Best of luck to Barack Obama as well. However, the truly momentous and inspirational aspect of yesterday’s result was my almost perfect prediction of it, as published in Crikey last Friday. Obama has carried the erstwhile red states of Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Florida and Indiana, with two states coming down to the wire: Missouri, where McCain leads by 5868 votes (0.2 per cent), and North Carolina, where Obama leads by 14,053 (0.4 per cent). I tipped Obama to gain all of these states and no more. I gather late counting of declaration votes is unlikely to change any leads, so it appears those 0.2 per cent of voters in Missouri have stood between me and my moment of destiny. Better luck next time, I guess. To those who tipped McCain victories or record-breaking Obama blowouts and find themselves wondering what my secret is, one simple piece of advice: believe the polls (or Intrade if you prefer – it will usually tell much the same story). They may not be perfect, but they will outperform your own “informed conjecture” well over 50 per cent of the time, no matter how clever you think you are.
If the last two states play out as expected, the final result will be 364 electoral votes for Obama against 174 for McCain, pending one complication: Nebraska, which along with solidly Democratic Maine divides its college votes by congressional district. Two of the three districts have stayed Republican, but in a third Obama trails by just 569 votes, and thus stands a chance to make it 365-173. In any event, the joint winners of the informal Poll Bludger tipping contest (thanks to Juliem for conducting this) will be David Walsh and Ron, who I gather will win a tie-breaker ahead of fellow 364 Club members Grog and Peter Fuller.
Finally, our good friends at UMR Research have published qualitative polling on Australians’ attitudes to the President-elect. Those who harbour an unfashionable element of cynicism about the great man might want to keep a sick bag handy.
[How’s Alaska looking?]
Stevens in front by 4,000 but there are still quite a few votes to count supposedly, and the Dem was even saying that his own vote hadn’t been counted yet so only time will tell.
“Possibly running a comedian wasn’t a good idea.”
Neither was running a black guy for President. But if you always ran the least risky candidate, where would you be? The ALP.
“I bet Jesse Jackson is regretting dissing Obama during the campaign now. No nice embassy for him!”
Yeah, but there’s a cozy Senate seat for his son.
It doesn’t look like Stevens can lose on the current figures. So if his conviction is upheld the Dems will have to expel him from the Senate and then there will be a special election which Palin can contest and probably win. It’ll be a cross between Mr Smith Goes to Washington and The Beverly Hillbillies.
#53
I thought if Stevens is expelled the governor appoints a replacement until a special election in 2010. Let me check who the governor of Alaska is…. Oh.
Well, of course in US elections the party doesn’t actually “decide” to run anyone. Anyone can run in the primary and if they win they’re the candidate. All very democratic, but the problem with letting your activist base choose your candidate is that they may well choose candidates that the swinging voters won’t vote for.
Yes the governor appoints a replacement, but apparently under AK law the special election is straight away, not in 2010 as I previously thought.
[It doesn’t look like Stevens can lose on the current figures]
There are 40,000 absentee ballots to be counted and his lead is 4,000. I’m not sure which way absentee trends normally go in the US, but yes it would take a big swing to unseat him from here.
“but the problem with letting your activist base choose your candidate is that they may well choose candidates that the swinging voters won’t vote for.”
I still think a drovers dog could have won in 2007.
#56
Yes, it’s news to me too Adam. The 17th Amendment of the US constitution doesn’t specify *when* the special election has to be held in the event of the resignation (or expulsion) of a sitting senator. In most states the governor appoints a temporary senator, and the special election is held at the time of the next election – as in the Mississippi senate seat this year which Wicker won. But I gather Alaska does things differently. Might be a sticky legal issue…
It used to be the procedure in Alaska that the Governor appointed a new Senator when a vacancy takes place. However, when Senator Frank Murkowski was elected Governor in 2002, he appointed his daughter Lisa to the vacancy, and triggered a referendum in 2004 which changed the law. The Senate seat would now remain vacant until a special election could be held (like an Australian by-election).
Juliem
Here is that 3D map reference again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html
I made the comment after seing this one that the republicans really have become a rural party and the dems an urban one. Its quite stark when you look at this map. But I later added that many of these rural areas are the ones that most need to change in terms of socail and economic structure to survive. For the republicans to “reinvent themselves” as credible to urban voters, they have to be willing to show ledership and challenge thsi group, not just pander to its prejudices. The days when the USA gained its strength from its rural economy are even longer gone than Australia’s nostalgic harking back to “riding on the sheeps back”. Both myths are false.
