Long live the king

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

780 comments on “Long live the king”

Comments Page 3 of 16
1 2 3 4 16
  1. 100 agreed – many RC and other “traditonal” churchgoers – Anglican etc are not exactly all that favourable to the fundo side of the religion. However of course the bible belt is a pretty broad church (so to speak)…

  2. juliem,

    I know it is popular in some circles to advocate the killing of unborn children. However, there are a large number of humans who believe this practice is barbaric.

    You may choose to have a different opinion.

  3. if we’re going to have a pro-choice /pro-life debate, I think I’m going to have to bring up taxation so as to get GP to come in and create a diversion!

  4. [I’d like to throw in a’left’ field thought on th increased RC vote for Obama over Kerry …Sarah Palin]
    Is this a core or non-core left field thought? 😀
    [Ron, her right to life sentiments bordered on the extreme and were in the same ballpark as Catholic dogma if not practice …..]
    Most Catholics are creationists, but at least they accept the Earth is billions of years old.
    [I know it is popular in some circles to advocate the killing of unborn children. However, there are a large number of humans who believe this practice is barbaric.]
    You’re assuming that all people consider a blastocyst ior a zygote morally akin to a born person. There will never be a consensus view on that question, so the best we can do is provide sex education, contraception, and government financial support to reduce the number of women who have to contemplate having an abortion.

    This is a moral issue that has been partly resolved by a curious moral compromise, because there will never be universal agreement on the principle that a clump of cells has the same moral worth as a person.

  5. [You’re assuming that all people consider a blastocyst ior a zygote morally akin to a born person]

    He’s assuming “a large number of humans” consider that, which is certainly true. But most of them don’t base their votes on that belief.

  6. [He’s assuming “a large number of humans” consider that, which is certainly true. But most of them don’t base their votes on that belief.]

    The view is particularly stupid because it pretends that making it “illegal” somehow makes it disappear.

  7. [He’s assuming “a large number of humans” consider that, which is certainly true. But most of them don’t base their votes on that belief.]
    My point was simply believing it doesn’t make it true. So it is a silly rationale for opposing abortion.

  8. It’s the principal rationale for opposing abortion. Whether it’s “true” or not is a matter of opinion. It’s not a view I share, but it’s certainly a defensible view, and one held by many highly intelligent people.

  9. [There was a nice old McCain/Palin split on what were nation issues and state issues too.]

    That splits been going on both in America and internally in both parties since the formation of the union.

    But the political test is not showing how obvious your differences are, so McCain/Palin failed. Well we knew that anyway.

  10. [It’s the principal rationale for opposing abortion. Whether it’s “true” or not is a matter of opinion. It’s not a view I share, but it’s certainly a defensible view, and one held by many highly intelligent people]
    Well it certainly isn’t a view followed through logically. Since stress can induce a ‘natural’ abortion, should we then ban sexually active women from working stressful jobs?

    Believing that a few cells are morally akin to a person is absurd on a biological level, and flat out dangerous on a moral level.

  11. Your first paragraph is too stupid to comment on.

    Christians don’t believe that “a few cells are morally akin to a person”. They believe that a fertilised cell IS a person, since it has a soul. Since that’s a theological belief, it’s not susceptible to your kind of scientistic dismissal.

  12. amigo ronnie, congrat 4 slayin those obama suppts who hv swellin head at the moment. Meanwhile back in the ranch the russian bear is growling like gg. Salute frm santiago… Will perf 4 pb in machu piccu

  13. [Your first paragraph is too stupid to comment on.]
    LOL! 😀 If it is stupid, surely you will be able to demonstrate that, rather than just being so dismissive!
    [They believe that a fertilised cell IS a person]
    Well this is really stupid! Why do we call them different things if they are exactly the same? Why do a few cells look so different from a fully formed human? Why do fully formed humans have capabilities that a blastocyst and zygotes don’t have if they are identical? Why do zygotes have features blastocyst don’t have if they are all the same? This just raises more questions than it answers.
    [They believe that a fertilised cell IS a person, since it has a soul. ]
    This is a scientific hypothesis commonly called “the ghost in the machine”. Cognitive science and evolutionary biology provide a great deal of evidence that it is a completely flawed theory of the mind.

