When my parents moved to Jacksonville, Illinois from Lewiston, Maine in 2006, I remember looking over the drivers' license manual with my mother. The first ten pages of the manual were devoted to warnings against fradulent licenses. (Illinois' "Rules of the Road" website informs the public that falsifying your ID papers can result in up to 3 years of jail time and a $25,000 fine.) I was flabbergasted - the State of Maine is completely unworried about this problem.
Governor Rod Blagojevich's brazen attempt to sell his right to appoint Barack Obama's senate replacement is certainly not the first corruption scandal that Illinois has dealt with. Blagojevich is the sixth Illinois governor to be arrested or indicted; his predecessor George Ryan is currently serving a six-year prison sentence for 20 convictions including racketeering, bribery, exortion, money-laundering and tax fraud. And that is just the beginning!
Blagojevich, who ran on an anti-corruption platform, has been investigated at least 14 separate times since 2005, largely for offering kickbacks to everyone and their brother. He has been involved in feuds with his Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, Secretary of State, and state treasurer. He is America's least popular governor, with only 4% of his constituency rating him "good" in an October 2008 Rasmussen poll.
The senate seat scandal has grabbed the public attention, but the real question is, how could Illinois' governor possibly be so dumb? Everyone who is anyone knew that Blagojevich was being wiretapped. Why would he be so blatant? Only obscene arrogance or a desparate need for attention of any kind could explain his behavior.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
ugly sweaters galore!
what a great weekend! my roommates (alex, matt and meriden) hosted an ugly christmas sweater party, which was a resounding success. our apartment was packed with frisbee players, colleagues, family members, fellow students and neighbors. lots of guests brought their own sweaters, and those that didn't got their pick of the "extra sweaters" pile. by the end of the night, most of the extra sweaters were gone, and late arrivals had limited choices...
i wore an infant sweater (the sleeves came to my elbows), we held a sweater contest (mc'ed by me), alex got in a fight with misbehaving attendees, i hung mistletoe from our kitchen light fixture, some guy threw up in the sink, chinstrap guys and their sketchy friends took over the porch and the party ended with a 5 am singing circle. all in all, a truly great party.
of course, any good party should be followed by a 7:20 am wake up call from your brother, reminding you that you are already 20 min late for the 7 am departure to Get Ho Ho Ho. (i gave sam my key on friday night so he could physically wake me up if necessary.)
by the time i arrived at the fields, i was feeling ok, if a little out of it. our team was small, which helped us keep warm, and we had a bunch of fun games. after winning our pool, we met a slow-white-conglomeration team in the semis. they started off by breaking us and it looked like it would be a tough game. fortunately, we cleaned up our playing (zirui slightly reduced the number of hammers he threw) and pulled out a solid win. the finals were another story - we were tired and their team was better than ours. we still had a decent showing (11-7 maybe?) but couldn't seriously challenge them.
i had to work sunday, which was a little hard, but i made it through and i slept all day today to compensate. next tourney is vegas!
i wore an infant sweater (the sleeves came to my elbows), we held a sweater contest (mc'ed by me), alex got in a fight with misbehaving attendees, i hung mistletoe from our kitchen light fixture, some guy threw up in the sink, chinstrap guys and their sketchy friends took over the porch and the party ended with a 5 am singing circle. all in all, a truly great party.
of course, any good party should be followed by a 7:20 am wake up call from your brother, reminding you that you are already 20 min late for the 7 am departure to Get Ho Ho Ho. (i gave sam my key on friday night so he could physically wake me up if necessary.)
by the time i arrived at the fields, i was feeling ok, if a little out of it. our team was small, which helped us keep warm, and we had a bunch of fun games. after winning our pool, we met a slow-white-conglomeration team in the semis. they started off by breaking us and it looked like it would be a tough game. fortunately, we cleaned up our playing (zirui slightly reduced the number of hammers he threw) and pulled out a solid win. the finals were another story - we were tired and their team was better than ours. we still had a decent showing (11-7 maybe?) but couldn't seriously challenge them.
i had to work sunday, which was a little hard, but i made it through and i slept all day today to compensate. next tourney is vegas!
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Ziegler vs Silver
John Ziegler, a conservative talk show host, has started a website called HowObamaGotElected.com, a project which includes a documentary film and now two national polls that have gotten a lot of media attention.
Backstory: Ziegler believes that favorable treatment by the media was directly responsible for Obama's electoral success. He argues that Obama voters based their choice on inadequate coverage of Obama's weaknesses, and he has set out to publicize his opinions in the national media.
His first venture came in the form of a YouTube video that showed Obama voters incorrectly answering political questions, such as "Which party currently controls Congress?" Ziegler then commissioned Zogby International to conduct a national poll of Obama voters, asking them the twelve questions from the video.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com (as well as BaseballProspectus.com) sharply critisized the Zogby poll, calling it a push poll. Ziegler naturally responded angrily, and Silver then interviewed Ziegler. You can read most of the transcript here.