It’s a great map Socrates. Thanks for the link (spent a bit of time at work looking at it today!)
Regarding Stevens relection in Alaska – they’re clearly not too worried about that code of ethics nonsense up there. The other republican senator Frank Murkowski nominated his daughter to replace him in the senate when he became governor (before Palin). The law was subsequently changed to require special elections.
Sorry Ben I just saw your post. Doh! The amazing bit (to me) is that Murkowski was still elected! Alaska is sounding like a very safe cosy seat for a republican.
Socrates
Alaskan politics looks like a cesspit of slime and corruption. Palin, Stevens, Murkowsi and Young. Something is rotten in the state of Alaska.
Funnily enough, lots of neocons are advising Palin to stay in Alaska rather than go to the Senate so she can remain a “Washington outsider”. Sounds like BS to me.
“Alaska is sounding like a very safe cosy seat for a republican.”
Well they *did* elect Sarah Palin as their governor after all. I suspect a reasonable number of them also enjoy slamming their fingers in car doors.
Expelling a member of Congress requires a 2/3 majority in their house
.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_I_Section_5
On Planet Janet, the election win by Obama was not due to record low approval ratings for her friend George, widespread disgust at the direction the US was headed, a cynical VP airhead choice or a repudiation of her neocon ideals. It was because racist America voted FOR a black guy. Evidently, she met a white US taxidriver who wanted Obama to win, saying it would be a good thing if they had a black President. QED
Is America a racist nation after all?
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/is_america_a_racist_nation_after_all/
Quote, William:
I take it all four members of Club 364 got Missouri wrong, and thus arrived at 364 by tipping Indiana wrong as well?
I’ll out myself, as that was precisely my mistake. However, I must also confess to a mathematical error, as I predicted the extra vote from Nebraska, and somehow tallied that to 364 not 365 as it should have been. So I’m not merely a loser, but a dunce as well. Oops!
Reply to:
On Planet Janet, the election win by Obama was not due to record low approval ratings for her friend George, widespread disgust at the direction the US was headed, a cynical VP airhead choice or a repudiation of her neocon ideals. It was because racist America voted FOR a black guy. Evidently, she met a white US taxidriver who wanted Obama to win, saying it would be a good thing if they had a black President. QED
Is America a racist nation after all?
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/is_america_a_racist_nation_after_all/
—
And then you get other crap from her like
Obama will Democratise the judiciary – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24603244-7583,00.html
She’s a one-eyed right-wing female (I can’t bring myself to call her a woman) who has no credibility. She makes Palin look like the next Obama.
The 17th Amendment says that the state executive may appoint a temporary replacement Senator only with the authority of the Legislature so if the legislature of Alaska took no separate action to disauthorise the executive then Palin/Deputy Palin could theoretically still appoint a temporary replacement (I read something somewhere saying a proposal to attempt to get the Maine-Nebraska method adopted in California by initiative plebiscite by the Republicans would fail for the same reason).
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Amendment_XVII
68 that was the most pathetic article I think I’ve ever read. Amazingly bitter. You’d think for one day you could acknowledge how big a thing BO’s win is. But no. She’s truly entered the Ann Coulter sphere.
I was quite surprised to read that Obama is pro choice on abortion
also supports funding for alternative energy sources
supports 80% reduction on emissions
will relax restrictions on stem cell research and
is for civil unions for gays and will let states decide re marriage.
Upfront on his views and secured a a sweeping victory.
The abortion, stem cell and gay stand would not go down well with the religous right, maybe their influence is overestimated, the noisy minority?
[The abortion, stem cell and gay stand would not go down well with the religous right, maybe their influence is overestimated, the noisy minority?]
Democrat registered voters now outnumber Republicans by nearly 10%, so yes
Dio @ 68,
BOY oh boy, I’m glad I didn’t waste my change on the Australian today …. I was in the newsagents to buy a couple of news issues for keepings sake. I ended up with both Melbourne papers and the Canberra Times but I considered The Australian at one point ….