    You are just dismissing this as a theological question by fiat, instead of actually engaging with mountains of scientific literature that says the truth is something else.

    But I am not surprised, the ghost in the machine, the blank slate, and the noble savage are the three most common explanations used to define what it means to be human. They all happen to be wrong.

  14. GG @ 103,

    Actually, I was just commenting upon her values as the campaign over the last few months presented them. I didn’t specifiy my own. But since you have confused them, I will add my own just to clear the picture.

    I happen to believe that life starts at conception BUT I am extremely strongly Pro – Choice. So while I might cringe and cry internally if my 19yo daughter or my 22yo’s GF came upon a situation where she felt an abortion was her only option, I would support her with all of my love. My own internal views are mine and mine alone. I wouldn’t force them upon someone else.

    Palin’s positions on abortion have been widely reported in the media. That makes them fair game for public comment and discourse.

  15. ShowsOn, you’re arguing with people who jailed people for saying the Earth was round and revolved around the sun and killed women for having red hair.

    Enough said.

  16. No amount of “scientific literature” can prove or disprove religious belief. The soul is not a “scientific hypothesis”, it’s a religious belief. You don’t believe in the soul, and nor do I, but it’s both arrogant and stupid to assert that it is something that can be scientifically refuted.

  17. [ShowsOn, you’re arguing with people who jailed people for saying the Earth was round and revolved around the sun and killed women for having red hair.]
    Oh of course.

    But the real problem now is people asserting with no evidence whatsoever that some questions are purely theological, or based around faith, when they are actually scientific hypotheses.

    The belief that humans have souls is perhaps the most common example of a scientific hypothesis that is claimed to be either a self evident fact, or even worse, an article of faith.

  18. shows
    i have a soul,but then counting my feet it comes to 3 or is it four in total.

    btw
    “But I am not surprised, the ghost in the machine, the blank slate, and the noble savage are the three most common explanations used to define what it means to be human. They all happen to be wrong.”

    what then is the truth?

  19. Check out the Democrat from Idaho, Walt Minnick, who won a house seat.

    [In Idaho, the Democrats scored an unlikely House victory when Walt Minnick, a self-described “gun-owning outdoorsman” who once worked in the administration of Richard M. Nixon defeated Bill Sali, a Republican incumbent.

    Mr. Minnick, who emphasized his résumé as a businessman and longtime executive in the lumber industry, will join a Democratic conference long dominated by urban liberals and led by Ms. Pelosi, of San Francisco.]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06cong.html

  20. [ShowsOn you’re being terribly intolerant of other peoples’ legitimate opinions.]
    You’re being intolerant of facts.
    [No amount of “scientific literature” can prove or disprove religious belief. T]
    Asserting that people have souls that magically appear around the point of conception is a scientific hypothesis that has been disproved. Sorry, but things are more complicated than that.
    [The soul is not a “scientific hypothesis”, it’s a religious belief.]
    Incorrect, this just demonstrates your ignorance of science. Again, you are just trying to quarantine this question as if it can’t be investigated scientifically. It has been, and the results show that humans are biological organisms similar to others, but with important differences that give us unique characteristics. There is no evidence that we have souls.
    [You don’t believe in the soul, and nor do I, but it’s both arrogant and stupid to assert that it is something that can be scientifically refuted.]
    It can be. You are just ignoring several fields of science that try to answer this precise question. You are ignoring a mixture of genetics and cognitive and evolutionary psychology. Again, I simply suggest that you inform yourself more before making such outlandish statements that some questions about HUMAN NATURE are not the domain of science. The whole concept of human nature is a scientific one in the first place!
    [ShowsOn is typical of half-educated fools who think that “science” can be deployed to answer all questions and refute all beliefs. No real scientist believes that.]
    LOL! 😀 I love the scare quotes around science!

    This is absolute rubbish, I never wrote anything remotely proposing this. I simply pointed out that what you think is a question of faith – the proposition that people have souls – is in fact a scientific hypothesis that is unsupported by evidence.

    Of course people can believe if they want to! But there is no ghost in the machine, human nature is a lot more complicated than that.

    If you cared to read a book on human nature, you’d find that the actual explanation for what makes us human is both more fascinating, and a lot more complicated than that.

  21. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/opinion/05friedman.html?em]

    Anyone else sick of Thomas Friedman.

