Pictures From the Unity Rally

It's nothing extremely special, but I uploaded the 309 photos I took at the Unity Rally to a Photobucket album. Some of the pictures are useless and pointless, I know. I haven't, as of yet, gotten around to cleaning up the good from the bad. I honestly just wanted to save every picture.

I got a good seat by sneaking onto the press bleachers, so some of the pictures are quite nice, I think. I hope you all enjoy!

My Current Electoral College Predictions (It's never too early to have some fun)

These are my opinions of the way things are currently looking for the Electoral College. I know the Election is almost five months away, but as the Political Junkie that I am, I can't help but already start to formulate possibilities. These will most likely change slightly on a weekly basis, but for a while now I've noticed not much of a change in my overall thoughts concerning the EC.

Safe States Obama: ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, DE, NY, NJ, MD, IL, MN, HI, WA, OR, CA, and DC (200 EV)

Safe States McCain: WV, KY, TN, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, MT, WY, ID, UT, AZ, AK (163 EV)

Swing States: NH, PA, OH, VA, NC, FL, MI, IN, WI, IA, MO, CO, NM, NV (175 EV)

I have seen different places label NJ a swing state, but not IN. My reasons for considering them as I do is that IN has polled extremely close (closer than Florida, for example, which is considered a swing state). Obama has even been ahead in a couple of polls. It is geographically near some other very strong Obama states. Historically, maybe it's not a swing state. But I fully consider it one at this time. NJ has consistently polled for Obama, and quite far ahead. I don't think it's a disputed state at all.

Here's how (based on current trends) I think it'll go:

McCain Swing States Won: FL, NC, IN, NH and NV (58 EV).
Obama Swing States Won: PA, VA, OH, MI, WI, IA, MO, CO, and NM (117 EV).

Final tally:
McCain: 225 EV
Obama: 313 EV


The thing is, I'm tempted to put NH and NC in Obama's column, and perhaps giving MO to McCain. But here, even if MO did go to McCain, Obama would still win. MI is another one I'm getting more unsure about, but again, even putting that in McCain's column leaves Obama with a decent-sized win.

Obama still squeaks by with a win if you subtract CO and NM (which I think will definitely go Obama). Things get ugly by subtracting (at this point) VA and/or OH.

As (I believe) has been pointed out, if Obama wins all the states Kerry did, and then IA, CO and NM, he wins the election with 273 EV.

If anyone wants to know why I put a SPECIFIC state in the column I did, I can explain it, But I don't feel like giving an in-depth explanation without being prompted to do so first, as going over every state would just be painful in its length.

Anyone interested in analyzing and making their own EC Maps should see here.



One thing I will add the following, as it was a response to someone's comment concerning the States Kerry won in 2004 as they relate to Obama's EC Map.

There are only two states Kerry won that I think Obama will have any trouble with: Michigan and New Hampshire.

In my explanation above, I gave NH to McCain, but that could very well change. The state has been more left-leaning in recent years thanks in no small part, I think, to the influence of us here in VT. I reluctantly gave it to McCain because he seems to be popular there. Of course, recent trends dictate that Obama is doing better there than expected, so... That could change.

MI is a real toss-up. Obama's been doing better than McCain there, but not by much. Geographically Obama has the advantage. But it's really so close that it's hard for me to tell. I'm mostly going on the most recent Rasmussen polling, putting Obama ahead by a few points. Considering the fact that people said he would have trouble because of the primary debacle, if he's polling ahead at all right now it means he's in a very good position.

How important is experience in making a good President?

Well, this was one of the huge arguments in contrasting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. She argued that experience was one of the, if not the, most important factor in choosing a President. She even went so far as to say, because of it, that John McCain, because of his experience, and unlike Obama, had passed the "commander-in-chief threshold".

I know numerous arguments had been made about this, but I recently found a very interesting article that details this question on an historical and statistical basis. The article can be found here.

Basically what's done is, based on the rankings of different historical surveys, studies and opinions, articles, etc., a ranking of the best to worst Presidents is made. Then, each of the points of experience that each President had before taking office is made, coming to a cumulative numerical number.

As if rightly pointed out,

All experience is not the same. How do you compare being governor of a small state with being governor of a big state? Is being Vice President worth a pitcher of warm beer or any other fluid? Is being a state senator more or less relevant to being president than being Secretary of Commerce? Impossible to say for sure, so I have justed added up the total number of years of experience as a proxy for experience.

And he gives the reader the ability to weigh each variable accordingly.

But the conclusion is clear: there does not seem to be a correlation between the experience someone has before taking office, and how good a President they are once in office.

In the table below, the Presidents are sorted on experience. The most experienced President was James Buchanan, with Lyndon Johnson and Jerry Ford getting the silver and bronze medals, respectively. Chester A. Arthur had a mere 1.5 years experience before he was elevated to the Presidency upon the asassination of President Garfield. If experience and greatness correlate, one would expect the top half of the table (the most experienced Presidents) to be mostly green (good) and the bottom half (inexperienced) to be mostly red (bad). If there is no correlation, the red and green should be random. Indeed, the latter seems to be the case. The top half in terms of experience (above the gray bar) has 11 bad Presidents and 10 good ones, essentially no correlation between greatness and experience. If you don't like this result and want to try for a better one, just get the spreadsheet and start weighting the columns. Undoubtedly you will be able to get a different result if you try hard enough. But the point remains, the Presidents with a lot of experience have not been more outstanding than those with little experience.

The table can be viewed on the page. It's in HTML format, so it's too much of a pain to transfer here. But here's a scatterplot of the same data:

Click to enlarge

The Presidents (way) under the line might be regarded as overperformers. They didn't have much experience going into office, but did pretty well once there. The ones (way) above the line had lots of experience but were not good Presidents.

Obama's Father's Day Speech: My Reflections as a White Boy

As I watched Obama's Father's Day speech, speaking powerfully against the backdrop of a fully African American choir, I could not help but think: could Obama inspire poor blacks in poverty to rise above such standards, to rise above such a life?

Yes, this is a completely loaded question, and in a way rhetorical. I don't know if I can, or should, even answer such a question.

And yet, this question inadvertently popped up in my mind while watching his speech. Obama is a truly inspiring figure, to people of all walks of life. But one group that Obama (not surprisingly) has really hit something special with are African Americans. These black students can explain the sentiment better than I, a white boy, can.

That inspiration, that enthusiasm, resounds so deeply, it seems, that Obama could shape the African American community for years, and even generations, to come.

Obama spoke about the struggles many blacks face today at the hands of poverty,

But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what
too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and
too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like
boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker
because of it.

You and I know how true this is in
the African-American community. We know that more than half of all
black children live in single-parent households, a number that has
doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics –
that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely
to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out
of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are
more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or
become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community
are weaker because of it.

He goes on to talk about the personal responsibility people have as parents (and especially fathers) to their children, to set "examples of excellence" for their children. Sure, you have a job. But you can get a better one. Sure, you get B's in school, but isn't there a grade higher than that? Always strive for more.

He said,

That’s why we pass on the values of empathy and kindness to our
children by living them. We need to show our kids that you’re not
strong by putting other people down – you’re strong by lifting them up.
That’s our responsibility as fathers.

When did the black community last have a true representative to say such things? A true representative that black children could look up to, could be inspired by? Obama, I believe, is that representative. And I believe that with Obama to set the stage, blacks suffering from poverty, violence, and hardship, can perhaps feel a motivation and inspiration they haven't felt in years, if ever. Perhaps that inspiration that Obama seems to magically elicit can help push them forward. I don't know.

Perhaps I don't even have a true right to speak of such things as the white boy that I am. Obama has influenced me to do things I never would have before (I am more involved in politics than ever before, and I even scraped together money to donate to him, for example, where I never had felt the desire to before). As a white boy who has been so inspired by Obama, I can only imagine how so many in the black community must feel.

I'll finish with this small story. Recently I was spoke with a very good friend of mine who happens to be black. I was curious, having never really thought of asking before then, and inquired, "why do you support Obama?" she smiled and said, "he's my people." Some may find such a sentiment racist in nature. I find it genuinely inspiring.

If Hillary Supporters now support McCain, are they truly Hillary Supporters?

This question has been bugging me for a long while. It had pretty much dropped off my mind until today, when I read on the TPM front page about Debra Bartoshevich now supporting John McCain.

But were those that once supported Clinton and now support McCain truly Hillary Supporters to begin with? Or were they just supporting her because, well... She's Hillary Clinton, and a woman? Let me lay out my case.

Hillary Clinton said a lot of negative things about Barack Obama on the campaign trail in making her case that she was the better candidate. But the entire time, she made calls for party unity, no matter what happens.

After Obama clinched the nomination, Hillary conceded and endorsed him. But not only did she endorse him, she endorsed him as strongly as a person could, leaving absolutely no doubt that she supported Obama 100% and wanted to see him win in November.

Hillary later went on to ask her pledged delegates to vote for Obama at the convention, only bolstering her argument that she wants Obama elected in November.

Hillary Clinton's fundraisers are now ready to back Obama and the Democratic party.

All of this brings me to an inherent issue: if you truly supported Hillary Clinton, why wouldn't you continue to support her by supporting Obama? Isn't it inherent that supporting McCain goes against everything Hillary Clinton stood for, especially to those Clinton Supporters? Would these people have voted for McCain if, hypothetically, Hillary had never been a candidate?

I can't get these questions out of my head. I continue to think about what I would have done had Hillary won and Obama endorsed her. I would have thrown my support behind her (I know, easy for me to say, my candidate won, but it was a question I struggled with for months before concluding on, long before the primary was over).

I understand that maybe it truly is just out of spite that they support McCain over Obama, and it has nothing to do with sexism or racism, or whatever other reasons one might (even logically) make. But is that what Hillary would want?

After all, did she come out and give a spiteful speech about losing? Did she attack Obama for having won? Or did she, despite how truly hard it must have been, and how hurt she must have felt knowing she lost, throw her full, her absolute full support behind Obama? We know the answer is number three.

So why, of those out there who say they're going to vote McCain over Obama because she lost, can't they follow the example of the person they claimed to support above all, to the very end, and help Obama win the White House?

It just seems like such a lousy gift to give the person one pledged their full support to, to do the one thing that person would not want one to do. Honestly, it feels no different to me than if a child were to go against the wish of his or her dying parent. The sentiment feels the same, anyway.

Your Whiteness is Showing: An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November

As I was browsing the blogosphere, and found one of the most profoundly brilliant, and genuinely true short essays I have read concerning white women in America threatening to vote for McCain in November. Written by Tim Wise, it's titled Your Whiteness is Showing: An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who Are Threatening to Withold Support From Obama in November.
It was posted on Jack and Jill Politics, but can also be found on Wise's website here.

For those of you who don't know who Tim Wise is, "Tim Wise is among the most respected anti-racist writers and educators in the U.S., having spoken in 48 states and on over 400 college campuses. He has trained teachers, as well as corporate, government, media and law enforcement officials on methods for dismantling institutional racism, and has contributed essays to twenty books."

Here's a small portion of the essay,

And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?

See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

I highly encourage anyone and everyone to read it. The insight is nothing short of genius.

The Bump is Beginning

As much as I hate using polls to really insinuate anything concerning an election, I have to say that something I predicted has been happening: Obama is getting a nice bump in the polls now that Hillary Clinton is out of the race and has endorsed him.

The last two Rasmussen polls put Obama ahead by 50-44 and 50-43 respectively. The most recent Gallup poll also shows Obama with a good lead over McCain, outside of the MOE.

I am the first to admit that a) polls really don't mean much, and b) that's especially true because the election isn't for another five months. A lot can happen between now and then. But at least this bodes well for Obama. I don't think it's going to stop, either. I think Obama has quite a bit of momentum. It probably will fluctuate, but I expect Obama to gain more before any fluctuations happen.

What's in a mind?

I have never had a blog before. Numerous times have I tried to create some kind of journal to describe my thoughts and ideas. I have so many, sometimes I think my head's going to explode. I'm a political junkie, so this year has been quite good in terms of discussion (it's never-ending, it sometimes seems). I'm also a self-described film junkie as well. School has impeded upon my movie time, though, so for the moment, it's been put partially on the back-burner. But with this year being a Presidential Election, I can live with it (for now). I also love drams, theater and acting. I almost decided to major in it, but I've now decided that perhaps as a major it's not for me. What I really seem to get passionate about in the educational setting is History. History and Politics. Those are my obsessions when I'm in the classroom.

I'm bad an introductions. I never was sure what to say, or how to say it, when it came to myself. I find it hard to describe exactly who and what I am as a person, and certainly nothing could really sum up what I feel about myself. My hope, though, is that whoever decides to read my blog, will get an idea of what I'm about. I don't hope to accomplish anything specific really. I just have a lot to say. Let's hope my thoughts are as interesting to read as they... can be to write.