party make hay out of the fact that this would reduce retention?
• An accusatory post bemoaning the lack of hydrogen refueling stations in Washington as a failure of the state Democratic administration. Never mind, of course, that such infrastructure would require significant government investment for it to be viable for the free market, or that California’s “Hydrogen Highway” has not quite been a success given the limited funding.
• A post that argues, in part, that native tribes should not use their sovereign powers to recognize gay marriage because it might annoy the federal government, which would lead to a revocation of tribal sovereignty. Out of all of the possible threats to sovereignty, I doubt that this should even show up on the radar.
• A fellow that wants to move back to a rust belt city to avoid high housing prices and downtown parking fees in Seattle. With Cleveland and Pittsburgh only “an hour and a half away”, I find it hard that there wouldn’t be a stampede.
• Less said about this unfunny piece of crap, the better. I think that any argument that Republicans are funny can be dashed with this.
• And a wonderfully incoherent post that connects “corrosive liberalism” in the classroom with damaging relationships between parents and children. The money quote, of course, is: “Like abortion has physically killed an entire generation, alienation indoctrination has killed the transmission of civilization’s survival archetypes to most of those who survived.”

Fish in a barrel. Another reason why I prefer our crazies to their crazies.