Obama is taking criticism because his reverend, Wright, said some comments about America being partly responsible for 9/11. "Chickens coming home to roost" and all of that. Here are some thoughts.
1. The idea of 'blowback' was presented in the 9/11 Commission Report and describes that actions may have unintended consequences. This isn't a new idea, and it isn't anti-American to suggest that blowback is real.
2. Reverends Falwell and Robertson blamed America for 9/11 as well. Video link is here. Although in their case, the culprit responsible for the terrorist attacks was not blowback, as Wright claimed. Rather, it was moral depravity.
So lets recap. It is anti-American to suggest that covert CIA operations in foreign countries can cause resentment in the local populace. However, it is perfectly reasonable, but not anti-American, to suggest that belief in evolution or partaking in gay sex causes terrorism.
For the record, and to my eternal dismay, John McCain long ago accepted the endorsement of Falwell and spoke at his "university". Anyone who would think less of Obama for his association with Wright should think still worse of McCain for his association with Falwell.
For the record, I could care less about either. It would be impossible for a person to become a contender for the presidency while never once associating with some mildly scrupulous characters. Relative to other politicians, both McCain and Obama are very clean.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Interesting historical tidbit
From Wikipedia:
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff (or Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act)[1] was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of most economists, worsened the Great Depression. Economists have now generally regarded this Tariff Act (i.e., tax increase on imported goods) as the greatest policy blunder in American economic history, coming as it did after the 1929-30 recession and preventing the economy from a full, natural recovery which had already started by the Spring of 1930. Many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half.
During the 1992 Presidential Debate, Ross Perot warned of a "giant sucking sound" to describe job losses to Mexico if NAFTA was signed. During a debate on CNN, Al Gore presented Perot with a framed portrait of Congressmen Smoot and Hawley. The Clinton Administration subsequently won the election and passed NAFTA, which was considered for years to be a fantastic bipartisan achievement.
More trade discussion from my favorite economist Greg Mankiw on the NY Times.
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff (or Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act)[1] was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of most economists, worsened the Great Depression. Economists have now generally regarded this Tariff Act (i.e., tax increase on imported goods) as the greatest policy blunder in American economic history, coming as it did after the 1929-30 recession and preventing the economy from a full, natural recovery which had already started by the Spring of 1930. Many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half.
During the 1992 Presidential Debate, Ross Perot warned of a "giant sucking sound" to describe job losses to Mexico if NAFTA was signed. During a debate on CNN, Al Gore presented Perot with a framed portrait of Congressmen Smoot and Hawley. The Clinton Administration subsequently won the election and passed NAFTA, which was considered for years to be a fantastic bipartisan achievement.
More trade discussion from my favorite economist Greg Mankiw on the NY Times.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Playing a dangerous game
More concrete word about Republican tactics. They are coming out in droves to vote for Hillary Clinton in Democrat primaries. For a republican it's a cost-benefit analysis. Their best-case scenario is President McCain; worst-case scenario is President Clinton. A President Obama falls somewhere in the middle. Republicans adopting this tactic of helping Hillary are going for an all-or-nothing strategy. That doesn't make sense, though! The reward in such a risk should be high; its not. John McCain is not the next Reagan. The risk, however, is extremely high - the prospects of another President Clinton. Meanwhile, the odds of a favorable outcome (McCain beating Hillary) still aren't that great - especially if the economy tanks or Iraq gets worse. Republicans should realize that settling for four years of Obama is a far less risky and more sensible prospect.
Ultimately, conservatives should be thankful for the existence of Barack Obama. If not for Obama, we would be looking at President Clinton in 2008 - end of story. She would have clinched the Democratic nomination with ease, and she would have trounced any republican, even John McCain, in the general. The only reason McCain could potentially give her a run for her money now is because Hillary's campaign against Obama has shown many Democrats how despicable she really is. Without Obama, the Clintons would still be revered among all Democrats.
After eight long years of abject failure under Bush, conservatives should recognize that they don't deserve the presidency this time around. They need to spend the next four years reorganizing, cleaning up their act, and going back to true conservative principles. In the meantime, they should be thankful that at least its not Hillary.
Ultimately, conservatives should be thankful for the existence of Barack Obama. If not for Obama, we would be looking at President Clinton in 2008 - end of story. She would have clinched the Democratic nomination with ease, and she would have trounced any republican, even John McCain, in the general. The only reason McCain could potentially give her a run for her money now is because Hillary's campaign against Obama has shown many Democrats how despicable she really is. Without Obama, the Clintons would still be revered among all Democrats.
After eight long years of abject failure under Bush, conservatives should recognize that they don't deserve the presidency this time around. They need to spend the next four years reorganizing, cleaning up their act, and going back to true conservative principles. In the meantime, they should be thankful that at least its not Hillary.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
It isn't impossible to imagine a scenario where Hillary wins the Democrat nomination. She will be permanently behind in the delegate count, as many have pointed out. It may not matter - neither her nor Obama will be able to make it to 2025 delegates on their own. That is the number required to lock the nomination. The super delegates would have to call it in such circumstances. If Hillary had ended the primary season on a winning streak, its not hard to imagine them deciding in her favor, even if Obama had a very slight overall delegate lead.
This would almost certainly cause a civil war within the Democratic Party. It is much easier to imagine a John McCain victory after such a tumultuous outcome. I for one would not hesitate to vote for McCain if forced to choose between McCain or Hillary. This may be the third virtually unlosable election in eight years that the Democrats are well on their way to losing. It almost makes me pity them.
Almost.
This would almost certainly cause a civil war within the Democratic Party. It is much easier to imagine a John McCain victory after such a tumultuous outcome. I for one would not hesitate to vote for McCain if forced to choose between McCain or Hillary. This may be the third virtually unlosable election in eight years that the Democrats are well on their way to losing. It almost makes me pity them.
Almost.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Addendum to previous post
Short video of Barack Obama discussing education; I completely agree with every point he makes. The short version: while there are lots of things we need to be doing to improve education in America, parental responsibility is most important. This is so obvious, and yet few national politicians are hitting on it.
On a contrary note, I would like to reiterate how strongly I disagree with Obama on economic issues. I am a supporter of NAFTA; on the whole it has been a good thing for North Americans. I support free trade. There isn't any other force that will be capable of lifting billions out of poverty world wide. Free trade unites people as well; nothing in mankind's history has been so effective at preventing wars. Read about the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" for more details (no two nations with a McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other).
As I said below, I am willing to take a hit on economic issues for this election cycle, because the pros of an Obama Presidency more than make up for the economic negatives. Still, I am hoping that Barack's anti-trade rhetoric is mere politics designed to win a primary, not something that he genuinely believes.