Since then, Zogby defended the poll, but then stated publicly that he would not have approved the poll in the form it took, and that he was on a book tour when Zogby International conducted the poll.
Recent News: Ziegler then asked Zogby for another poll that would include McCain voters, but was refused. Ziegler then commissioned the poll from Wilson Research Strategies. The Wilson poll asks the same questions as the first poll, with a few wording changes (I'll get into that in bit).
As a follow-up to this controversy, Silver and Zogby recently went head to head on the B Cast, which I guess is some sort of online show. I couldn't figure out if it had political leanings.
My Take: Whatever the dictionary definition or commonly understood meaning of the phrase "push poll", this poll is hideously biased AND Ziegler's conclusions are not even supported by the data it does provide. For the purposes of talking about the questions, I'm mostly going to talk about the Wilson poll, because I have an actual copy of the survey.
1. Twelve total questions, all negative statements about McCain, Palin, Obama or Biden. Seven answers are Obama/Biden, while five are McCain/Palin. (Sidenote: One of the Palin questions isn't actually something she did!) Of those five, only two are about McCain, which is the same as the number of questions about Biden. Buried on Ziegler's website's presentation of the poll numbers is the following quote: "...in general, the voters did universally worse on questions where the negative information was about their candidate."
2. The statements about Palin and McCain well-publicized facts, while the statements about Obama are frequently misleading or disputed. Palin definitely has a pregnant daughter, no doubt about it. But did Obama actually say BOTH that his policies "would bankrupt any company that built a coal burning power plant" AND that his policies "would make electricity prices skyrocket"? Because I have not found any quote that supports the second statement. When Ziegler asks a well-publicized and straightforward question about Obama, such as "Which candidate said the government should redistribute wealth?", no problem, everyone gets it right. Are we really shocked that most Obama voters don't remember that Obama once accidently said he'd visited 57 states instead of 47?
3. In the B Cast interview, Silver and Ziegler argue about changing the wording of the questions about Bill Ayers. The original poll asked which candidate started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground, while the second poll asked, "Which candidate reportedly held their first political fundraiser at the home of Bill Ayers and his wife, two leaders of the 1960’s terrorist organization the Weather Underground?" More Obama voters answered the question from the second poll correctly the questions from the first. Silver argues that the second question is more accurate, resulting in more correct answers. Ziegler makes the following statement on his website: "We added Ayers name... and it significantly increased the rate of correct response, indicating a very superficial grasp of the overall story." There is absolutely no way for anyone to draw statistical conclusions about WHY respondents did better in the second poll, since there are multiple variables changed.
4. How do we know this is even tied to media coverage? All this poll shows is that McCain voters watch Fox News and answer questions one way, while Obama voters watch CNN and answer questions differently. There is very little attempt to tie the answers to the questions directly to the news media.
Last Thoughts: This poll completely fails any test of academic rigor. Is this a joke?
Backstory: Ziegler believes that favorable treatment by the media was directly responsible for Obama's electoral success. He argues that Obama voters based their choice on inadequate coverage of Obama's weaknesses, and he has set out to publicize his opinions in the national media.
His first venture came in the form of a YouTube video that showed Obama voters incorrectly answering political questions, such as "Which party currently controls Congress?" Ziegler then commissioned Zogby International to conduct a national poll of Obama voters, asking them the twelve questions from the video.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com (as well as BaseballProspectus.com) sharply critisized the Zogby poll, calling it a push poll. Ziegler naturally responded angrily, and Silver then interviewed Ziegler. You can read most of the transcript here.
Since then, Zogby defended the poll, but then stated publicly that he would not have approved the poll in the form it took, and that he was on a book tour when Zogby International conducted the poll.
Recent News: Ziegler then asked Zogby for another poll that would include McCain voters, but was refused. Ziegler then commissioned the poll from Wilson Research Strategies. The Wilson poll asks the same questions as the first poll, with a few wording changes (I'll get into that in bit).
As a follow-up to this controversy, Silver and Zogby recently went head to head on the B Cast, which I guess is some sort of online show. I couldn't figure out if it had political leanings.
My Take: Whatever the dictionary definition or commonly understood meaning of the phrase "push poll", this poll is hideously biased AND Ziegler's conclusions are not even supported by the data it does provide. For the purposes of talking about the questions, I'm mostly going to talk about the Wilson poll, because I have an actual copy of the survey.
1. Twelve total questions, all negative statements about McCain, Palin, Obama or Biden. Seven answers are Obama/Biden, while five are McCain/Palin. (Sidenote: One of the Palin questions isn't actually something she did!) Of those five, only two are about McCain, which is the same as the number of questions about Biden. Buried on Ziegler's website's presentation of the poll numbers is the following quote: "...in general, the voters did universally worse on questions where the negative information was about their candidate."