    He’s a journalist who pretends to be an expert on economics, sociology, history, theology, neuroscience…

    And he jumps on whatever bandwagon happens to be popular at the time. You can see that with his views on terrorism, Iraq and the environment.

    Rant over.

  22. Democrats win in Oregon.

    [Democrat Jeff Merkley defeated Republican Senator Gordon Smith in Oregon, the Portland Oregonian projected on Wednesday, to further expand Democrats’ majority in the new Congress that convenes in January.

    With the results of three Senate races still to be determined from Tuesday’s election, Democrats have now gained six seats to raise their majority in the 100-member Senate to 57.

    If these remaining contests all go to Democrats, they would end up, for the first time in three decades, with the 60 Senate seats needed to pass legislation even in the face of Republican procedural hurdles.

    “Democrats would have to run the table, but they still have a slim shot at doing it,” said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

    To reach 60, Democrats would have to win a run-off in Georgia, a recount in Minnesota and a come-from-behind victory in Alaska. “We don’t see it happening,” a Democratic party aide said. “But we’ll see.”]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/06/2412685.htm?section=justin

  23. [I’m waiting for your scientific evidence for the non-existence of the soul, as postulated by Christian belief.]

    I was always under the impression that something had to be proved before it was taken as existing.

    I postulate that there’s 14 invisible monkeys doing a conga line on the desk of the Oval Office.

    Find me scientific evidence to disprove that!

  24. Oz, exactly. ShowsOn maintains he can prove a negative proposition, and I’m waiting to see him do it. Christians don’t regard themselves as obligated to “prove” the existence of the soul, they take it as a matter of faith. That’s the difference between a religious belief and a scientific belief, which ShowsOn refuses to acknowledge.

  25. Oz, nothing can be ‘proved’; just supported by differing degrees of scientific material. That’s neither here nor there. Religious loons believe God trumps science so basing an argument against their beliefs in science is silly. The best you can do is agree to disagree.

  26. [That’s the difference between a religious belief and a scientific belief, which ShowsOn refuses to acknowledge.]

    Of course religion is based on “faith”, that’s the whole idea of God and religion. But surely some things that were considered a point of “faith” like the sun revolving around the earth have been scientifically shown to be incorrect?

    [Oz, nothing can be ‘proved’]

    Are you sure?

    That the Earth is round cannot be proved? Even though it’s sphere-like shape can be clearly observed as well as tested mathematically?

  27. [Oz

    I was always under the impression that something had to be proved before it was taken as existing.]

    Nope. Science never proves anything, it can only refute or verify. Relativity was taken as existing on a theoretical basis but took years before it was “proven”.

    ShowsOn

    There is no scientific evidence for the non-existence of the soul. There is also no evidence for the existence of the soul. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  28. [Relativity was taken as existing on a theoretical basis but took years before it was “proven”. ]

    I don’t think relativity has been proven, it remains a scientific “theory”.

    Pretty sure I can “prove” I’m sitting on a couch. Unless you want to get into some really absurd areas of “what is couch?” “what is sitting?” “what is real?”.

  29. Of course geocentric cosmology could be disproved, and was, as soon as scientific instruments existed to do it with. But since Christians don’t claim that the soul is a material object which can be seen or measured, how exactly does ShowsOn intend to prove its non-existence? I’m agog with anticipation…

  30. Gusface, “what is truth”?
    Two possible answers:
    – a set of facts consistent with a sound and complete set of truth conditions. Now what about those truth conditions?
    – the opposite of whatever John Howard said 🙂

    I prefer the second definition.

    I won’t even try to get into arguments about souls, but I will make one observation. I think one of the next big collisions between religeon and science (after Darwin versus creation is eventually conceded like the earth orbitting the sun) will be over cognitive science, and the possibility for consciousness to survive outside the body. The more we learn about physicalist theories of mind and the relationship between parts of the brain and the mind, the less room there seems to be for immortal souls to be possible. Just my opinion.

  31. [no-one got the humphrey b bear- funny othello “joke” last night btw]

    I must have missed it, but what does the “B” stand for?

    Wikipedia has this gem on Humphrey:

    “Typical complaints about the Humphrey character include the character failing to wear pants”.

Comments Page 3 of 16
1 2 3 4 16

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *