Four years ago, on Election Night, I was in a hotel in Columbus, Ohio amid a throng of celebrating Republicans. As I had to keep a professional veneer up through the filming of my documentary, I wouldn’t shed actual tears until the next day, driving to the airport with my wife, listening to Kerry’s concession speech on the car radio, holding hands somberly.

We were disgusted and afraid. Disgusted with the outcome and afraid of what more calamities another four years of hard right-wing rule would bring to this nation. From a political perspective, the four years intervening the elections was a nearly endless span of time, finally culiminating last night in a flourish and celebration I have not seen before in my entire lifetime.

Four years passed and again, on Election Night, I was holding back tears. This time my tears were of joy and sadness. Joy that we as a nation could come this far. Not only that in just four years the people decided to elect a man that will hopefully reverse the negativity, incompetence, and harm that this corrupt and criminal adminstration has wrought upon its citizens and the world, but also that we have come this far, since the dawn of this nation, born intertwined to the horrible scourge of slavery and the hatred that this most vile of institutions has caused, to finally elect a black man, a truly African-American man, to the highest office in the land. Now is the time for African American men and African men all over the world to look at themselves and realize that all is possible: healing, success, and prosperity. And to the people on the planet who viewed America with suspicion, resentment, or hostility, know this: ours is nation of new beginnings, of hope, of possibility, of consciousness.

The sadness I felt in my tears were feelings of regret that so many who worked so hard never had the opportunity to witness what I witnessed in their lifetimes, particularly Obama’s mother and grandmother, but certainly including the millions who lived, suffered, and died under slavery, apartheid, and bigotry, who never saw a glimmer of hope for their calamity.

Candidate Obama was often criticized over the last two years for being more style than substance, for waging words instead of action, and for being underqualified and inexperienced. As a Literature and Philosophy major, I have always argued that words mean things. Words create worlds. In many ways, words are all we have when it comes to transferring enthusiasm, inspiring legions, and stimulating imagination. Without words, Lincoln wouldn’t be the Great Emancipator or Reagan the Great Communicator. Without words, King wouldn’t have been able to describe his dream. Without words, the Great Teachers like Jesus would have faded into the fabric of the past like “tears in rain,” forever unknown, forgotten, and meaningless in our current days.

Obama’s mastery of the language will inspire hope, move people, and create change through the promise of prosperity and greatness. He need only assemble a brilliant team of accomplished states-men and women, economists, and the most creative and industrious thinkers of our times. His words will provide the passion, his ideas the energy, his vision the goal. Words are everything.

Beyond the policies that Obama and his adminstration will put into place over the next four years, which we all hope will live up to the expectations and excitement generated by his historic campaign, what the election of Barack Hussein Obama tells us is that once and for all, truly anything is possible. Anything.

What his election tells us is that the mantra of hope, of positivity, of affirmation, of attraction, of inclusion, of union, of simply “yes,” is a mantra that we can we take to the bank, literally and figuratively, to heal ourselves, our pocketbooks, our relationships, and our world.

Yes, he will enact policies that will be progressive in nature, a return to the promises of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy, but from an energetic perspective, his election is just as much an affirmation on a spiritual and personal level as it is a forum for a positive progressive political agenda.

That a man born to a Kenyan and a white woman, with Hussein as his middle name, who was virtually unknown outside of Illinois just four years ago, could not only pull himself up by his bootstraps, a result of sheer willpower, confidence, and positive thinking, in order to achieve an Ivy League education and begin a promising political career that should make any free-market conservative proud, but also ascend to the Presidency so quickly, instructs us that the only thing that should guide our individual actions on a daily basis are our dreams, aspirations, and hopes.

If Barack Obama could achieve what he did in just four years, what then is impossible? Can this economy turn around quicker than it crashed apart? Can the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be ended with dignity, strategy, and poise? Can our healthcare system finally be reformed? I answer yes to all of this, guided by the example of President-Elect Obama.

But more important than political policies existing in the external world, are the promises of change on a more intimate level, in the internal world of each of us that his success no doubt portends. Can I heal my personal finances? Get that job I desire? Heal my relationships? Achieve lasting prosperity, health, consciousness, or whatever else I desire? Yes, yes, yes.

The lasting refrain from President-Elect Obama’s campaign is of course the slogan, “Yes We Can.” I can recall no other mere campaign slogan that is as applicable to any person’s personal life experience than this one. In the case of adversity, challenge, fear, obstacles, pain, hurt, and even death, we can persist, we can succeed, we can overcome.