2. The statements about Palin and McCain well-publicized facts, while the statements about Obama are frequently misleading or disputed. Palin definitely has a pregnant daughter, no doubt about it. But did Obama actually say BOTH that his policies "would bankrupt any company that built a coal burning power plant" AND that his policies "would make electricity prices skyrocket"? Because I have not found any quote that supports the second statement. When Ziegler asks a well-publicized and straightforward question about Obama, such as "Which candidate said the government should redistribute wealth?", no problem, everyone gets it right. Are we really shocked that most Obama voters don't remember that Obama once accidently said he'd visited 57 states instead of 47?
3. In the B Cast interview, Silver and Ziegler argue about changing the wording of the questions about Bill Ayers. The original poll asked which candidate started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground, while the second poll asked, "Which candidate reportedly held their first political fundraiser at the home of Bill Ayers and his wife, two leaders of the 1960’s terrorist organization the Weather Underground?" More Obama voters answered the question from the second poll correctly the questions from the first. Silver argues that the second question is more accurate, resulting in more correct answers. Ziegler makes the following statement on his website: "We added Ayers name... and it significantly increased the rate of correct response, indicating a very superficial grasp of the overall story." There is absolutely no way for anyone to draw statistical conclusions about WHY respondents did better in the second poll, since there are multiple variables changed.
4. How do we know this is even tied to media coverage? All this poll shows is that McCain voters watch Fox News and answer questions one way, while Obama voters watch CNN and answer questions differently. There is very little attempt to tie the answers to the questions directly to the news media.
Last Thoughts: This poll completely fails any test of academic rigor. Is this a joke?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Obama's house
I'm feeling pretty good about Obama's appointments/nominations so far. In general, he has chosen experienced political figures with well-established records and longstanding connections to Washington. His candidates are uncontroversial and scandal-free (and John Brennan, one of the few exceptions, has now withdrawn his name). They have ties to Clinton and bipartisan appeal, but rarely ties to Bush (with the exception of Robert Gates). A few pros and cons to these trends:
Pros:
1. Experience - Obama's personnel know how to get things done in Washington. None of the appointments seem likely to overhaul current systems (for better or worse), but they will be ready to work on Jan 20.
2. Connections - The new White House team is connected across the government's power grid and they are respected by their collegues for their past achievements.
3. Bipartisanship - Obama promised to rescue a government battered by waves of partisan bickering. I think liberals and conservatives alike pay lip service to the concept of bipartisan government, when they really mean the other side should simply lay down their arms and surrender. Real bipartisanship requires compromise. In my opinion, Gates is the best Bush cabinet member to keep - he has the least association with the terrible decision-making, while allowing Obama to garner support from the military and reassuring conservatives that the new administration actually values their opinions.
Cons:
1. Alienation of the liberal base - Do Obama's center-right appointments mean we are going to have a center-right government? Frankly, I hope not. I hope that Obama's generally progressive agenda won't meet resistance from his cabinet or advisors.
2. Didn't they get us into this mess? - If Tim Geither (Treasury secretary nominee) and Larry Summers (senior economic advisor) are so great, why did the financial system they were in charge of turn out to be as rotted as a two-week old cucumber in the back of your fridge? Glenn Greenwald points out a spooky comparison to enthusiasm for Cheney when he was the VP nominee.
3. Is this "change" or "more of the same"? - When Obama ran on a message of change, did he mean change from the current administration or change from Washington as a whole? Seems like many liberals interpreted "change" to mean "the change I want". Here is an interesting series of letters to the NYT, which provide some varied perspectives on what kind of change Obama's presidency will bring.
As I said before, I am optimistic. Remember how great you felt on Nov 4? Just three weeks later, I'm not ready to let my idealism get crushed by skepticism.
Pros:
1. Experience - Obama's personnel know how to get things done in Washington. None of the appointments seem likely to overhaul current systems (for better or worse), but they will be ready to work on Jan 20.
2. Connections - The new White House team is connected across the government's power grid and they are respected by their collegues for their past achievements.
3. Bipartisanship - Obama promised to rescue a government battered by waves of partisan bickering. I think liberals and conservatives alike pay lip service to the concept of bipartisan government, when they really mean the other side should simply lay down their arms and surrender. Real bipartisanship requires compromise. In my opinion, Gates is the best Bush cabinet member to keep - he has the least association with the terrible decision-making, while allowing Obama to garner support from the military and reassuring conservatives that the new administration actually values their opinions.
Cons:
1. Alienation of the liberal base - Do Obama's center-right appointments mean we are going to have a center-right government? Frankly, I hope not. I hope that Obama's generally progressive agenda won't meet resistance from his cabinet or advisors.
2. Didn't they get us into this mess? - If Tim Geither (Treasury secretary nominee) and Larry Summers (senior economic advisor) are so great, why did the financial system they were in charge of turn out to be as rotted as a two-week old cucumber in the back of your fridge? Glenn Greenwald points out a spooky comparison to enthusiasm for Cheney when he was the VP nominee.