On a contrary note, I would like to reiterate how strongly I disagree with Obama on economic issues. I am a supporter of NAFTA; on the whole it has been a good thing for North Americans. I support free trade. There isn't any other force that will be capable of lifting billions out of poverty world wide. Free trade unites people as well; nothing in mankind's history has been so effective at preventing wars. Read about the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" for more details (no two nations with a McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other).
As I said below, I am willing to take a hit on economic issues for this election cycle, because the pros of an Obama Presidency more than make up for the economic negatives. Still, I am hoping that Barack's anti-trade rhetoric is mere politics designed to win a primary, not something that he genuinely believes.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The conservative case for Barack Obama.
I posted a year ago that a McCain-Obama matchup would be a dream come true. It is exactly what this country needs right now - minimally divisive, with bipartisan appeal in both candidates. So who would I support? I consider myself a libertarian; socially liberal but economically conservative. As such, I disagree with just about all of Obama's economic policies. Conversely, I have parallel views with McCain on many issues. Yet, there is no question as to whom I am supporting in November: Barack Obama. Even if I was an arch-conservative, I would still be pulling for Barack Obama in November. Here are eight reasons why.
Reason Number 1: The conservative movement has abandoned its core principles. Anybody with half a brain will recognize that George Bush's administration has not been conservative. The conservative movement needs a timeout. They need to reduce the power of evangelicals and militarists. They need to once again espouse true conservative economic principles, and a more modest foreign agenda. Republicans should be downright embarrassed that Bill Clinton's economic record puts Bush's to shame.
Reason Number 2: Immigration is irrelevant. Regardless of one's opinion on immigration, they might as well forget about it this election cycle. McCain and Obama have very similar opinions on immigration.
Reason Number 3: John McCain is not going to usher in a new conservative economic revolution. McCain's biggest weakness is on economic issues. What a conservative should be looking for is the next Reagan - the next leader who can articulate a new conservative economic agenda. John McCain is not that man. Electing McCain for the next four years would simply delay the time when the next conservative economic revolution takes place.
Reason Number 4: Iraq is not strategically worth it. Despite initially opposing the war, I supported the war after the invasion because I believed we owed it to the Iraqis to try to piece their nation back together. After almost 4000 dead American soldiers, 4 years of battle, and trillions of dollars, we have fulfilled our moral obligation to the Iraqi people. The surge has been an amazing success, and I credit McCain for that (and wish he had been in charge sooner). However, surge or no, the Iraqi politicians are not making political progress. The state of Iraq is going to fragment. It will happen if we withdraw immediately, or if we do so in a decade, but it will happen nonetheless.
Many people believe we need to stay in Iraq to ensure a steady oil supply. This is not just the strong strategy - its the wrong frigging game. The oil is running out! We can deal with this reality now, or we can draw it out for another few decades when the wells run dry. Either way it will happen; the goal is to eventually no longer be reliant on oil.
Meanwhile, the occupation of Iraq does remain a rallying-cry for Islamic extremists. A withdrawal from Iraq, certain to happen under Obama but definitely not under McCain, will rob extremists of that rallying cry. After a US withdrawal from Iraq, no longer will Muslims read in the paper that US soldiers accidentally killed X civilians today in X Iraqi city. Instead, they will be horrified by the intense intra-Muslim violence that will inevitably follow our withdrawal. It will be a tragedy, but one that will quite clearly reveal the evil and hypocrisy of religious extremism for all to see.
Reason Number 5: Barack Obama would stand by far the best chance of any recent US President to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This is in part because Obama is less biased towards the Israeli side of the dispute, and thus will be seen as more of a fair mediator. Additionally, Obama will have more credibility as someone who opposed the War in Iraq. Finally, having a Muslim father will give Obama a special credibility among Palestinians; a credibility that a militaristic white Christian in McCain could never have.
Reason Number 6: Barack Hussein Obama can fundamentally change the perception of America in the Muslim world and beyond. Obama is a multilateralist, and would help to mend our relations with Europe. As the child of an African man, he is positioned to forge ties to various nations of that continent for mutual benefit, and help curb China's malevolent influence there. Finally, as an opponent of the Iraq war, the child of a poor Muslim father, and having the middle name of Hussein, Barack Obama is going to send a strong message to the billion+ Muslims of the world - Americans do not hate Muslims, they just hate murderers and terrorists. I will quote Andrew Sullivan here, as his passage on this subject is the best I've read:
"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can." -Andrew Sullivan, "Why Obama Matters"
Reason Number 7: Obama can do a lot for race relations in this country. Men like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are political opportunists who exploit racial divisions for their own gain. The election of President Obama is going to shut them up for good. An Obama victory proves that their representations of the racist nature of America have been inaccurate. It proves that they are wrong to not give people the benefit of the doubt, and to assume the worst about their inclinations. Electing Obama will take the mantle of African-American leadership from those who exploit division for their own gain, and hand it to a man who preaches unity, reconciliation, and working together for the future.
Reason Number 8: Obama can restore this nation's balance. The Presidency of George Bush has been an absolute failure in every sense of the word. He has squandered our reputation abroad, and exhausted the vast reserves of American soft power (ie, our moral authority). His economic policies have been disastrous. He has exploited the religious, ethnic, and social differences of Americans for political gain. The result is a nation that is as divided as ever. The nation needs to be reoriented. All conservatives should know that the political scene needs to shift back to the left if it ever is to effectively move right again.
We can shock the world, and indeed even ourselves, by casting our votes for Obama in the fall. We can move beyond the old divisions and start with a clean slate after 16 nasty years of sub-par presidents. Every conservative should recognize that economic issues can wait. There are too many pros to pass up an Obama presidency.
Yes we can!
Reason Number 1: The conservative movement has abandoned its core principles. Anybody with half a brain will recognize that George Bush's administration has not been conservative. The conservative movement needs a timeout. They need to reduce the power of evangelicals and militarists. They need to once again espouse true conservative economic principles, and a more modest foreign agenda. Republicans should be downright embarrassed that Bill Clinton's economic record puts Bush's to shame.
Reason Number 2: Immigration is irrelevant. Regardless of one's opinion on immigration, they might as well forget about it this election cycle. McCain and Obama have very similar opinions on immigration.
Reason Number 3: John McCain is not going to usher in a new conservative economic revolution. McCain's biggest weakness is on economic issues. What a conservative should be looking for is the next Reagan - the next leader who can articulate a new conservative economic agenda. John McCain is not that man. Electing McCain for the next four years would simply delay the time when the next conservative economic revolution takes place.
Reason Number 4: Iraq is not strategically worth it. Despite initially opposing the war, I supported the war after the invasion because I believed we owed it to the Iraqis to try to piece their nation back together. After almost 4000 dead American soldiers, 4 years of battle, and trillions of dollars, we have fulfilled our moral obligation to the Iraqi people. The surge has been an amazing success, and I credit McCain for that (and wish he had been in charge sooner). However, surge or no, the Iraqi politicians are not making political progress. The state of Iraq is going to fragment. It will happen if we withdraw immediately, or if we do so in a decade, but it will happen nonetheless.