Obama’s win is as much about us as it is about this country or him as a man or President. The lesson in his victory is that all things are possible, if only we apply unyielding confidence, affirmation, and positivity. There will be time to be disappointed later, so why project failure, loss, discomfort, or disease? If we expect the best, the best will certainly come, in time. And it is always darkest before the light of day. In this way, we had to experience the shame and horror of the Bush Presidency. We had to experience darkness so we could appreciate the light.

Thank you, Mr. Obama, for showing us the way towards creating a greater, more expansive life experience, if only we choose to accept it. All is available. All is flowing to us. All that is required is a resounding, “YES!”

Oh, and thank you, Pittsburgh Steelers.

Thought for the Day 11/5/08: You Are Who You Are Looking For

I, Lord, went wandering like a strayed sheep, seeking Thee with anxious reasoning without, whilst Thou was within me. I went round the streets and squares of the city seeking thee; and I found thee not, because in vain I sought without for him who was within myself.” – St. Augustine

Sphere: Related Content

I wish I had written this myself, but this is from a friend of mine, Isabel Barney, who has her own op-ed page on PNN right here. So without futher ado…

THE TOP 10 REASONS WHY OBAMA WON’T WIN

1. He’s black. I wouldn’t be writing this if he were white.
2. He doesn’t have an underage pregnant daughter. Obama’s narrative would improve if his underage pregnant daughter hoped to marry the white kid whose bio reads: “I’m a f**kin’ redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some sh*t and just f**kin’ chillin’ I guess. Ya f*ck with me I’ll kick ass. I don’t want kids.” — Levi Johnston’s MySpace page.
3. He’s too smart. Rather than graduating at the top of his class from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School and practicing civil rights law, Obama should’ve floundered through four different colleges in six years, all along wondering what to do with his life.
4. He’s too compassionate. Giving up a lucrative law career to become a community organizer, like our fore fathers, the suffragists, or those idiots that ended child labor makes him look like a freaking socialist.
5. He’s too driven. Instead of going to Washington, Obama should’ve listened to his aunt and run for city council in some small, remote part of the world like Alaska, Hawaii or Guam.
6. He’s not a NRA member. Instead of advocating for safer streets in the USA and help create legislation to control and dismantle conventional weapons in the old USSR, he should’ve joined the NRA and push for Americans to carry concealed weapons, all while advocating for every American household to own the latest submachine guns and stinger aircraft missiles to fight the Russians.
7. He’s a watchdog. Instead of promoting greater public accountability in the use of federal funds, he should’ve pushed for more deregulation. And while at it, he should allow Wall Street and corporate America to run free of any government interference.
8. He’s on the wrong side of issues. Rather than worrying about lobbying abuses, electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism and ending the war in Iraq, he should surround himself with lobbyists, deny that climate change exists, and guesstimate that we would be in Iraq for one hundred years. Oh, and instead of advocating for energy independence and promoting universal health care, he should’ve joined the “drill baby drill” battle cry and let uninsured Americans fend for themselves.
9. He’s can’t channel God. He doesn’t stand in front of his church’s congregation and, mixing politics and God in the same sentence, cry out that God wants the Iraq war to continue and God wants us to drill for oil.
10. He wants change. If Obama thinks America’s so great, why does he want to change it?

Sphere: Related Content

The old adage that VP candidates should do less harm than any real good seems to be in jeopardy at this point in the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Sarah Palin’s addition to the ticket has not only electrified the Republican base, but has also propelled her running mate ahead of Barack Obama in national polls. While previously, national polls putting Obama ahead of Palin’s running mate were discounted by the Palin Running Mate Campaign, now these polls suddenly seem to matter and the campaign is beginning to step with a little swagger towards the finish line, which is now just under 50 days away.

Too bad for the Palin Running Mate Campaign that the United States electoral system is not a national race, but instead, a collection of “winner take all” simultaneous state elections, in which districts and precincts matter more than national averages. Because of this, Obama still maintains the advantage, even if the election were to be held today, based on recent state polls.

The Monkey Wrong In Landslide Victory Prediction?

Several months ago I wrote a post in which I used primary results as a means to predict the national election in November. With the phenomenal voter turnout on the Democratic side, I predicted that not only would Barack Obama be elected the 44th President of the United States, but also that he would win the Presidency in an Electoral-map shifting landslide.

Of course my Monkey’s Eye View never predicted that Sarah Palin’s current Running Mate would ultimately choose her, due to her glaring lack of experience. Instead, I thought the Palin Running Mate campaign would make a big hubbub of considering a woman Governor for VP, but would ultimately go with someone with a tad more gravitas, like Condoleeza Rice, who would also have both the African American thing and the woman thing covered in one fail swoop.