3. Is this "change" or "more of the same"? - When Obama ran on a message of change, did he mean change from the current administration or change from Washington as a whole? Seems like many liberals interpreted "change" to mean "the change I want". Here is an interesting series of letters to the NYT, which provide some varied perspectives on what kind of change Obama's presidency will bring.
As I said before, I am optimistic. Remember how great you felt on Nov 4? Just three weeks later, I'm not ready to let my idealism get crushed by skepticism.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
frisbee in the cold
this saturday, i drove up to bowdoin, maine (site of many swim meets!) for a little frisbee and a LOT of cold.
thanks to sam (i really can't say enough how great this guy is), stew (that's our team) has managed to create a solid tradition of sending fun (and good) boston players to very cold tournaments, where we beat up on college kids and sort of try against other hastily-put-together teams of club players.
this year's frozen butterball (named after the frozen turkey that is the winning team's prize) featured snow flurries and a deep understanding of the phrase "wind-chill factor". sam, steve, zirui, amanda, ellen and i arrived at the fields only 20 minutes after the games were scheduled to start. steve had spent much of the ride up devising strategies for 6 on 7, but bowdoin thankfully agreed to donate X (his real name was arnab, but he seemed to prefer X).
we fought off the cold with many layers of clothing, amanda's sleeping bag, lots of huddling, and delicious stew (remember that guy sam? he made the stew). darah and dana arrived right when we needed them, in our third game, against a pretty solid team. and the moment when i came off the field and darah handed me a cup of hot cider with rum - priceless.
we won our pool, then the semifinal game and were discussing forfeiting the finals, when the other semifinal winner forfeited first! then the other semifinal loser (who we had alreay beaten earlier) insisted that we play them again, so we squeaked out another win 5-4 (game to 5) as the sun went down. our first butterball victory!
frankly, the only really disappointing moment was when i realized the turkey we had won was going to be donated to charity, and not eaten by us at a fun, post-butterball get-together. darn.
when we got home, i got into bed immeadiately and fell asleep with my body still thawing out. i slept for the next 10 hours, missing the saturday night events i was supposed to attend.
all in all, pretty great. i love ultimate.
ps. tom daschle's hair has gone completely white! he looks a lot older than i remember. also 538 is projecting al franken to win by 27 votes.
thanks to sam (i really can't say enough how great this guy is), stew (that's our team) has managed to create a solid tradition of sending fun (and good) boston players to very cold tournaments, where we beat up on college kids and sort of try against other hastily-put-together teams of club players.
this year's frozen butterball (named after the frozen turkey that is the winning team's prize) featured snow flurries and a deep understanding of the phrase "wind-chill factor". sam, steve, zirui, amanda, ellen and i arrived at the fields only 20 minutes after the games were scheduled to start. steve had spent much of the ride up devising strategies for 6 on 7, but bowdoin thankfully agreed to donate X (his real name was arnab, but he seemed to prefer X).
we fought off the cold with many layers of clothing, amanda's sleeping bag, lots of huddling, and delicious stew (remember that guy sam? he made the stew). darah and dana arrived right when we needed them, in our third game, against a pretty solid team. and the moment when i came off the field and darah handed me a cup of hot cider with rum - priceless.
we won our pool, then the semifinal game and were discussing forfeiting the finals, when the other semifinal winner forfeited first! then the other semifinal loser (who we had alreay beaten earlier) insisted that we play them again, so we squeaked out another win 5-4 (game to 5) as the sun went down. our first butterball victory!
frankly, the only really disappointing moment was when i realized the turkey we had won was going to be donated to charity, and not eaten by us at a fun, post-butterball get-together. darn.
when we got home, i got into bed immeadiately and fell asleep with my body still thawing out. i slept for the next 10 hours, missing the saturday night events i was supposed to attend.
all in all, pretty great. i love ultimate.
ps. tom daschle's hair has gone completely white! he looks a lot older than i remember. also 538 is projecting al franken to win by 27 votes.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Senate updates
Alaska: Begich officially defeats Stevens in the Alaskan senate race.
Minnesota: Recount begins today. Here is a very interesting article from Nate Silver on 538.com about the probable outcomes. Nate Silver is my hero.
Georgia: Runoff is scheduled for Dec 2. Apparently, turnout is everything in runoffs, and both campaigns are pushing hard. NYT reports.
Other news: Tom Daschle is Obama's nominee to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. I always liked Daschle, although I'm not sure why. Maybe I just liked his hair.
Minnesota: Recount begins today. Here is a very interesting article from Nate Silver on 538.com about the probable outcomes. Nate Silver is my hero.
Georgia: Runoff is scheduled for Dec 2. Apparently, turnout is everything in runoffs, and both campaigns are pushing hard. NYT reports.