Many people believe we need to stay in Iraq to ensure a steady oil supply. This is not just the strong strategy - its the wrong frigging game. The oil is running out! We can deal with this reality now, or we can draw it out for another few decades when the wells run dry. Either way it will happen; the goal is to eventually no longer be reliant on oil.
Meanwhile, the occupation of Iraq does remain a rallying-cry for Islamic extremists. A withdrawal from Iraq, certain to happen under Obama but definitely not under McCain, will rob extremists of that rallying cry. After a US withdrawal from Iraq, no longer will Muslims read in the paper that US soldiers accidentally killed X civilians today in X Iraqi city. Instead, they will be horrified by the intense intra-Muslim violence that will inevitably follow our withdrawal. It will be a tragedy, but one that will quite clearly reveal the evil and hypocrisy of religious extremism for all to see.
Reason Number 5: Barack Obama would stand by far the best chance of any recent US President to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This is in part because Obama is less biased towards the Israeli side of the dispute, and thus will be seen as more of a fair mediator. Additionally, Obama will have more credibility as someone who opposed the War in Iraq. Finally, having a Muslim father will give Obama a special credibility among Palestinians; a credibility that a militaristic white Christian in McCain could never have.
Reason Number 6: Barack Hussein Obama can fundamentally change the perception of America in the Muslim world and beyond. Obama is a multilateralist, and would help to mend our relations with Europe. As the child of an African man, he is positioned to forge ties to various nations of that continent for mutual benefit, and help curb China's malevolent influence there. Finally, as an opponent of the Iraq war, the child of a poor Muslim father, and having the middle name of Hussein, Barack Obama is going to send a strong message to the billion+ Muslims of the world - Americans do not hate Muslims, they just hate murderers and terrorists. I will quote Andrew Sullivan here, as his passage on this subject is the best I've read:
"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can." -Andrew Sullivan, "Why Obama Matters"
Reason Number 7: Obama can do a lot for race relations in this country. Men like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are political opportunists who exploit racial divisions for their own gain. The election of President Obama is going to shut them up for good. An Obama victory proves that their representations of the racist nature of America have been inaccurate. It proves that they are wrong to not give people the benefit of the doubt, and to assume the worst about their inclinations. Electing Obama will take the mantle of African-American leadership from those who exploit division for their own gain, and hand it to a man who preaches unity, reconciliation, and working together for the future.
Reason Number 8: Obama can restore this nation's balance. The Presidency of George Bush has been an absolute failure in every sense of the word. He has squandered our reputation abroad, and exhausted the vast reserves of American soft power (ie, our moral authority). His economic policies have been disastrous. He has exploited the religious, ethnic, and social differences of Americans for political gain. The result is a nation that is as divided as ever. The nation needs to be reoriented. All conservatives should know that the political scene needs to shift back to the left if it ever is to effectively move right again.
We can shock the world, and indeed even ourselves, by casting our votes for Obama in the fall. We can move beyond the old divisions and start with a clean slate after 16 nasty years of sub-par presidents. Every conservative should recognize that economic issues can wait. There are too many pros to pass up an Obama presidency.
Yes we can!
Yes we can?!
Losing Ohio or Texas will be the final nail in Clinton's coffin. She even tacitly acknowledged as much in the last debate. The only remaining question is whether she is going to accept defeat with any dignity.
The next thing we need to do is make sure that Obama has a very top-notch security force. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the first African-American President of the USA might have some enemies. Its unfortunate, but its reality.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
She has been defeated.
I am calling the Democrat Primary right now - Hillary Clinton has been defeated. Barack Obama has won the Democrat Primary, and in November he will defeat* John McCain.
Recent polls have shown Hillary ahead by double digits in Ohio, and supposedly she is leading in Texas as well. However, for her to win at this point, the super-delegates would have to convene "in a smoke-filled room" and decide to pick Hillary over Obama against the wishes of the majority of Democrats. They would face open revolt if they attempted to do so. If Democrat super-delegates tried to install Hillary as the Democratic nominee, they would be handing McCain the presidency on a silver platter.
Had the situation of a couple of weeks ago persisted, with Hillary having a slight lead, the super delegates might have been able to get away with deciding the primary in Hillary's favor. They would have been able to tout the presumption that Hillary was the front runner anyways, so they had to make a tough but fair call. Now, Obama is clearly the front runner. Even a loss in Ohio and Texas won't change that.
If Hillary truly cared about the Democratic Party, she would exit gracefully and quickly to ensure the Democrats unite behind Obama against McCain. Dragging out the primary only strengthens the hand of the Republicans, who have pragmatically united around their strongest general election candidate. Alas, I think even life-long democrats have seen this election cycle that Hillary doesn't care about the Democrat party, she cares about Hillary. All thats left to see is how gracefully Hillary accepts her defeat. If history is any indication, I suspect that it will not be pretty.
Oh, and the latest numbers from Intrade? Obama - 72%, Hillary - 25%.
*Disclaimer: I could see McCain beating Obama if two things happened. First, the US economy would need to avoid recession, and be booming come election time. Second, Iraq needs to be completely pacified. If the economy is stagnant, or US soldiers are still dying in Iraq, Obama wins by a landslide.
Recent polls have shown Hillary ahead by double digits in Ohio, and supposedly she is leading in Texas as well. However, for her to win at this point, the super-delegates would have to convene "in a smoke-filled room" and decide to pick Hillary over Obama against the wishes of the majority of Democrats. They would face open revolt if they attempted to do so. If Democrat super-delegates tried to install Hillary as the Democratic nominee, they would be handing McCain the presidency on a silver platter.
Had the situation of a couple of weeks ago persisted, with Hillary having a slight lead, the super delegates might have been able to get away with deciding the primary in Hillary's favor. They would have been able to tout the presumption that Hillary was the front runner anyways, so they had to make a tough but fair call. Now, Obama is clearly the front runner. Even a loss in Ohio and Texas won't change that.
If Hillary truly cared about the Democratic Party, she would exit gracefully and quickly to ensure the Democrats unite behind Obama against McCain. Dragging out the primary only strengthens the hand of the Republicans, who have pragmatically united around their strongest general election candidate. Alas, I think even life-long democrats have seen this election cycle that Hillary doesn't care about the Democrat party, she cares about Hillary. All thats left to see is how gracefully Hillary accepts her defeat. If history is any indication, I suspect that it will not be pretty.
Oh, and the latest numbers from Intrade? Obama - 72%, Hillary - 25%.
*Disclaimer: I could see McCain beating Obama if two things happened. First, the US economy would need to avoid recession, and be booming come election time. Second, Iraq needs to be completely pacified. If the economy is stagnant, or US soldiers are still dying in Iraq, Obama wins by a landslide.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Why can't people put two-and-two together?