What we failed to realize back in February was just how energized the Palin Running Mate campaign would be at this point. The incredible enthusiasm behind Sarah Palin’s selection has certainly shifted the balance of the race and significantly altered the conversation, especially with her ability to attract the 30% of the electorate who still thinks George Bush is handling his instructions from heaven well and the Christian Fundamentalists who seemed to be on the verge of sitting this one out, but ultimately I still believe Obama will win the day and here’s how:

A State By State Look at 2008

Oddly enough, with the new electoral map currently being rewritten by the Obama campaign, it is actually possible for him to win the Presidency without either Ohio or Florida. The following is a state by state breakdown, using the latest polling data (most of these polls concluded on Sept. 10th).

Obama Will Win:

Illinois: 21 votes

Connecticut: 7 votes

New York: 31 votes

California: 55 votes

Maine: 4 votes

Massachusetts: 12 votes

Hawaii: 4 votes

Vermont: 3 votes

Delaware: 3 votes

Rhode Island: 4 votes

Washington, DC: 3 votes

Maryland: 10 votes

Total: 157 votes locked up

Obama Will Likely Win:

Iowa: 7 votes (Obama’s polling ahead by 9 points)

Oregon: 7 votes (7 point lead)

Minnesota: 10 votes (7 point lead)

New Jersey: 15 votes (6 point lead)

Wisconsin: 10 votes (5 point lead)

Washington: 11 votes (5 point lead)

New Hampshire: 4 votes (3 point lead)

New Mexico: 5 votes (2 point lead)

Pennsylvania: 21 votes (2 point lead)

Michigan: 17 votes (2 point lead)

Colorado: 9 votes (2 point lead)

Nevada: 5 votes (1 point behind)

Total: 278 Electoral Vote

Palin’s Running Mate Will Win:

Arizona: 10 votes

Alabama: 9 votes

Tennessee: 11 votes

Arkansas: 6 votes

Louisiana: 9 votes

Kentucky: 8 votes

Kansas: 6 votes

Mississippi: 6 votes

Georgia: 15 votes

North Carolina: 15 votes

South Carolina: 8 votes

North Dakota: 3 votes

South Dakota: 3 votes

Nebraska: 5 votes (this state is one of only two states that could possibly split their electoral votes)

Texas: 34 votes

Montana: 3 votes

Oklahoma: 7 votes

Alaska: 3 votes

Utah: 5 votes

Idaho: 3 votes

West Virginia: 5 votes

Wyoming: 3 votes

Total: 178 votes all locked up

Palin’s Running Mate Will Likely Win:

Missouri: 11 votes (7 point lead)

Florida: 27 votes (5 point lead)

Indiana: 11 votes (5 point lead)

Virginia: 13 votes (3 point lead)

Ohio: 20 votes (2 point lead)

Total: 260 votes

Must Win States

In order to win the Presidency, Obama must win New Mexico, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. A win in Nevada would be nice. A win in Virginia would basically seal the deal.

For Palin’s Running Mate, he must win Ohio and Florida, bottom line. New Hampshire and Nevada would help. Colorado and Pennsylvania would seal the deal.

All of these states will be the most hotly contested and will determine the winner. But don’t let the mainstream media convince you that Palin’s Running Mate has this thing all wrapped up.

Sphere: Related Content

Here’s an amazing tape-recorded phone call between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in which they seem to bury the hatchet…have a listen.

Sphere: Related Content

The Monkey and I have come to the conclusion that General Wesley Clark’s much discussed “controversial” comments about Senator McCain prove that nuance (and Wesley Clark) have no place in contemporary American politics. And if you’re keeping track, you can go ahead and remove him from your VP short list, by the way, as his recent comments are a better indicator of his political acumen than they are of his opinion of Senator McCain.

“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” - General Wesley Clark, June 29th, 2008

The truth is, General Clark has a decent point, but that logic is buried in barely comprehensible nuance that will never see the light of day. Obviously McCain and the GOP are using his comments to their advantage, twisting Clark’s remarks into a “false attack” on McCain’s military service, and by the extension the service of all men and women in uniform.

They couldn’t be happier that Clark is not only drawing attention to John McCain’s resume, but also disparaging an aspect of his military service all at the same time. This of course points to the gaping hole on Obama’s resume in terms of his own military service (none) and also paints the Democratic candidate (and his surrogates) as anti-military (a label the Democracts are forever trying to escape). The fact that the comments of a highly-decorated retired Army four-star General who supports Obama could actually damage the Democratic candidate’s stead among military people and national security-minded voters, points to the power of the McCain mythology and its hold over the mainstream media (MSM), and to the incredible hypocrisy of the Republican party.