Other news: Tom Daschle is Obama's nominee to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. I always liked Daschle, although I'm not sure why. Maybe I just liked his hair.
orwell strikes again
here is a great article by george orwell - politics and the english language. a smack in the head to all of us who have ever written a sentence we didn't fully understand.
while we are on the topic of great writers, i just finished my first hunter s. thompson, the rum diary. i carefully selected this book from the available options at the cambridge public library - ie, it was the only one. turns out to be his first novel, started in 1959 (thompson was 22), although it wasn't published until 1998. took me a while to really get into the book, but by the end i was ready to hop on the next flight to san juan, glass of white rum and ice in hand. puerto rico, anyone?
apparently the rum diary is being made into a major motion picture. i'm very interested to see who will play hunter... er, paul.
while we are on the topic of great writers, i just finished my first hunter s. thompson, the rum diary. i carefully selected this book from the available options at the cambridge public library - ie, it was the only one. turns out to be his first novel, started in 1959 (thompson was 22), although it wasn't published until 1998. took me a while to really get into the book, but by the end i was ready to hop on the next flight to san juan, glass of white rum and ice in hand. puerto rico, anyone?
apparently the rum diary is being made into a major motion picture. i'm very interested to see who will play hunter... er, paul.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Success
This Freakonomics post tries to address the relationship between grades and success, and immediately runs into a roadblock when defining success. I came up with my own definition, then read through the comments to see what the rest of the riff-raff had to say and didn't find my idea. A blog post is born.
The commenters proposed many definitions, including income, notoriety, happiness, satisfaction, judgement by peers, and self-determination (the ability to choose one's path).
I won't go into all the problems with every definition, but I will address self-determination. I like self-determination as a measure of success, but it only works if the determiner is reasonable. For example, imagine a very intelligent but uncoordinated person who at first aspires to be professional athlete and fails, then goes on to excel in journalism. Although this person was not able to choose their desired career, it is a mistake to call them unsuccessful in the long run. I think "self-determination within reason" is a better definition of success, but now we are stuck with the vague phrase "within reason".
Another important point is that "success" should not necessarily mean being the best in your field. Do you need a Nobel Prize to be a successful economist? Do you need to outsell JK Rowling to be a successful children's author? Do you need to top the charts to be a successful musician? These are rhetorical questions, folks. The answer is no, and a good definition of success will address that.
Next, I looked up success on Dictionary.com, and two out of the four definitions included the adjective successful. Nice work. The other two were:
Both of these are actually quite good, but neither hints at the larger significance I'm seeking. I could set out to get in shape and achieve that , or my current employer (a cafe/bakery) could award me Employee of the Month, but that doesn't mean that my mom would breathe a sigh of relief knowing her only daughter was a success.
I argue that there are three ingredients to success:
1. Setting goals
2. Achieving (or coming close) to those goals
3. Recognizing your own achievements
Brief explanation:
1. You must be trying to do something in order to succeed or fail. See dictionary definition #1.
2. Almost self-explanatory. Have you set goals within your reach? Did you know what needed to be done? Did you work hard enough?
3. If you cannot see that you have reached your goal, or cannot recognize your own ability to set and achieve goals, how will you set achievable goals in the future?
Feel free to argue with me.
The commenters proposed many definitions, including income, notoriety, happiness, satisfaction, judgement by peers, and self-determination (the ability to choose one's path).
I won't go into all the problems with every definition, but I will address self-determination. I like self-determination as a measure of success, but it only works if the determiner is reasonable. For example, imagine a very intelligent but uncoordinated person who at first aspires to be professional athlete and fails, then goes on to excel in journalism. Although this person was not able to choose their desired career, it is a mistake to call them unsuccessful in the long run. I think "self-determination within reason" is a better definition of success, but now we are stuck with the vague phrase "within reason".
Another important point is that "success" should not necessarily mean being the best in your field. Do you need a Nobel Prize to be a successful economist? Do you need to outsell JK Rowling to be a successful children's author? Do you need to top the charts to be a successful musician? These are rhetorical questions, folks. The answer is no, and a good definition of success will address that.
Next, I looked up success on Dictionary.com, and two out of the four definitions included the adjective successful. Nice work. The other two were:
| 1. | the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors. |
| 2. | the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like. |
Both of these are actually quite good, but neither hints at the larger significance I'm seeking. I could set out to get in shape and achieve that , or my current employer (a cafe/bakery) could award me Employee of the Month, but that doesn't mean that my mom would breathe a sigh of relief knowing her only daughter was a success.
I argue that there are three ingredients to success:
1. Setting goals
2. Achieving (or coming close) to those goals
3. Recognizing your own achievements
Brief explanation:
1. You must be trying to do something in order to succeed or fail. See dictionary definition #1.
2. Almost self-explanatory. Have you set goals within your reach? Did you know what needed to be done? Did you work hard enough?
3. If you cannot see that you have reached your goal, or cannot recognize your own ability to set and achieve goals, how will you set achievable goals in the future?
Feel free to argue with me.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama is the next POTUS
To start off, I would like to say - HELL YES. Please take this moment to take your shirt off and run around your house cheering.
Now that you've calmed down, what is there left to say? I encourage you to spend Wednesday, November 5 sleeping off your hangover and avoiding MSNBC.
But if you find yourself so addicted to political punditry that you aren't satisfied just to gloat over the Obama landslide, here are a few thoughts.
Why Obama won: Obama's very appealing and very inclusive brand of politics (including his refusal to attack his opponents personal life) combined with his demonstrated ability to lead (the contrast between Obama and McCain during the financial crisis was telling).
Why McCain lost: The Republican Party was counting on a significant portion of the American electorate to be so racist that they would consistently lie to pollsters about voting for a black man. Turns out this is not the case.
McCain's concession speech: Gracious. It sounded like he was more relieved than disappointed. McCain is a very experienced politician and he seemed to be expecting the loss. Palin, on the other hand, looked like she was about to cry. Seems like she might have actually believed the polls were tightening.
Obama's acceptance speech: Inspiring. He said all the right things, affirming the themes of his campaign. He emphasized compromise, sacrifice, humility and a desire to move beyond our existing notions of American politics. I cried.
Still to watch in the Senate
- Alaska. Ted Stevens (R) may make history as the first convicted felon to be elected to the Senate. However, there are many early votes and absentee ballots to count, so this one may unfold over the next few weeks. If Stevens wins, he will likely resign or be expelled from the Senate, although a two-thirds majority is required to expell. In his place, will Governor Palin become Senator Palin?
- Minnesota. Norm Coleman (R) leads Al Franken (D) by 500 votes. We're headed to a recount.
- Oregon. Leaning towards to Democrat Jeff Merkley over Republican Gordon Smith, but still too close to call. (Update: The Oregonian has called the race for Merkley.)
- Georgia. Saxby Chambliss (R - and quite the name!) failed to win at least 50% of the vote, due to LIbertarian Allen Buckley's 126,328 votes. Expect a runoff election between Saxby and Democrat Jim Martin. Runoffs have a notoriously low turnout, but this one seems likely to go Republican with many Libertarians leaning right and with the Presidential election to win over independent support for Martin.
Ballot initiatives
California, Florida and Arizona passed gay marriage bans, and Arkansas passed a ban on unmarried couples adopting. Do the same people really want to ban abortion while limiting options for adoption?
On the bright side, South Dakota and Colorado rejected limitations on abortion.
And....... Massachusetts has decriminalized marijuana! Possesion of less than an ounce is now considered a civil violation - equivalent to a traffic ticket. So Americans still hate gays, but they don't mind pot heads.
YES WE DID!
Now that you've calmed down, what is there left to say? I encourage you to spend Wednesday, November 5 sleeping off your hangover and avoiding MSNBC.
But if you find yourself so addicted to political punditry that you aren't satisfied just to gloat over the Obama landslide, here are a few thoughts.
Why Obama won: Obama's very appealing and very inclusive brand of politics (including his refusal to attack his opponents personal life) combined with his demonstrated ability to lead (the contrast between Obama and McCain during the financial crisis was telling).
Why McCain lost: The Republican Party was counting on a significant portion of the American electorate to be so racist that they would consistently lie to pollsters about voting for a black man. Turns out this is not the case.
McCain's concession speech: Gracious. It sounded like he was more relieved than disappointed. McCain is a very experienced politician and he seemed to be expecting the loss. Palin, on the other hand, looked like she was about to cry. Seems like she might have actually believed the polls were tightening.
Obama's acceptance speech: Inspiring. He said all the right things, affirming the themes of his campaign. He emphasized compromise, sacrifice, humility and a desire to move beyond our existing notions of American politics. I cried.
Still to watch in the Senate
- Alaska. Ted Stevens (R) may make history as the first convicted felon to be elected to the Senate. However, there are many early votes and absentee ballots to count, so this one may unfold over the next few weeks. If Stevens wins, he will likely resign or be expelled from the Senate, although a two-thirds majority is required to expell. In his place, will Governor Palin become Senator Palin?
- Minnesota. Norm Coleman (R) leads Al Franken (D) by 500 votes. We're headed to a recount.
- Oregon. Leaning towards to Democrat Jeff Merkley over Republican Gordon Smith, but still too close to call. (Update: The Oregonian has called the race for Merkley.)
- Georgia. Saxby Chambliss (R - and quite the name!) failed to win at least 50% of the vote, due to LIbertarian Allen Buckley's 126,328 votes. Expect a runoff election between Saxby and Democrat Jim Martin. Runoffs have a notoriously low turnout, but this one seems likely to go Republican with many Libertarians leaning right and with the Presidential election to win over independent support for Martin.
Ballot initiatives
California, Florida and Arizona passed gay marriage bans, and Arkansas passed a ban on unmarried couples adopting. Do the same people really want to ban abortion while limiting options for adoption?
On the bright side, South Dakota and Colorado rejected limitations on abortion.