McCain was dealt a firm rebuke by GOP primary voters tonight, winning only 26% of the vote in Washington and losing in a couple other states. Granted, McCain is still going to win the GOP nomination, but this shows how unhappy many Republican voters are with McCain's prospective leadership. Many Democrats realize this, and are collectively saying "Yay, now the GOP is screwed in November because Republicans are going to stay home!"
These people do not get it. They are correct in thinking Republicans will stay home if McCain's opponent is Barack Obama, but they are dead wrong if Hillary Clinton is on the ballot. In that situation, I assure you, those Republicans will not be staying home. If Hillary gets the nomination, the only people staying home would be Barack Obama's numerous disenfranchised supporters.
It is quite simple. If the Democrats want to win in November, they choose Obama. If they want to lose again, they pick Hillary. I am so not going to tolerate Democrats whining about another militaristic right-wing Republican president if they are the ones that pass up Obama.
I'll end on some good news. A week before Super Tuesday, Obama's intrade value to get the Dem nomination was 30% to HRC's 65%. The day of, it was 47%, tied w/ Hillary. As of now? 70%. She is losing. I am not 100% confident that she will lose, because I suspect she has some insidious plot up her sleeve to steal the nomination away from Obama. But it looks more likely that she will be stopped with each passing day.
These people do not get it. They are correct in thinking Republicans will stay home if McCain's opponent is Barack Obama, but they are dead wrong if Hillary Clinton is on the ballot. In that situation, I assure you, those Republicans will not be staying home. If Hillary gets the nomination, the only people staying home would be Barack Obama's numerous disenfranchised supporters.
It is quite simple. If the Democrats want to win in November, they choose Obama. If they want to lose again, they pick Hillary. I am so not going to tolerate Democrats whining about another militaristic right-wing Republican president if they are the ones that pass up Obama.
I'll end on some good news. A week before Super Tuesday, Obama's intrade value to get the Dem nomination was 30% to HRC's 65%. The day of, it was 47%, tied w/ Hillary. As of now? 70%. She is losing. I am not 100% confident that she will lose, because I suspect she has some insidious plot up her sleeve to steal the nomination away from Obama. But it looks more likely that she will be stopped with each passing day.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
My money goes with my heart.
For the last month or so, I've played the Intrade Politics Market with only logic, not emotion. It was more fun when I got to buy McCain and Obama, of course. Other times, like after Iowa, I knew the Clinton machine just wasn't defeated yet. Selling Obama and buying Clinton was depressing, but proved to be the right financial move at the time. I correctly predicted that Obama's surge after Iowa wouldn't last. Indeed, the numbers only a couple of weeks ago had moved back to their pre-Iowa state; 30% Obama for 65% Hillary.
However, as of now I have dumped the rest of my Intrade balance into various Obama contracts. I did so because I realized something. The implications of Hillary Clinton first defeating Obama in the Democrat Primary, and then defeating McCain in the general election, would be devastating. If this happened - if Hillary became President, I would be so disheartened, so disappointed, and so jaded, that I would probably stop following politics altogether. What need would I have for Intrade at that point, anyways?
Obama is going to win. I've always believed this, but never with more conviction than now. I know he is going to beat Hillary. I know it because I also know that this is a great nation. I know that the American dream isn't dead. America can still set a positive example for the world, and lead it to a better tomorrow. Hillary represents everything that is wrong with this nation. She is the continuation of George Bush. She represents division, the status quo, the political elite, dynastism, cynicism, and regression. We have had enough.
The American people are ready, but the fight against Hillary won't be easy. Behind her is an nearly invincible political machine that will stop at nothing to see her in the white house. Truly, the Clinton Machine would rather see the Democratic Party and the nation divided and destroyed than lose the presidency. Know hope! What as of late have we learned about evil, "unstoppable" machines? Are there any lessons that we could draw from recent history, like say 2/3/2008? It takes courage and hard work, but they can be defeated. Just ask Eli Manning.
YES WE CAN.
And Hillary? No, you absolutely positively may not.
However, as of now I have dumped the rest of my Intrade balance into various Obama contracts. I did so because I realized something. The implications of Hillary Clinton first defeating Obama in the Democrat Primary, and then defeating McCain in the general election, would be devastating. If this happened - if Hillary became President, I would be so disheartened, so disappointed, and so jaded, that I would probably stop following politics altogether. What need would I have for Intrade at that point, anyways?
Obama is going to win. I've always believed this, but never with more conviction than now. I know he is going to beat Hillary. I know it because I also know that this is a great nation. I know that the American dream isn't dead. America can still set a positive example for the world, and lead it to a better tomorrow. Hillary represents everything that is wrong with this nation. She is the continuation of George Bush. She represents division, the status quo, the political elite, dynastism, cynicism, and regression. We have had enough.
The American people are ready, but the fight against Hillary won't be easy. Behind her is an nearly invincible political machine that will stop at nothing to see her in the white house. Truly, the Clinton Machine would rather see the Democratic Party and the nation divided and destroyed than lose the presidency. Know hope! What as of late have we learned about evil, "unstoppable" machines? Are there any lessons that we could draw from recent history, like say 2/3/2008? It takes courage and hard work, but they can be defeated. Just ask Eli Manning.
YES WE CAN.
And Hillary? No, you absolutely positively may not.
Monday, January 28, 2008
130%
I put money on the Intrade Prediction Market about a month ago. I've traded exclusively political contracts. The number above represents the return on my initial investment. A good stock broker will get a return of what, 15%? Yes, I am gloating.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
What is an ideologue?
I have my own definition. An ideologue is an intellectual coward. These are the people who join a movement, but check their free thought at the door. One of the things that I love most about this 2008 Election is that it exposes the ideologues for the group-thinkers that they are.
In the last month, we've seen Hillary Clinton turn nasty in this election. Her tactics have been despicable. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out, they've done the math and the Clintons know that if they can divide the electorate on race, gender, etc, then they'll get the nomination. They've belittled Obama's accomplishments, blatantly lied about his positions, and probably are behind malicious "anonymous" emails that claim Obama is a Jew-hating Muslim.
Couple this Karl Rove-style campaign with the fact that Obama is clearly the better candidate anyways, a person would think that many Democrat blogs would be supporting Obama or at least questioning Clinton's methods. This person would, however, be wrong.
The Daily Kos is one great example of this. It is undeniably the most prominent Democrat blog on the internet, and is probably the most influential blog on the internet. Until very recently, I had not seen one iota of criticism of Hillary. Their daily posts continued to be focused on the evils of the republicans and the failures of George Bush. As if we still need a reminder that he is an abject failure. Not only did they refrain from criticizing Hillary and Bill, they actually forbade it, with this quote:
The other night there was a recommended Diary, I think it was called "Bye". The gist was that if you didn’t fully support Senator Clinton after she wins the nomination you had to leave Daily Kos and the progressive movement.
Translation: "THERE WILL BE NO DISSENT. DO NOT DEVIATE. GET IN LINE. STAND QUIETLY - WE WILL DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU." Its hard for me to even believe that sort of crap. Coming from a community that pretends to be full of enlightened free-thinkers? Its pathetic, and it exposes most of the Kossites for what they are - ideologues; intellectual cowards. The original post of the Kossite deviant can be found here; its a good one.
Another prominent lefty blogger, one of my favorites despite his failings, is Matthew Yglesias. Matt had, until recently, given the Clintons a pass to lie. He claimed that it didn't bother him because it was "politics", and that the Democrats will need to be seasoned in the tactics of dirty politics when they go up against the GOP in the general election. I don't buy that, not for one second. If a politician is going to lie to get elected, then they'll lie when they are in office. It certainly hasn't been acceptable to these people when Bush has lied, so why the double standard? And certainly there is a continuum scale of the severity of lies. There are distortions, which happen all of the time. And then there are blatant, outright falsities, like Bill Clinton's claim that Obama supported the war in Iraq.
At any rate, Yglesias has finally caved as of late. The hideous monster that is the Clintons has finally reared its ugly head for all to see, and it is undeniably nasty. It frustrates me that it took lefties so long to start to turn on Clinton, though. It might prove to be too little, too late. However, while it bothers me, it doesn't surprise me. I spend time on blogs that range from right to left and everywhere in between. Say what you want about the right, there is not even close to the level of group-think in conservative circles as there are in liberal circles. This phenomenon explains oddities like continued opposition to nuclear power among the left. The concerns are all bogus and the benefits overwhelming, and yet changing liberal dogma to accept nuclear energy has thus far been an impossible task. Every few months, some prominent environmentalist will brave the criticism and change sides to support nuclear power. Invariably, said person will be condemned as an apostate by the entire movement.
Its ironic that a month ago, I didn't mind Hillary Clinton. I didn't love her, but certainly didn't hate her. That all has changed. I would rather see the Patriots go undefeated for the next decade than see Hillary win this election. Fortunately, I don't think she will. I believe Obama will beat her in the primary. And even if he doesn't, John McCain will pick her off in the general election. Make no mistake, I'd rather have Obama than McCain, and I'm very confident Obama could beat McCain. But if the Democrats unwisely force the nation to pick between Hillary and McCain, we're going to have another Republican president for the next four years.
In the last month, we've seen Hillary Clinton turn nasty in this election. Her tactics have been despicable. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out, they've done the math and the Clintons know that if they can divide the electorate on race, gender, etc, then they'll get the nomination. They've belittled Obama's accomplishments, blatantly lied about his positions, and probably are behind malicious "anonymous" emails that claim Obama is a Jew-hating Muslim.
Couple this Karl Rove-style campaign with the fact that Obama is clearly the better candidate anyways, a person would think that many Democrat blogs would be supporting Obama or at least questioning Clinton's methods. This person would, however, be wrong.
The Daily Kos is one great example of this. It is undeniably the most prominent Democrat blog on the internet, and is probably the most influential blog on the internet. Until very recently, I had not seen one iota of criticism of Hillary. Their daily posts continued to be focused on the evils of the republicans and the failures of George Bush. As if we still need a reminder that he is an abject failure. Not only did they refrain from criticizing Hillary and Bill, they actually forbade it, with this quote:
The other night there was a recommended Diary, I think it was called "Bye". The gist was that if you didn’t fully support Senator Clinton after she wins the nomination you had to leave Daily Kos and the progressive movement.
Translation: "THERE WILL BE NO DISSENT. DO NOT DEVIATE. GET IN LINE. STAND QUIETLY - WE WILL DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU." Its hard for me to even believe that sort of crap. Coming from a community that pretends to be full of enlightened free-thinkers? Its pathetic, and it exposes most of the Kossites for what they are - ideologues; intellectual cowards. The original post of the Kossite deviant can be found here; its a good one.
Another prominent lefty blogger, one of my favorites despite his failings, is Matthew Yglesias. Matt had, until recently, given the Clintons a pass to lie. He claimed that it didn't bother him because it was "politics", and that the Democrats will need to be seasoned in the tactics of dirty politics when they go up against the GOP in the general election. I don't buy that, not for one second. If a politician is going to lie to get elected, then they'll lie when they are in office. It certainly hasn't been acceptable to these people when Bush has lied, so why the double standard? And certainly there is a continuum scale of the severity of lies. There are distortions, which happen all of the time. And then there are blatant, outright falsities, like Bill Clinton's claim that Obama supported the war in Iraq.
At any rate, Yglesias has finally caved as of late. The hideous monster that is the Clintons has finally reared its ugly head for all to see, and it is undeniably nasty. It frustrates me that it took lefties so long to start to turn on Clinton, though. It might prove to be too little, too late. However, while it bothers me, it doesn't surprise me. I spend time on blogs that range from right to left and everywhere in between. Say what you want about the right, there is not even close to the level of group-think in conservative circles as there are in liberal circles. This phenomenon explains oddities like continued opposition to nuclear power among the left. The concerns are all bogus and the benefits overwhelming, and yet changing liberal dogma to accept nuclear energy has thus far been an impossible task. Every few months, some prominent environmentalist will brave the criticism and change sides to support nuclear power. Invariably, said person will be condemned as an apostate by the entire movement.
Its ironic that a month ago, I didn't mind Hillary Clinton. I didn't love her, but certainly didn't hate her. That all has changed. I would rather see the Patriots go undefeated for the next decade than see Hillary win this election. Fortunately, I don't think she will. I believe Obama will beat her in the primary. And even if he doesn't, John McCain will pick her off in the general election. Make no mistake, I'd rather have Obama than McCain, and I'm very confident Obama could beat McCain. But if the Democrats unwisely force the nation to pick between Hillary and McCain, we're going to have another Republican president for the next four years.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Bill Clinton
During his campaign for a third term, we should keep in mind that his foreign policy was an abject failure by all objective measures:
-He embarrassed the US and the Western world in Somalia, a nation which remains one of the world's poorest failed states today.
-His failure to intervene in Rwanda is the greatest humiliation of humanity since WW2.
-His response to the genocide of Muslims in Yugoslavia was limited and weak, according to relatives who lived through it.
-He made no ground on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
-He allowed the Taliban to take power in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda built up during his watch. The warning signs were there - even a UN report in 1998 detailed the Taliban's anti-American activities.
-He made no positive progress in Iraq, except periodic air strikes conveniently timed to take the heat off of himself during the Lewinsky scandal.
