Election Predictions, part 1

Alright, it's time for some predictions about Tuesday night. But before we go there, let's start with a little history.

I've been on this campaign for almost 20 of the 21 months it's been going. I started out supporting New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who I thought was the most thoughtful and experienced of the candidates, but who soon disappointed me by not articulating anything resembling a coherent position on almost any issue. That fairytale lasted about 2 months. 

I then got over my overwhelming dislike of Hillary Clinton after watching her throughout the debates and stump speeches. I've talked about my perceptual shift toward Hillary before, so I won't go there again, but needless to say I felt something about her that led me to believe she'd make a great president. I still feel that today. 

The day Hillary dropped out, I sent a check to Barack Obama and haven't looked back. His choice of Joe Biden (of whom I'm a HUGE fan, I mean huge) was a defining moment for me. I trust his judgment and I think he'll make a damn fine president.

Tuesday night, at 8:55 est, Barack Obama will be declared the president-elect of the United States.

I'm not normally overconfident about these things. In 2004, I thought Kerry was going to lose, and I called Bush in 2000 as well (granted I was a young Republican back then, but I digress). I believe not only that Obama will win this election, but that he'll win it handily. I think a landslide is anything over 350 electoral votes, and right now I'll project that Obama wins at least that many.

How you ask?

There are a group of SAFE democratic states. They are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut,  Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii. These states add up to 190 electoral votes. Only 80 more to go. 

The "normal" swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico and New Hampshire will all vote for Obama by 10+ points. Of that group, Michigan and Iowa will approach 60% voting for Obama. There are 74 more electoral votes, putting us at 264. 6 more votes to go.

If I am predicting the next largest margin for Obama, I'll go with Virginia, which I think Obama will win by 9. There's 13 more votes, and Obama has won the election with 277 electoral votes. 

But we're not done. Oh no. The next states are those that Obama will win by 4 to 8 points. Here we have Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and the great state of Colorado. This brings us to 338 electoral votes.

Now you might think I'm getting greedy. Nope. We still have a couple more. 

Obama will win several "red" states by between .1 and 3 points. They are: Missouri, North Carolina, Indiana, and Georgia. Yes, you read that right. Georgia. I believe that Obama will win the state by an almost miniscule margin, due to the high numbers of black voters turning out for the first time and a slight overperformance in white voters than John Kerry (who got 29% of the white vote in 2004). This gets Obama to 390 electoral votes. That's his final tally, I think, come the end of the night. 

Next come the states that McCain will narrowly squeak out, from .1 to 3 percent. They are: Arizona, Montana, North Dakota, and Nebraska-2 (which awards EVs by congressional district in addition to the statewide winner). This is 17 EVs.

Then states he'll win by between 4 and 9 points. South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia, and somewhat surprisingly, Mississippi (36% of registered voters are black, and breaking 92-3 to Obama at the moment). This takes us to 37 electoral votes.

McCain has a few states he'll win with between 10 and 20 points. Those are: South Carolina, Nebraska (the rest), Kansas, Texas, Alaska and Louisiana. He's now got 101 votes. 

Now for the McCain blowout states, any with 20 or more points. These are the really red states: Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama. Not to mention Oklahoma, which he should win by 35 (his biggest margin of the night, I think, just beating out ID and UT). 

This gives McCain 148 electoral votes.

So my end of the night prediction is: Obama/Biden 390, McCain/Palin 148. 

Thoughts?

2008 Colorado Ballot Guide

Well the time has come...

I've spent the past 2 months at work looking through the ballot initiatives in Colorado this year (started at 18, now it's 14, more on that later), and I've decided that I would send out a voter guide for some of us progressively-minded folks. I'm not saying that you shouldn't go and do some research on these, but the Colorado Blue Book is the size of "The Old Man and the Sea" (actually, 10 words shorter), and so I thought I would do some of the hard work for you. 

So here it is, with some snarky analysis to boot:

A-46: NO. This is the so-called Civil Rights Amendment, which would completely eliminate any racial or gender preferencing by a governmental entity. Now, We might not agree on how affirmative action currently works, but getting rid of all preferences would be disastrous to minority and women-owned business, along with scholarship programs for at-risk youth and even government contracts with Native American tribes. It's bad news, and has been a disaster in other states (CA and MI, for example).

A-47: NO. This is the "Right to Work" measure, or as I like to call it "Right to Work for Less." Now, I'm not the biggest fan of unions out there, as you may know, but I do think unions serve a valuable societal function. This amendment would encourage "freeloading", or, the ability of a non-union employee to get the same benefits of those in the union without paying dues. It's simply unfair. The Colorado business community agrees, and has given $3 million to fight it. When business is taking the unions' side, you know this is dangerous.

A-48: NO. "Personhood". This is the most vague and dangerous amendment on the ballot. Period. Now, I'm pro-choice, and many of my friends are pro-life, but I think we can all agree that defining any fertilized egg as a person is terrible public policy. This would make paramedics liable for harm to any egg when treating women, it would ban chemotherapy for pregnant women who have cancer, and it would ban abortion in all cases, even to save a mother's life. On the plus side, I could create 40 "test-tube babies" and keep them in a vault, all the time collecting child tax credits. 