Calling Military Service Into Question

Of course we don’t have to look too far in the past to remember the last time a Presidential candidate’s military service was called into question. In 2004, a prominent Vietnam veteran ran against an incumbent whose military service included a spotty-at-best stint in the Texas Air National Guard. Only it wasn’t the candidate who had essentially gone AWOL and completely avoided combat service who had his feet put to the fire during the campaign. It was the man who had been decorated for gallantry in action and had sustained multiple wounds at the hands of the enemy who had somehow been labeled the opportunist, the malingerer, and the phony.

Four years later, literally the same people who assailed Kerry’s war record are now defending McCain’s record. Why is it that one man’s record is sacrosanct, while another’s record is fair game?

Deconstructing Wesley Clark’s Comments

The fact that Clark’s comments need to be deconstructed at all indicate his inexperience in the world of sound bites. But his point was this, and it’s very simple: The fact that a guy was shot down in an airplane doesn’t immediately qualify him to be President. Isn’t this self-evident? No where in that comment did Clark devalue McCain’s military service or his sacrifice to the nation during his imprisonment in North Vietnam.

This line of reasoning makes more sense when you extend it in this way: would it be a horrible to thing to say that just because an infantry soldier was wounded in battle and captured by the enemy that he is not necessarily qualified to be President of the United States? Should all POW’s be Presidential candidates? Of course not.

Wesley Clark Should Have Known Better

Unforunately, despite the logic behind his comments, no reasoned explanation will be louder than the outcry of Republicans and national security proponents blasting the Obama campaign for daring to make light of McCain’s hallowed record. Wesley should have had the sense to know that even though his point makes logical sense, he should have avoided saying it because it damages his candidate. Is Wesley that much of a neophyte that he didn’t think the Republicans would twist his words as negatively as possible? Is Wesley this unschooled in the ways of the American media that he didn’t expect the MSM to pounce on the opportunity for a new so-called controversy to further the spin cycle?

As a veteran, I am not offended by Clark’s comment, but I don’t think it was a comment that should have been made on the public stage because of the high probability of it being used against the candidate he is supporting. What Wesley Clark fails to realize is that appearances on Sunday morning talk shows are not to promulgate truth, but instead to further an agenda, in this case, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. If he is to be a true surrogate, then all of his comments and actions should serve that agenda. The Monkey and I don’t like this sad fact, but it is the nature of the beast we call American politics.

Obama and his handlers certainly realize that any discussion of military service is going to go in favor of John McCain. Chalk this one up for the McCain column and move on to the economy. This “controversy” is a win for McCain every day of the week and Obama would be best served by Wesley Clark going back to Little Rock for a while. And Wesley - don’t hold your breath waiting for that VP phone to ring anytime soon.

Sphere: Related Content

The Mainstream Media (MSM) airwaves have been making much ado about the recent news concerning Obama’s decision to opt-out of public financing for the 2008 Presidential General Election. Talking heads have been hosting panels of experts, all weighing in on whether or not this is Obama’s first major misstep, how McCain can capitalize on this reversal, and what this move means for Obama’s overall credibility.

The fabled “flip-flop” moniker has been tossed about and McCain and his people have gleefully pounced upon this development to label Obama a promise-breaker.

Considering most Americans don’t understand what a delegate is or how the Electoral College works, the notion that whether or not Obama will take public money will somehow undermine Obama’s candidacy or his standing among supporters is delusional at best.

Any detailed discussion about campaign finance - while important and fundamental to the health of our democracy - comes with it the curious side effects of drowsiness, restlessness, and unbearable ennui. The conversation about campaign finance is wonkish and arcane, and unforunately not exactly an issue that drives voters to the polls. If the McCain campaign thinks for one minute that Americans will suddenly forget that it now costs $75 to fill up their car, or that they can’t afford a medical procedure, or that a loved one (for the third time) is on their way back for another 15 months in Iraq, because Obama made a decision to eschew limited public financing for the “unlimited” funds available to him through his 1.5 million small donors, then it is really McCain’s judgment that should be called into question here. Obama is simply doing all he can to win the election. It defies reason to handicap one’s self simply to make the point that the system of financing campaigns is broken.

Of course McCain prefers to receive 85 million in tax-payer dollars to finance his campaign! Obama has raised approximately three dollars to McCain’s every one, with no end in sight. And now that Obama and Clinton have begun joint fundraising, that proportion could possibly even lean more out of whack in favor of Obama in the coming months

Regarding Obama’s decision, McCain said in classic GOP fashion:

“[this] should be disturbing to all Americans…[and] we’ll have to reevaluate [our own commitment to public funds] in light of his decision.”

So instead of sticking to his convictions, McCain would consider turning down public funds himself. I guess that makes this a lose-lose propostion for McCain. By staying in the public financing system he faces a severe financial disadvantage. Considering the recent polling data from swingstates Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, it looks like McCain will have to spend a lot of money to have a chance at simply maintaining control of states won by Bush in 2004 (FL, OH), let alone states like Virginia, Colorado, and even Georgia, which until a few months ago were considered near “locks” for the GOP.

But by opting out, as his quote above certainly suggests is an option on the table, McCain would sacrifice all the moral highground he has attempted to gather on the heels of Obama’s decision. And in this election, when Obama will walk away with a landslide victory, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in this country in two decades, moral highground might be McCain’s consolation prize.

RELATED POSTS: A Landslide Victory in 2008?

Who Should I Vote For?: John McCain

Sphere: Related Content

With the nomination all wrapped up nice and tidy, it’s time for the fun and easy part: choosing a VP!

Nothing about this election season so far has been predictable or ordinary, and certainly the Vice Presidential choices of both Barack Obama and John McCain will be riveting, strategic, and consequencial.

I am not of the camp believing that John McCain can count on states that went GOP back in 2004 and 2000 to continue to vote Republican without extreme effort and resources. I talk about this in two other posts of here and here. There is an element of Obama’s candidacy that is recognized but not talked about in a serious way. He is a charismatic persona like no other in recent memory and will move people to vote in ways that opinion polls and punditry cannot accurately gauge. John McCain is many things, but charismatic leader he is not. Say what you like about GWB, but people who support him, LOVE him, and that love and adoration made the difference against Kerry in 2004. Back in 2004, the American public was still somewhat undecided about Iraq. Four years later, what were the GOP’s strengths are now their liabilities and the religious right, the x-factor in ‘04 will likely sit at home with Mr. McCain as the party’s chosen one.

For this reason, John McCain’s VP choice will be extremely important as it will be his opportunity to counter the vigor, charisma, and quite frankly, the ethnic background of his opponent. As both candidates endlessly talk about change, it will be hard for the GOP to represent change if the face of their ticket looks like it’s always looked for the past two hundred years: a couple of old white guys.

On the Democratic side, I believe Obama must counter his own ethnicity, geographical background, and experience level with a strong VP choice. Several prominent figures come to mind.

In any other year, Obama would have felt the freedom to take his time, establish a search committee, interview candidates, look at polling data, observe the moves of his opponent, and ultimately make a reasoned, rational, deliberate decision weeks before the Convention in Denver with the sole purpose of strengthening the ticket and ensuring victory. However, this year, as it’s proven to be over and over again, will be different, due to one unavoidable phenomenon: the Hillary Rodham Clinton factor.

As of this writing, Clinton is planning to not terminate her campaign, but instead to “suspend” it, which would allow her to keep her pledged delegates moving into the Convention. John Edwards did the same thing, but the difference here is that Clinton holds nearly two thousand delegates to Edwards’ couple dozen, meaning she is holding onto significant and unprecedented power and sway.

Already her patrons and backers are initiating campaigns to convince Obama to choose her as his VP. The problem is that this is taking away from Obama the one of the most important, if not the most important decision he will make as a nominee. What kind of precedent will be established if it is recognized by the American public that in his first decision his hand was forced, his strings were pulled, and once again the Clintons get their way to maintain control of the Party?

The Cheney Effect

Dick Cheney is a lot of things, but he’s certainly this: a man who changed the office of the Vice President forever. He proved that a VP can be powerful, assertive, resourceful, and can even dictate policy. Clinton could easily do the same as VP, which could be good or bad for Obama. In a good way, she could be the bulldog, a la Cheney, do the dirty work for the administration, be the enforcer, and generally support the policies of the Obama administration in every way possible, just as Mr. Cheney has done. The difference here is that there is no doubt that Cheney and Bush shared the same agenda, while in the case of Obama and Clinton, it is unknown whether Hillary would march in step with Obama’s overall vision, or to the beat of her own drum. Or even worse, to the beat of crazy Bill’s drum.

Obama is treading on dangerous ground and must exercise extreme caution, patience, and introspection as he makes this choice. If he is to choose Clinton, he must gain assurances from her that she will put her agenda and ego aside, working for Obama’s agenda and not her own. And she must definitely assure Obama that Mr. Clinton will not shoot from the hip or step out of line, because the worst thing that could happen with a “Unity Ticket,” would be for it to become a liability, an effort to appease Hillary’s ego, instead of rational and strategic move to assure victory in November.

Truly a Dream Ticket?

Looking at the ticket in the best possible light, there would be many advantages to having Hillary on the ticket with Obama. One obvious advantage would be to mitigate the fears that Hillary supporters would stay home in November, or even worse, vote for McCain out of protest. Another advantage would be to utilize Hillary as an attack dog in the “swing states” she performed well in the primaries: Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, and Michigan. This strategy would erase doubt and concern in those crucial states and allow Obama to focus on building momentum on “purplish” states like North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. I believe that Obama can be competive through the south and even Texas and a unity ticket would not only allow these two political juggernauts to personally connect to voters in all of these states, but also combine their engorged coffers and fundraising abilities to exponentially outspend John McCain all over the country.

Obama’s Other Choices

Hillary is not the only candidate for Obama. Here is a short list of other candidates that could help deliver crucial states, rank ordered by importance and viability by me and monkey:

1. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. Although not a national household name, Strickland obviously would hold considerable sway in 2004’s supreme battleground state. Republicans simply have to win here to win the whole thing and an Ohio Governor on the ticket would make that prospect nearly impossible for John McCain.

2. Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Virginia has been Red for a while but is turning blue, especially thanks to Webb’s election back in ‘06. What I like about Webb is that he is a military man: tough, straight-talking, and with the ability to connect with white male voters and NRA types. Choosing Webb would help to mitigate the obvious military credentials of Mr. McCain. The fact that Webb is a former Republican probably wouldn’t hurt with attracting Independents and moderate Rebublicans, either. Webb is handsome and charismatic, and while not a national figure quite yet, could be extremely valuable and potent.

3. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. Same concept, different state. Only difference is that Pennsylvania, as in 2004, would likely go Democratic with or without extra help here. Undoubtedly McCain will put up a Herculean effort here, but if John Kerry can win here, there’s no doubt in my mind that Obama can win here. Also - Rendell is a big Clinton guy and it would be doubtful that he would accept the offer, out of respect for Hillary.

4. General Wesley Clark. Although a Clinton guy, he’s also a “Wesley guy” and would most likely do anything to further his political standing and therefor accept the job. His military credentials are a no-brainer, and his Arkansas roots would certainly help in that state, without Hillary on the ticket. He lacks warmth and appeal and has a certain stiffness about him that may not inspire many voters. His intellectual strengths sometimes betray him as well, and I could envision him appearing patronizing and arrogant in a VP debate. Nonetheless, he is relentless and talented and could certainly be a boon to Obama.

5. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The best things about Richardson is that he would certainly help Obama secure New Mexico, and that he would also help Obama connect with Hispanic voters, a demographic he has continued to struggle with. Unfortunately, his ethnicity may be as much as a drawback as it is an advantage, as perhaps a “black-brown” ticket might be too much change for a white voter to handle. My feeling is that Richardson didn’t fare well at connecting to voters in the primaries and would continue that trend as VP candidate.

6. John Edwards. Like Richardson, Edwards has only proven one thing so far: that he is not a viable Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate. His track record on the national level is poor and his ability to help Obama win North Carolina is doubtful, as he wasn’t able to deliver when he was on the ticket in 2004.

So Who’s It Going to Be?

My prediction is this: that we won’t know for a while. Obama would be foolish to compress his decision making timeline simply to appease Clinton’s people and her ego. Might this harm his standing among Hillary supporters? Perhaps. But not irreparably. Exit polls suggesting that Clinton backers might not vote for Obama in the general are based on gut-level emotions that change with time and perspective. Any Democrat who is truly a supporter of what Clinton stands for would be a walking contradiction to turn to McCain out of principle. Although there may be a few, but their numbers won’t be significant, because at the end of the day the only alternative would be a third Bush term (don’t let McCain’s PR machine confuse you - voting 95% of the time lockstep with the Bush Administration does not a maverick make you!), and no true Democrat wants that.

The most important thing for Obama to do is to take his time, set the pace, and make this his decision. I believe ultimately he will choose Clinton as his running mate, assuming expectations are set early on. I also believe that this choice would spur another groundbreaking historical event: a black woman running for Vice President as a Republican. You guessed it. With Clinton on the ticket as VP, McCain will likely have to choose the National Security Advisor who didn’t get the Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US” memo: Condoleeza Rice. How about them apples?

RELATED POSTS: Obama VP to Clinton’s Prez?: Brilliant, Beguiling, Buffoonish,
Writing a New Electoral Map,
A Landslide Victory in 2008? Using Primary Results to Predict a Winner,
Who Should I Vote For?: John McCain

Sphere: Related Content

With the results of Hawaii, Washington, and Wisconsin Primaries in, we are getting a better sense of who the nominee will be in each Party. On the GOP side, it is a forgone conclusion that Senator John McCain will win the nomination. As far as the Democrats are concerned, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running neck and neck in terms of Delegates and the overall popular vote, but Obama is certainly pulling away with the momentum of pulling off ten straight victories over the last few weeks.

Although it is impossible right now to predict who will win the nomination for the Democratic Party without the seeing the results of the contests in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, I believe it is nonetheless possible to predict the outcome of the General Election in November, using the results of the primaries so far.