Many people might wonder what Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would look like. I have two words for them: Status Quo. The same old shit, the same old textbook responses. Don't stick your neck out, make the politically safe play. Arguably, it is a better strategy than Bush took. Bill didn't make anything *worse*, after all. However, he certainly didn't make anything better.
America, and the world, deserves more than that. Barack Obama is a drastic departure from any sort of status quo. His understanding of world issues dwarfs that of Hillary. His charisma is light years beyond what hers could ever be. Obama's race, being of African descent, would make it possible for him to reach out to African nations and make progress there like never before. Even his middle name, Hussein, would send a message to Muslims everywhere that America doesn't hate them, their culture, or their religion. It just hates their extremists. I'll finish this post with one of Andrew Sullivan's best advocacies for Obama that I've read:
"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."
-He embarrassed the US and the Western world in Somalia, a nation which remains one of the world's poorest failed states today.
-His failure to intervene in Rwanda is the greatest humiliation of humanity since WW2.
-His response to the genocide of Muslims in Yugoslavia was limited and weak, according to relatives who lived through it.
-He made no ground on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
-He allowed the Taliban to take power in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda built up during his watch. The warning signs were there - even a UN report in 1998 detailed the Taliban's anti-American activities.
-He made no positive progress in Iraq, except periodic air strikes conveniently timed to take the heat off of himself during the Lewinsky scandal.
Many people might wonder what Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would look like. I have two words for them: Status Quo. The same old shit, the same old textbook responses. Don't stick your neck out, make the politically safe play. Arguably, it is a better strategy than Bush took. Bill didn't make anything *worse*, after all. However, he certainly didn't make anything better.
America, and the world, deserves more than that. Barack Obama is a drastic departure from any sort of status quo. His understanding of world issues dwarfs that of Hillary. His charisma is light years beyond what hers could ever be. Obama's race, being of African descent, would make it possible for him to reach out to African nations and make progress there like never before. Even his middle name, Hussein, would send a message to Muslims everywhere that America doesn't hate them, their culture, or their religion. It just hates their extremists. I'll finish this post with one of Andrew Sullivan's best advocacies for Obama that I've read:
"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."
Monday, January 14, 2008
I'm not sure Thompson is finished.
He looked like it for a while. However, Romney and Guliani just keep falling. Huckabee is clearly not intelligent enough to win an election. And the GOP base absolutely despises McCain. I'm not sure they're going to let him get it. Thompson is still their only realistic alternative.
...and right now, Thompson to win the GOP nomination on Intrade is worth about 0.8. In other words, you'll get 120:1 odds on Thompson if you buy now. I've mentioned before, intrade is not about picking winners or losers. Its about recognizing when a contract is undervalued or overvalued and trading accordingly.
...and right now, Thompson to win the GOP nomination on Intrade is worth about 0.8. In other words, you'll get 120:1 odds on Thompson if you buy now. I've mentioned before, intrade is not about picking winners or losers. Its about recognizing when a contract is undervalued or overvalued and trading accordingly.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Of Nightmares becoming Realities
Clinton did beat Barack in the NH Primary. It was an amazing upset. In my nightmare, it was because all of the independents voted for McCain. I do not believe that is the main reason why she won (although it may have had some effect). She won because initially, she was only supposed to get 2% more votes from women than Obama. Instead, she ended up hoarding 14% more votes from women than Barack was able to muster.
Why was there a massive shift from women? Hillary's emotional breakdown comes to mind. Perhaps women felt sorry for her. I for one did not. I have zero sympathy for the emotions of any person running for a public office, let alone the President of the United States. She knew what she was getting into when her ambitions drove her to run for president. She shouldn't be in the race if she can't handle the heat.
Meanwhile, her husband may have also played some role in Obama's defeat. Bill let loose a scathing attack on Obama, where he calls Barack's anti-war record the biggest fairy tale ever. Well let me tell you what. Bill Clinton is absolutely full of shit. The Clintonian record on Iraq is wrong, and has been wrong since the end of the 1st Gulf War. I remember distinctly around 1998, when I woke up one day and Bill Clinton had bombed Iraq, because Saddam wasn't cooperating with inspectors. Coincidentally, and perhaps too conveniently, this was precisely around the time that the Monica Lewinsky scandal had broke.
Meanwhile, if you want to see Obama's record on the Iraq war, look no further than this interview in 2002. Here are a few choice quotes from Obama in that interview:
(Obama) "The debate will be about, what is our long-term commitment there (Iraq). How much is it going to cost. What does it mean for us to rebuild Iraq. How do we ensure the country doesn't splinter into factions between the Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis."
(Interviewer) "How would you have voted on the Iraq war powers resolution? Would you have voted yay or nay if you could have voted?"
(Obama) "I would have voted nay."
There it is: Barack Obama, on the record, saying that he would have voted against the Iraq war when it was extremely politically risky to do so. Meanwhile, in a short two minute interview he brought up four questions that were almost prophetic about our future struggles in Iraq. Barack Obama in 2002 had an understanding of the complications of the Iraq war that I have yet to see matched by ANYONE. No politician, nor pundit, including self professed middle eastern "experts" like Juan Cole (who assumed the invasion would ultimately be worth it). While proving himself to be far more informed than Clinton, Obama showed he had the courage to follow his convictions, despite the political consequences.
Hillary Clinton never polarized me like she did other people. I didn't buy into all of the hype or condemnation; she is a politician and I placed her in that category with the rest of them. However, with each passing day I am coming to despise Clinton more. It is a combination of fear of the power that her name wields, disgust at her inclination to pursue any means necessary to gain power, and anger that she is standing in the way of a true leader, Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has the entire Democratic political establishment at her back, while Barack has only the people. He is going to need our help in the next few weeks. I implore all to do their fullest to help him defeat the Clinton Machine.
My one consolation is that McCain won the New Hampshire primary among republicans. It seems likely now that he will get the GOP nomination. At least if Hillary does win the democratic nomination, I'll get to watch McCain trounce her in the general election. The 2008 election is going to be an ugly thing with Hillary Clinton in the running, that is for sure.
Why was there a massive shift from women? Hillary's emotional breakdown comes to mind. Perhaps women felt sorry for her. I for one did not. I have zero sympathy for the emotions of any person running for a public office, let alone the President of the United States. She knew what she was getting into when her ambitions drove her to run for president. She shouldn't be in the race if she can't handle the heat.
Meanwhile, her husband may have also played some role in Obama's defeat. Bill let loose a scathing attack on Obama, where he calls Barack's anti-war record the biggest fairy tale ever. Well let me tell you what. Bill Clinton is absolutely full of shit. The Clintonian record on Iraq is wrong, and has been wrong since the end of the 1st Gulf War. I remember distinctly around 1998, when I woke up one day and Bill Clinton had bombed Iraq, because Saddam wasn't cooperating with inspectors. Coincidentally, and perhaps too conveniently, this was precisely around the time that the Monica Lewinsky scandal had broke.