Has Janet always been thus? (a few kangaroos short) I checked in on some of her stuff last year during the federal election but thought maybe her attitude would die off afterwards. I guess not 😀
Depends how you look at it castle. “Letting states decide” could be seen as a cop-out as he hasn’t said he’s actually for/against them, and whilst previously for gun-control he now supports a decision in the opposite direction.
Depending on where you sit he’s either a constitutionalist or a conformist.
“Democrat” and “religious right” are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
http://democratsforlife.org/ Sort of like the opposite of Emily’s List.
And for gay marriage, look at California. Overwhelmingly Democratic but passed a proposition banning gay marriage.
Indeed, Arizona rejected a similar amendment.
The Republicans are not some ghetto for religious extremists and the Democrats are definitely no left-wing progressive haven.
WILLIAM & JULIEM
Thank you Juliem for conducting th competition and for enormous work you put in
William said “long live th King …. was my almost perfect prediction of it, as published in Crikey last Friday.. “
With respect your honour th King who still sits in th throne , th race was clearly how many e/v’s won and th State that tipped Obama over 270
Now th skill of th 364 Club , th gang of 4 , after years analysis did assess that 364 e/v’s correctly in th race handicap …and only David & th O’Ronly Factor then selected th tipping point State (CA) in th weight for age event AS former King your throne remains using despotic power of being “almost perfect” right
It should be said for us final Gang of 2 also , that I’m sure David privateley went through a specific list doing asessment However I lead with my chin abit as usual and publicly specificaly listed individual States “in play” , and then specifically listed those “in play” that thought were reely absolutely unwinnable (MT , AR , GA , WV ND ) and furthermore then slecificaly listed th 4 close ones (FL , NC, IN and MO) with odds ,listed NC at 54% and then listed IN as a clifhanger at 52/48% chanse & MO reeely a tie at 50.5%/49.5% chanse Given th ultimate closeness of both final votes , th fact they flipped in reverse actually justifies th gang of 4 ‘s final 364 e/v predictions (as more likely 2 cliffhangers will be split than go both one way)
Again Juliem , well done If its any consolation , to show how easy it is to be wrong predicting close contests fact that IN had been “red” since before 1948 years (except LBJ) always pushed me towards MO rather than IN in rating these 2 close cliffhangers (and now Obama joins LBJ in winning it) Suppose Juliem I get th Crown of Thorns , and David gets th covated Crown of Roses
I think that there are more people who fear gays and lesbians and are afraid to admit it than there are people who are racists on skin colour and afraid to admit it {to interviewer – “Oh, that Obama, he’s got a funny sounding name, isn’t he muslim? etc. etc.} 🙁 …..
Yes, Oz, you’re right.
Has anyone done a study of the percentage Obama got of the vote in CA and the percentage that voted No, do NOT adopt Proposition 8?
While you must assume logically that there were some Republicans that voted in the negative on Prop 8, I think it is safe to assume that the overwhelming numbers in the difference between those two figures I’m wondering about were Democratic voters. I know gays and lesbians who live in CA, FL and MI and if I were in their shoes, it would really give me the creeps to wonder if my Democratic friends were secretly phobic about sexuality like that.
OZ
I saw that California bit, but I wouldn’t see it as a cop out, wise in letting the states decide, ie baby steps, and it is a big step to take in declaring support for gays. He would have lost votes in seeking to override states.
Is it Cheneys daughter whose gay? and yet he opposes civil unions for gays?
The stem cell is a big step forward as is commitment to emission reduction.
Ron, I don’t know that I expected to get all 3 of them right. I hoped so, but wasn’t sure to be honest (MO, IN, NC). As I was taking a leap of faith on them vs the RCP notossup states map.
Honestly, though, I thought that IF I was going to miss one of those, that it would be guessing wrong on Indiana. My confidence in them was in this order – most on NC, middle on MO and least on IN. Got the middle one wrong …..
castle, yes and yes …….
Palin didn’t know Africa is a continent!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html
Read this in a digest of stats on the election …
[
One important swing was the Roman Catholic vote, which went 47% to Sen. Kerry in 2004, compared with 53% for Mr. Obama.
]
Huh? Who wants to take a stab at explaining that one? I would have thought, intuitively, that an African-American would not increase votes upon those from the previous nominee ….. guess you have to counter-intuitive on that one, but even thinking that way, I still can’t sort it out.
[Is it Cheneys daughter whose gay? and yet he opposes civil unions for gays?]