But First, A Different Take

Before I do that, I wanted to take a moment to point out another method, perhaps the “established” method for predicting the winner in the 2008 Election. In the established method, we would take the results of the last Presidential Election and assume as a benchmark that the Republicans would win the same states they won last time (the so-called “Red States”) and the Democrats would again win the states won by Kerry (the so-called “Blue States”). This method of looking at the electoral map is outlined (albeit from what appears to be a GOP perspective) in an intersting blog post on Patriot City. The writer describes that in order to determine who wins, the game becomes a matter of “flipping” states from one side to the next. In other words, the onus is on the Democrats to improve upon last time, rather than on the Republicans to make any new gains. The Democrats could “flip” Florida or Ohio, for example.

This method depends on the assumption that voters’ opinions are basically unchanged since the last election. I believe this traditional look at the Electoral Map is flawed, as it does not take into account the extreme dissatisfaction a majority of Americans have for GWB, the growing infatuation many Americans hold for Barack Obama, the uncertainty about the economy, the downward spiral in Iraq since 2004, the hatred many Right Wing Republicans have for John McCain, and perhaps most importantly, the overwhelming demand for change that is driving record-numbers of voters to the polls during these Primaries.

Voter Turnout: Democrats to the Polls in Record Numbers

I got the idea for this post while watching the results of the popular vote in each primary over the past couple of months. I was struck by what appeared to be an overwhelming turnout on the Democratic side, regardless of how the Republicans fared in each contest. So I decided to go back through all of the results of the primaries so far and discovered some pretty striking numbers.

I went through each state and added up how many votes each of the five major candidates (Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, Huckabee) on both sides received in each contest. The numbers below equal the total number of votes cast for each candidate. Here are current tallies (not including Washington and Hawaii) in terms of the popular vote for each major candidate:

Barack Obama: 10,625,401 total votes

Hilary Clinton: 10,352,875 total votes

John McCain: 5,815,561 total votes

Mitt Romney: 4,273,809 total votes

Mike Huckabee: 2,958,786 total votes

By simply looking at these numbers, it is evident that both of the Democratic candidates have mobilized more actual voters than any of the Republican candidates. By nearly a 2-1 basis, either Obama or Clinton has earned more votes than John McCain and Mitt Romney, and both of the Democrats have “out-turned-out” voters by a 3-1 basis in comparison to Mike Huckabee.

It is widely acknowledged that voter turnout has been unprecedented during this primary election cycle. And while not every General Election voter participates in the primaries for a variety of reasons, it is safe to assume that the voters who do turn out for these Primary elections will most likely vote in the General Election.

While unscientific, I believe the results here are a good indicator of a proportionate turnout during the General Election, in which (obviously) the field in that contest will be narrowed to one candidate for each party. Again, compiling the total votes of Clinton and Obama and comparing that figure against the total votes of all three Republican candidates combined, we see that Democrats have still mobilized more overall voters than the Republicans, 19,879,615-12,664,729, or 61% to 39%, indicating an overwhelming majority of support which should carry through the General Election, right?

Primaries vs. Polls

A “realist” might argue that this doesn’t match up to recent polling data, which suggests that the General Election race is much tighter than my unscientific analysis is suggesting. However, recent evidence suggest that our traditional methods for polling Registered voters, normally involving a telephone call to home phone landlines, can no longer accurately gauge the will of the electorate, especially with more and more voters under the age of 40 abandoning home landlines and using cell phones as their primary phone numbers. This vast segment of the population can no longer be accurately reached, rendering traditional polling less and less relevant.

Additionally, I would submit that what could be more accurate than an actual election to determine the will of the electorate? It is one thing for a pollster to get a potential voter to answer a few questions on the phone, but a whole new challenge for a candidate to get a voter to actually leave their home, take time off work, and cast a vote. In this way, I think the aggregate raw numbers of these recent Primary elections is a far more accurate means of predicting the will of the electorate.

The Electoral College and the “Magic Number”

What I’ve done so far is use the Primary Elections results to essentially predict the result of the popular vote in the General Election. While perhaps interesting, this analysis alone does not constitute an accurate prediction of which candidate will actually win the Presidency, because as we all know (painfully so in 2000), the popular vote does not determine the Presidency. Instead, our election system uses the Electoral College to determine a President. I’d like to talk more about this system in future posts, but the most important thing to understand about the Electoral College is the “magic number” of votes needed to secure the Presidency, which is 270.

See, the General Election for the Presidency isn’t really a national election. It is the combined result of 50 simultaneous state elections. If a candidate wins a state, he or she earns the electoral votes awarded to that state, which are based upon the size of their congressional delegation (US Senators and US Representatives combined). Big states like California and Texas have 55 and 34 electoral votes respectively, while small states like Delaware and Alaska each have three electoral votes. Thus, some states (the more populous states) are more important than others.

Predicting Electoral Votes

Again, using the results of the primaries, I went back and determined an overall winner for each state, regardless of Party. In other words, whichever candidate earned the most raw votes, “won” the state. I also employ a general assumption to use these results as a predictor the General Election: if a candidate earns the most overall votes, that candidate’s Party would win the state in the general election , regardless of which candidate is actually on the ballot at that time. For example, Mitt Romney won Michigan on the Republican side, with 337,847 votes to John McCain’s 257,521 votes. In my system, Mitt Romney wins the entire state as he earned more votes than the leading candidate on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, who earned 328,151 votes overall. Even though Romney will not be on the ticket in the General election, I am still awarding this state to the Republican side, as the Republican candidate earned more overall votes than the leading Democratic candidate. So, in my system the GOP candidate, which would most likely be John McCain, would earn 17 electoral votes for winning Michigan. (I recognize an inherent flaw in this system, considering that Romney was a “native son” in Michigan, which probably explains why he won more votes than any other candidate. As I have no way to adjust for this or to predict whether or not Romney might be on the ticket as the VP, thereby possibly ensuring that this result carries through to the General Election, I have no choice but to keep the State of Michigan on GOP win column, assuming that this flaw may be counterbalanced by other inherent flaws in my system. One of these flaws might be the fact that none of John Edwards’ popular votes were accounted for in my method, which may tip the balance even further towards the side of the Democrats).

State By State Electoral Vote Breakdown, by Candidate

Below is a list of each state, followed by which candidate on either side won the most overall popular votes. The number next to each of these candidates designates the Electoral votes at stake, which are “won” by the winner in each state.

Washington, DC : Obama - 3
Maryland: Obama - 10
Virginia: Obama - 13
Kansas: Obama - 6
Louisiana: Obama - 9
Washington: Obama - 11
Alabama: Obama - 9
Colorado: Obama - 9
Connecticut: Obama - 7
Delaware: Obama - 3
Georgia: Obama - 15
Illinois: Obama - 21
Minnesota: Obama - 10
Missouri: Obama - 11
North Dakota: Obama - 3
South Carolina: Obama - 8
Hawaii: Obama - 3
Wisconsin: Obama - 10
Iowa: Obama - 7

OBAMA TOTAL: 168 Electoral Votes

Arkansas: Clinton - 6
California: Clinton - 55
Massachusetts: Clinton - 12
New Jersey: Clinton - 15
New York: Clinton - 31
Oklahoma: Clinton - 7
Tennessee: Clinton - 11
Florida: Clinton - 27
New Hampshire: Clinton - 4
CLINTON TOTAL: 168 Electoral Votes

Maine: Romney - 4
Alaska: Romney - 3
Utah: Romney - 5
Nevada: Romney - 5
Michigan: Romney - 17
ROMNEY TOTAL: 34 Electoral Votes

Arizona: McCain - 10
MCCAIN TOTAL: 10 Electoral Votes

As you can see, no single candidate would have enough Electoral Votes to win the Presidency at this point. As these numbers do not include the results for Washington, New Mexico, Idaho, and Nebraska on the Republican side, nor Montana, West Virginia, and Wyoming on the Democratic side, nor Ohio, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota for both sides, it is not yet a complete picture. But that doesn’t stop me from using the data in hand to predict a winner in the General, nonetheless.

Re-Writing the Electoral Map: Landslide Winner Predicted

With just these partial numbers in hand it is already possible to predict a winner using my system, in this case by landslide, if you add up the “current” electoral votes by Party.

TOTAL GOP: 44 Electoral Votes

TOTAL DEM: 336 Electoral Votes

As you can see, Democratic candidates are winning more popular votes and more states than any of the Republican candidates. I predict it will be a landslide victory for the Democratic candidate, whether it’s Hillary or Obama, a la Reagan’s victories in 1980 (489-49) and 1984 (525-13) and George H.W. Bush’s victory in 1988 (426-111).

The Democratic victory in 2008 will in effect re-write the “Red State/Blue State” Electoral map we’ve grown accustomed to over the last few election cycles. The dynamism of Obama or the warm memories that many working class Americans hold for the Clintons will sway voters in Southern states and Western states that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

It is clear that Americans want change. In 2008, they will get it.


RELATED POSTS: Clinton’s Fuzzy Math: The Fiction of “Winning” the Popular Vote, Who Should I Vote For?, Part III: Not Mitt Romney!, Who Should I Vote For?, Part II: John McCain, Who Should I Vote For?, Part I.

Sphere: Related Content