Meanwhile, if you want to see Obama's record on the Iraq war, look no further than this interview in 2002. Here are a few choice quotes from Obama in that interview:
(Obama) "The debate will be about, what is our long-term commitment there (Iraq). How much is it going to cost. What does it mean for us to rebuild Iraq. How do we ensure the country doesn't splinter into factions between the Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis."
(Interviewer) "How would you have voted on the Iraq war powers resolution? Would you have voted yay or nay if you could have voted?"
(Obama) "I would have voted nay."
There it is: Barack Obama, on the record, saying that he would have voted against the Iraq war when it was extremely politically risky to do so. Meanwhile, in a short two minute interview he brought up four questions that were almost prophetic about our future struggles in Iraq. Barack Obama in 2002 had an understanding of the complications of the Iraq war that I have yet to see matched by ANYONE. No politician, nor pundit, including self professed middle eastern "experts" like Juan Cole (who assumed the invasion would ultimately be worth it). While proving himself to be far more informed than Clinton, Obama showed he had the courage to follow his convictions, despite the political consequences.
Hillary Clinton never polarized me like she did other people. I didn't buy into all of the hype or condemnation; she is a politician and I placed her in that category with the rest of them. However, with each passing day I am coming to despise Clinton more. It is a combination of fear of the power that her name wields, disgust at her inclination to pursue any means necessary to gain power, and anger that she is standing in the way of a true leader, Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has the entire Democratic political establishment at her back, while Barack has only the people. He is going to need our help in the next few weeks. I implore all to do their fullest to help him defeat the Clinton Machine.
My one consolation is that McCain won the New Hampshire primary among republicans. It seems likely now that he will get the GOP nomination. At least if Hillary does win the democratic nomination, I'll get to watch McCain trounce her in the general election. The 2008 election is going to be an ugly thing with Hillary Clinton in the running, that is for sure.
The Clintonian melt-down
First Hillary chokes up while essentially patronizing the decision of American citizens to seek Obama to lead this country. Then Bill becomes quite angry about the whole situation. They behave as if Hillary was owed the Presidency. Actually, I sometimes wonder whether they really believe that.
What really scares me is how entrenched power in America has become. A "political aristocracy" has been formed (not my phrase). The Bush family is obviously the first that comes to mind; fortunately I suspect their fortunes are over. But consider the Clinton family. Hillary was essentially a lock for this nomination. There was no serious challenger to her, until Obama showed up. Imagine if Obama didn't exist. Hillary Clinton would have steamrolled though to get the nomination, and then probably would have won the presidency as well. She would have done so not because she would be a far better president than anyone else - its because she is a Clinton. The power in that family is incredible. It makes one realize how amazing it is that Obama was ever able to challenge that.
What saddens me is that a phenom like Obama is so rare. This sort of thing should be happening all of the time, to shatter the death-grip that the political elites have on what goes on in this country. I don't forget Ron Paul, too. He would be a powerful contender for the GOP nomination if he was a little bit less crazy about certain things. I suspect that central to it all is the internet and its power to get a message across. The internet has become the great equalizer, leveling the playing field between candidates with little money (ie, Ron Paul, Obama) and those with plenty of money and powerful political backing (Clinton, Romney).
What really scares me is how entrenched power in America has become. A "political aristocracy" has been formed (not my phrase). The Bush family is obviously the first that comes to mind; fortunately I suspect their fortunes are over. But consider the Clinton family. Hillary was essentially a lock for this nomination. There was no serious challenger to her, until Obama showed up. Imagine if Obama didn't exist. Hillary Clinton would have steamrolled though to get the nomination, and then probably would have won the presidency as well. She would have done so not because she would be a far better president than anyone else - its because she is a Clinton. The power in that family is incredible. It makes one realize how amazing it is that Obama was ever able to challenge that.
What saddens me is that a phenom like Obama is so rare. This sort of thing should be happening all of the time, to shatter the death-grip that the political elites have on what goes on in this country. I don't forget Ron Paul, too. He would be a powerful contender for the GOP nomination if he was a little bit less crazy about certain things. I suspect that central to it all is the internet and its power to get a message across. The internet has become the great equalizer, leveling the playing field between candidates with little money (ie, Ron Paul, Obama) and those with plenty of money and powerful political backing (Clinton, Romney).
Sunday, January 06, 2008
My nightmare.
Literally, I had it last night:
Obama lost the New Hampshire primary to Hillary because all of the independents voted for McCain and not Barack. I was quite agitated when I woke up, but then I realized the NH primary is still a couple of days away.
The bad news is that this scenario is not unrealistic. Both McCain and Obama rely heavily on independents to win. If the independent vote was split, Barack may be the loser (it would also hurt McCain, but I don't think Romney is as much of a threat to him in NH as HRC is to Obama).
If Barack loses in NH, Hillary will steamroll over him to get the nomination. Her performance in the debate last night eases my concerns to some extent, however. She seemed angry and extremely aggressive. Maybe she should be; but it was almost uncomfortable to watch her.
On a related note, think about how angry and vicious a Clinton vs Guliani 2008 election would be. It makes me shudder to think about it.
Obama lost the New Hampshire primary to Hillary because all of the independents voted for McCain and not Barack. I was quite agitated when I woke up, but then I realized the NH primary is still a couple of days away.
The bad news is that this scenario is not unrealistic. Both McCain and Obama rely heavily on independents to win. If the independent vote was split, Barack may be the loser (it would also hurt McCain, but I don't think Romney is as much of a threat to him in NH as HRC is to Obama).
If Barack loses in NH, Hillary will steamroll over him to get the nomination. Her performance in the debate last night eases my concerns to some extent, however. She seemed angry and extremely aggressive. Maybe she should be; but it was almost uncomfortable to watch her.
On a related note, think about how angry and vicious a Clinton vs Guliani 2008 election would be. It makes me shudder to think about it.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Where the Independents went
From Andrew Sullivan:
Among independents, Clinton came a poor third: 17 percent to Obama's 41. And McCain lost out to Paul: 23 percent to 29. The (two) men with the most support among independents - the people you need to win a general election - are the most despised by the Republican base (McCain and Paul).
I'm beginning to feel that the theme of this 2008 election is a rejection of the establishment. HRC was the inevitable Democrat candidate; the political machine backing her may be the most powerful ever. And yet she is being beaten by a black man, when so many people said that Americans were too racist for Obama to win.
Meanwhile, the GOP had murdered McCain months ago and left him for dead; his campaign nearly bankrupt. From day one, Fox News has been sabotaging the campaign of Ron Paul. However, independents are capable of thinking for themselves and will make up their own minds. They have rallied around Paul and McCain. They are rejecting the cookie-cutter status quo candidates being thrown at them by the GOP establishment (Guliani, Romney).
This election, independents are loudly reminding the Republican and Democratic party bosses that the people call the shots in this country, not political elites.
Among independents, Clinton came a poor third: 17 percent to Obama's 41. And McCain lost out to Paul: 23 percent to 29. The (two) men with the most support among independents - the people you need to win a general election - are the most despised by the Republican base (McCain and Paul).
I'm beginning to feel that the theme of this 2008 election is a rejection of the establishment. HRC was the inevitable Democrat candidate; the political machine backing her may be the most powerful ever. And yet she is being beaten by a black man, when so many people said that Americans were too racist for Obama to win.
Meanwhile, the GOP had murdered McCain months ago and left him for dead; his campaign nearly bankrupt. From day one, Fox News has been sabotaging the campaign of Ron Paul. However, independents are capable of thinking for themselves and will make up their own minds. They have rallied around Paul and McCain. They are rejecting the cookie-cutter status quo candidates being thrown at them by the GOP establishment (Guliani, Romney).
This election, independents are loudly reminding the Republican and Democratic party bosses that the people call the shots in this country, not political elites.
Post Iowa Caucus Update
There is good news for fellow anti-Huckabeans out there. Even though Huckabee won the Iowa caucus, according to Intrade the victory didn't really help him all that much. His prospects for winning the GOP nomination as a whole only rose a modest 5%; contrast that to Obama, who gained ~20% from his Iowa victory. Clearly, people are betting that Huckabee's long term prospects are still poor.
It turns out that the most significant impact of Huckabee's victory is that it weakened Romney and Guliani, while strengthening McCain. I was wondering why McCain was boosted, even though he lost in Iowa, too. I can only guess that the New Hampshire Primary has something to do with this phenomenon. The NH primary has been very close between McCain and Romney up till now. However, unlike McCain, Romney was expected to win in Iowa and held the lead for a long time. Thus a Huckabee victory damages Romney, but not McCain, since he was never expected to win Iowa. Thus McCain has a boost in the NH primary, which suggests he may gain the momentum to win the whole thing. People must be wondering when Guliani plans on making a showing at all...
Meanwhile, HRC and Obama *were* neck and neck in NH. As I wrote below, I am betting (literally) that Obama's Iowa victory will give him the momentum to win in NH. The Intrade markets seem to agree. Obama's prospects for winning the Dem nomination jumped from about 25% to 45%, while Hillary's dropped from 65% to 50%. What an exciting race. Thank god I'm still on Christmas break.
It turns out that the most significant impact of Huckabee's victory is that it weakened Romney and Guliani, while strengthening McCain. I was wondering why McCain was boosted, even though he lost in Iowa, too. I can only guess that the New Hampshire Primary has something to do with this phenomenon. The NH primary has been very close between McCain and Romney up till now. However, unlike McCain, Romney was expected to win in Iowa and held the lead for a long time. Thus a Huckabee victory damages Romney, but not McCain, since he was never expected to win Iowa. Thus McCain has a boost in the NH primary, which suggests he may gain the momentum to win the whole thing. People must be wondering when Guliani plans on making a showing at all...
Meanwhile, HRC and Obama *were* neck and neck in NH. As I wrote below, I am betting (literally) that Obama's Iowa victory will give him the momentum to win in NH. The Intrade markets seem to agree. Obama's prospects for winning the Dem nomination jumped from about 25% to 45%, while Hillary's dropped from 65% to 50%. What an exciting race. Thank god I'm still on Christmas break.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
John McCain now GOP frontrunner
The latest numbers from Intrade, regarding the GOP nomination:
McCain - 28%
Guliani - 24%
Romney - 23%
Huckabee - 13%
Paul - 7%
Thompson - 3%
It is still a very close race. McCain has momentum on his side, however. Just a few weeks ago, McCain was only 8% while Guliani was 47%. Meanwhile, Romney looks stronger on paper than in reality. He seems to be on the verge of losing Iowa to Huckabee; meanwhile, McCain has surged and looks to steal New Hampshire away from Romney as well.
Here are the Intrade numbers for the Democrat Presidential nomination:
Clinton - 63%
Obama - 31%
Edwards - 5%
Not much has changed. Clinton is still a 2:1 favorite over Obama, and Edwards is the only other Dem even on the radar. However, its an interesting situation. I don't really understand all of the implications of the caucus system, but things aren't as clear cut as they look. Obama is poised to win Iowa. Obama and HRC are almost dead even in New Hampshire. I wonder if a win in Iowa could give Obama the momentum to win in NH? Obama already has a lead in South Carolina, so its very possible, perhaps even likely, that Obama will win the first three contests. And yet, the Intrade numbers strongly favor Clinton. There is probably quite a bit that I do not understand about this system.
I'll finish by copy/pasting an old post regarding the election:
Making predictions 1.5 years out: The straight-talk express, John McCain, gets the republican ticket. McCain beats Hillary if she gets the dem ticket. McCain loses to Obama if he gets the dem ticket. If the race came down to McCain vs Obama, I wouldn't need to vote. Well lets face it, I'm from Indiana so I dont *need* to vote anyway.
Recent polls have indeed shown that McCain beats HRC and loses to Obama.
McCain - 28%
Guliani - 24%
Romney - 23%
Huckabee - 13%
Paul - 7%
Thompson - 3%
It is still a very close race. McCain has momentum on his side, however. Just a few weeks ago, McCain was only 8% while Guliani was 47%. Meanwhile, Romney looks stronger on paper than in reality. He seems to be on the verge of losing Iowa to Huckabee; meanwhile, McCain has surged and looks to steal New Hampshire away from Romney as well.
Here are the Intrade numbers for the Democrat Presidential nomination:
Clinton - 63%
Obama - 31%
Edwards - 5%
Not much has changed. Clinton is still a 2:1 favorite over Obama, and Edwards is the only other Dem even on the radar. However, its an interesting situation. I don't really understand all of the implications of the caucus system, but things aren't as clear cut as they look. Obama is poised to win Iowa. Obama and HRC are almost dead even in New Hampshire. I wonder if a win in Iowa could give Obama the momentum to win in NH? Obama already has a lead in South Carolina, so its very possible, perhaps even likely, that Obama will win the first three contests. And yet, the Intrade numbers strongly favor Clinton. There is probably quite a bit that I do not understand about this system.
I'll finish by copy/pasting an old post regarding the election:
Making predictions 1.5 years out: The straight-talk express, John McCain, gets the republican ticket. McCain beats Hillary if she gets the dem ticket. McCain loses to Obama if he gets the dem ticket. If the race came down to McCain vs Obama, I wouldn't need to vote. Well lets face it, I'm from Indiana so I dont *need* to vote anyway.
Recent polls have indeed shown that McCain beats HRC and loses to Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)