And....... Massachusetts has decriminalized marijuana! Possesion of less than an ounce is now considered a civil violation - equivalent to a traffic ticket. So Americans still hate gays, but they don't mind pot heads.
YES WE DID!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Could race be an advantage for Obama?
I read a lot of political writing online, and right now everyone is talking about race. Pundits argue that the Bradley effect doesn't exist, or that all the undecideds are white voters who will vote for McCain, or that Obama would be winning in this or that state or county if he was white.
Classic example: The current front page story at Salon.com talks about the surprising support Obama has garnered in a small, white, traditionally conservative town in Ohio. Shockingly, white people are actually considering voting for Obama. Disappointingly, some of them are still racist. Talking about an undecided trucker who voted for McCain and declined to reveal his name: "What finally pushed the trucker over the edge for McCain was his thinking about how Barack Obama's name was so different from the roster of prior presidents." Only a few paragraphs later: "It is simplistic to believe that this tightly knit county would be heavily Democratic if it were not for Obama's race."
Has anyone considered the option that Obama might be ahead in the polls BECAUSE of his race instead of despite it?
1. Black Americans are voting in droves. Obama has energized the black community in an unprecedented way. Previously apathetic voters are standing in line for hours for the chance to vote for this man, often wearing homemade Obama paraphenalia. Without the black voting bloc, Obama would have no chance in the southeastern states.
2. Young (and often white) liberals are thrilled with the opportunity to vote for a black man for President. Obama's supporters are telling pollsters about their high levels of enthusiasm at a much higher rate than McCain supporters. These educated and motivated individuals have contributed massively to Obama's ground game. They are making calls, canvassing all over the country, volunteering on election day, and even holding Obama fundraising parties. America's aspiring political left is throwing the weight of their abilities behind Obama.
3. Obama's unusual personal story makes it seem like he may be able to provide a new perspective to Washington, even though he doesn't have as much political experience as voters are usually looking for in a presidential candidate. The mere fact that he has lived in multiple countries and comes from a mixed racial background gives him an appeal unavailable to McCain, given that "diversity" has become such a powerful buzzword. Obama's diversity has energized the democratic base the way George Bush's born-again Christianity energized the republican base.
I am sure that there are plenty of white (or even Hispanic) voters who hesitate to choose Obama because he is a black man, and winning over those voters is important in states with small minority populations and in any state where the race is close. The final breakdown of the currently "undecided" vote is worthwhile for pundits and journalists to speculate on in a relatively close election.
However, I am not convinced that white voters crossing (or not crossing) racial lines in the voting booth provide the only potentially outcome-changing story in this election. With so many new black registered voters, we could just as easily be asking if black Americans will really come out to vote in such large numbers. Yes, we know that they will vote for Obama, but we don't know how many of them there will be.
As it turns out, black voters have turned out in massive numbers for early voting. CBS, ABC, the Huffington Post, the Charlotte Observer, Salon.com, Politico.com, the New York Times, the Washington Post and even Fox News (to name a few) have all published stories on strong black early voter turnout in the South. Florida's Republican governor has been forced to extend early voting hours to allow more citizens to vote.
The Associated Press offers a great (albeit brief) rundown of the stats and questions surrounding early voting. Why isn't there more analysis like this? Instead, we have articles like "Obama-Inspired Black Voters Warm to Politics" at the NYT. A nice portrayal of the new political energy that Obama has injected into black communities, but completely devoid of any suggestion that it is precisely these voters that may be handing Obama the win. And of course, you can read about undecided white voters in an article just to the right.
When Obama wins on Tuesday, I hope some journalist has the guts to argue that he couldn't have won if he were white.
Classic example: The current front page story at Salon.com talks about the surprising support Obama has garnered in a small, white, traditionally conservative town in Ohio. Shockingly, white people are actually considering voting for Obama. Disappointingly, some of them are still racist. Talking about an undecided trucker who voted for McCain and declined to reveal his name: "What finally pushed the trucker over the edge for McCain was his thinking about how Barack Obama's name was so different from the roster of prior presidents." Only a few paragraphs later: "It is simplistic to believe that this tightly knit county would be heavily Democratic if it were not for Obama's race."
Has anyone considered the option that Obama might be ahead in the polls BECAUSE of his race instead of despite it?
1. Black Americans are voting in droves. Obama has energized the black community in an unprecedented way. Previously apathetic voters are standing in line for hours for the chance to vote for this man, often wearing homemade Obama paraphenalia. Without the black voting bloc, Obama would have no chance in the southeastern states.
2. Young (and often white) liberals are thrilled with the opportunity to vote for a black man for President. Obama's supporters are telling pollsters about their high levels of enthusiasm at a much higher rate than McCain supporters. These educated and motivated individuals have contributed massively to Obama's ground game. They are making calls, canvassing all over the country, volunteering on election day, and even holding Obama fundraising parties. America's aspiring political left is throwing the weight of their abilities behind Obama.
3. Obama's unusual personal story makes it seem like he may be able to provide a new perspective to Washington, even though he doesn't have as much political experience as voters are usually looking for in a presidential candidate. The mere fact that he has lived in multiple countries and comes from a mixed racial background gives him an appeal unavailable to McCain, given that "diversity" has become such a powerful buzzword. Obama's diversity has energized the democratic base the way George Bush's born-again Christianity energized the republican base.
I am sure that there are plenty of white (or even Hispanic) voters who hesitate to choose Obama because he is a black man, and winning over those voters is important in states with small minority populations and in any state where the race is close. The final breakdown of the currently "undecided" vote is worthwhile for pundits and journalists to speculate on in a relatively close election.
However, I am not convinced that white voters crossing (or not crossing) racial lines in the voting booth provide the only potentially outcome-changing story in this election. With so many new black registered voters, we could just as easily be asking if black Americans will really come out to vote in such large numbers. Yes, we know that they will vote for Obama, but we don't know how many of them there will be.
As it turns out, black voters have turned out in massive numbers for early voting. CBS, ABC, the Huffington Post, the Charlotte Observer, Salon.com, Politico.com, the New York Times, the Washington Post and even Fox News (to name a few) have all published stories on strong black early voter turnout in the South. Florida's Republican governor has been forced to extend early voting hours to allow more citizens to vote.
The Associated Press offers a great (albeit brief) rundown of the stats and questions surrounding early voting. Why isn't there more analysis like this? Instead, we have articles like "Obama-Inspired Black Voters Warm to Politics" at the NYT. A nice portrayal of the new political energy that Obama has injected into black communities, but completely devoid of any suggestion that it is precisely these voters that may be handing Obama the win. And of course, you can read about undecided white voters in an article just to the right.
When Obama wins on Tuesday, I hope some journalist has the guts to argue that he couldn't have won if he were white.
Sarah Palin pranked
Canadian comedy duo prank calls Sarah Palin.
Noteworthy:
-The callers are francophone but are definitely hamming up the accent. The "secretary" gives his name as Frank Ouvrier, or worker.
-"Sarkozy" asks if she has heard of his special American advisor Johnny Holiday (not sure if I heard this correctly).
-"As we say in French, 'on pourrait touer des bebes ???'". Translation: we could kill the baby (something). Her response: "I think we could have a lot of fun together as we're getting work done."
-He can see Belgium from his 'ouse, not his arse.
1 - It is unreasonable to expect Palin to understand every word of heavily accented English or the French lines thrown in here. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that a candidate for Vice President would ask for clarification if they didn't understand something, especially in conversation with a foreign leader.
2 - Yes, prank phone calls prey on the expectation of normalcy, but surely an "I'm sorry, I didn't catch that" would have been in order more than once. I believe we have a combination of ignorance (she really doesn't know who Canada's Prime Minister is) and blindness to any damage that ignorance might do.
3 - Did Palin ask a single question in the whole conversation? She has no curiosity - Why is he calling? Even - what kind of hunting does he prefer? I think if she was paying any attention to what "Sarkozy" was saying, she would have realized the mistake quickly.
4 - I would LOVE to know what time this call happened. Was it in the middle of the night in France?
PS. Thanks to Julian for the polar bear version.
Noteworthy:
-The callers are francophone but are definitely hamming up the accent. The "secretary" gives his name as Frank Ouvrier, or worker.
-"Sarkozy" asks if she has heard of his special American advisor Johnny Holiday (not sure if I heard this correctly).
-"As we say in French, 'on pourrait touer des bebes ???'". Translation: we could kill the baby (something). Her response: "I think we could have a lot of fun together as we're getting work done."
-He can see Belgium from his 'ouse, not his arse.
-She failed to recognize the completely false name for the Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, on the heels of a statement about her lack of foreign policy experience.
-The caller refers to "Sarkozy's good friend" the prime minister of Quebec. Quebec does not have a prime minister.
-The song Carla Bruni supposedly wrote for her was called "Du rouge a levres sur une cochonne". Translation: lipstick on a pig.
1 - It is unreasonable to expect Palin to understand every word of heavily accented English or the French lines thrown in here. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that a candidate for Vice President would ask for clarification if they didn't understand something, especially in conversation with a foreign leader.
2 - Yes, prank phone calls prey on the expectation of normalcy, but surely an "I'm sorry, I didn't catch that" would have been in order more than once. I believe we have a combination of ignorance (she really doesn't know who Canada's Prime Minister is) and blindness to any damage that ignorance might do.
3 - Did Palin ask a single question in the whole conversation? She has no curiosity - Why is he calling? Even - what kind of hunting does he prefer? I think if she was paying any attention to what "Sarkozy" was saying, she would have realized the mistake quickly.
4 - I would LOVE to know what time this call happened. Was it in the middle of the night in France?
PS. Thanks to Julian for the polar bear version.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