Yes.
Other Republicans are able to show more compassion than that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PrGNhczw9U
[I would have thought, intuitively, that an African-American would not increase votes upon those from the previous nominee ….. guess you have to counter-intuitive on that one, but even thinking that way, I still can’t sort it out.]
Well the reason Obama won is because he got more whites and hispanics to vote for him than Kerry or Gore.
Juliem there are some exit polls here of a vague nature.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01
yes, ShowsOn, I know that much 😉 …. what I am pondering is why Catholics in particular, voted in higher numbers for Obama than Kerry …….
With the Proposition 8 vote in California, I heard that the white vote actually supported gay marriage, and the difference was made up for by a significant anti-gay-marriage vote amongst the black and hispanic community, whose turnout was boosted by Obama. So ironically a much less inspiring Democrat running for President would have saved gay marriage. But it’s only a matter of time. In 2010 the left will fight back and will be much more focused on the goal. Many lefties in California went and campaigned in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.
78 My thanks as well to you juliem – excellent contest.
If the overall Democratic vote went from 48.3 per cent to 52.4 per cent, I don’t think we should be that surprised that the Catholic vote went from 47 to 53 (subject to margin of error). We know he did well among Hispanics, and presumably they’re a big share of the RC vote.
The majority of American Catholics are either Hispanic (increasingly heavily Democrat, except the Cubans), or working class Irish-American or Italian-American (swung heavilt Democrat this time – they were the US equivalent of the Howard battlers).
Agreed William – I don’t think the RC votes as much of a block anymore.
Those CNN exit poll figures on proposition 8 show 61-39 opposition among the 18-29s, which is reversed for 65+. Combine that with likely lower turnout among blacks and Hispanics in 2010, and I can easily see it being overturned.
Even in CA, Anglo liberals are not 50% of the population. In fact Anglo liberals are probably a declining minority, as the state fills up with Hispanics and Asians. The Democrat coalition doesn’t hold up on this issue, because the Black evangelical churches as well as the Catholics oppose it (also the Orthodox Jews).
It’s also worth remembering that it isn’t as simple in comparing Kerry and Obama. Their race wasn’t their only differences. Obama was much more charismatic, Kerry was much more the stereotypical Liberal, and most importantly, Bush was much less popular in 2008 and the Democrats had built up their party structure and had successes at the 2006 mid-term elections. You could argue, as some people did when Obama was pulling ahead towards the end, that a “vanilla” (ie. straight white guy) Democrat would’ve been 20 points ahead of McCain. Maybe, but who would that have been? Behind Obama you had a woman, who would have had many problems too, then Edwards, who has since been thrown into scandal, then a hispanic politician. So where was the white guy? Truth be told Obama, for most of the campaign, demonstrated that his political skills more than compensated for any negative consequences of his race, and if anything the race of the candidate made Democrats more enthusiastic to succeed.
Yes, it’s only a matter of time before gay marriage is accepted. Until then the religious nutters will try their hardest to block it, only to eventually be disappointed as they are each time abortion is legalised. I was pleased to see a few loony abortion propositions be defeated.
I said this last night, didn’t know when it would happen or what the ultimate disposition of the case might be. But even I didn’t expect it to happen so damm fast 😉 ….
[
Advocates for gay marriage said they had filed a petition with the California Supreme Court today, urging the judges to overturn Proposition 8, the ballot measure that seeks to ban same-sex marriage.
The petition, to the same court that legalized same-sex marriage in May, was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
On Tuesday, California voters approved Prop 8, which seeks to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The petition charges that Prop 8 is invalid because the ballot-initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the state constitution’s core commitment to equality by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group, lesbian and gay Californians.
]
thanks, William (91) … that was the piece of the puzzle I was missing; the ethnic makeup of the Roman Catholic voters these days …..
I’d like to throw in a’left’ field thought on th increased RC vote for Obama over Kerry …Sarah Palin
Whilst th natural answer is proportionaly Romon Catholics increased there support for Obama similar to overal Democrat vote increase vs 2004 , its also so that Romon Catholics ( not just RC hispanics) overwhelmingly supported Hillary over Obama so th vote “thought” to chose within a politcal brand , and suggest many Romon Catholics having ‘decided’ they wished to suport Obama may hav seen Sarah Palin’s religion as an additional reason