A-49: NO. This measure would eliminate the right of public employees (police, firefighters, teachers, etc.) to voluntarily send money from their paychecks to organizations. It's just a fundamental violation of a person's first amendment right (much like 54...which I'll get to soon). 49 is part of 3 amendments (47, 49 and 54) that are being jointly opposed by labor and business.

A-50: YES. Yay, a Yes vote. This was the last vote I made on my ballot though, so take that for what you will. This is the "Limited Gaming" measure, that would allow the three cities in Colorado that already have casinos to raise the single-bet limit to $100, add craps and roulette, and extend hours. Extra tax proceeds would go to funding community colleges (probably about $80 million/year), which are woefully underfunded in the state. On the downside, it reduces the casino tax rate from 40% to 20%, so it's definitely a balancing act. I voted yes reticently, but nonetheless voted yes.

A-51. NO. The toughest vote I've made since I've been able to vote, actually. This bill would raise the state sales tax rate from 2.9 to 3.1 and earmark additional revenue to the waiting list for services to the developmentally disabled. This is an incredibly needy group in Colorado, with a 9,600 person waiting list, and they deserve more funding. I have 2 problems with the measure: first, it doesn't have a sunset clause, so the DD waitlist would get about $170 million per year starting in 2010 and going forever; and second, that in order to create systemic fiscal and healthcare reform we shouldn't siphon off smaller groups for tax increases. Where do we stop? The mental health community will be putting a tax on the ballot in 2009, and I worry about the precedent this sets. I didn't want to vote no on this TYPE of measure, but I did vote no based on the specifics.

A-52: NO. This is a constitutional change to Colorado's severance tax (for oil and natural gas), but it doesn't actually change the tax rates, just where the money goes. It would cap current funding for water projects and energy programs that are both partially funded through the severance tax (about $78 million/year) and would only allow for increases based on inflation. This means that water projects and low-income energy assistance, not to mention renewable programs and wildlife protection, will see across the board funding cuts. New revenue (almost $1 billion over 10 years) would be given to transportation projects, mainly on I-70 between Grand Junction and Limon. This has no sunset either, so if it passes we'll have a kick-ass stretch of I-70 by 2030 but no water to plant crops. Hmmm, seems like a terrible tradeoff to me.

A-53 (and 55, 56, and 57): These 4 amendments were pro-union measures, things such as workplace safety and mandatory healthcare. They were put on the ballot as a response to 47, 49, and 54 (so many damn numbers...) but have now been pulled, through an agreement between labor and business, and instead both are concentrating their energies on defeating 47, 49 and 54. IF they were still on the ballot, I would've voted NO on all 4, but they're not, so yay! We don't even have to make that choice.

A-54: NO. This so-called "Clean Government" Amendment would ban the leaders of any company that receives a sole-source government contract from giving ANY campaign donations to ANY candidate. This would also prohibit family members (including cousins) of these individuals from donating as well. It's a fundamental violation of free speech rights, but more importantly it's just a ridiculous idea: most sole-source contracts aren't given because of corruption, it's because many companies specialize in particular products and services that no other corporation in the area provides. 

A-58: YES. This is another severance tax amendment (though it's statutory, not constitutional...the devil is in the details). Gov. Bill Ritter is pushing A-58, which would eliminate a current tax credit given to oil and gas companies that allows large corporations to get out of paying severance taxes almost completely. It would do some other things as well, like flatten the severance tax rate and exempt more "low-production" wells (read: mom and pop shops) from having to pay these taxes. 60% of this new revenue would be given to scholarship programs for low and middle-income students, while some would be given to water projects and transportation. This would also have NO effect on current rates for oil and natural gas for consumers, since the market prices of both commodities are set based on the international markets. Don't believe the ridiculous assertions on TV.

A-59: YES. YES. YES. You should've seen this coming, since I'm working on the campaign, but Amendment 59, the "Savings Account For Education" would create a new rainy day fund that saves money in good times so that services aren't cut in bad times. It would also dedicate a source of revenue for the current State Education Fund without raising taxes, just allowing the government to keep revenue it already receives. It also takes a step to fix the current fiscal knot in Colorado, which calls for mandatory spending increases (inflation + 1%) on education while also mandating rebates for the taxpayers (even if it's only $1) if the state takes in more than 6% over inflation in a given year. Right now, Colorado is the only state in the nation that can run a surplus AND a deficit at the same time. A-59 takes a step to change this and to make the education system more solvent. 

Ref. L: YES. This lowers the age one can run for the state legislature from 25 to 21. There's not much more to it, and it seems like if you can buy beer, you should be able to run for office. If you're not experienced or bright enough, let the voters decide. 

Ref. M and N: YES. These eliminate obsolete statutes in the CO constitution dealing with forestry regulations and alcohol distribution. They're simple fixes to make our constitution more manageable. 

Ref. O: YES. This measure would make it more difficult to put things in the constitution while making it easier for citizens to change statutory laws. Right now, if Colorado voters can get 76,047 signatures on a petition (5% of the number of voters in the last Secretary of State's election), they can put a law on the ballot. It's how bad policies like TABOR and A-48 are even a part of the conversation. This increases the requirement for constitutional changes by 16,000 sigs and slightly reduces the number for statutory changes. It also makes a distribution requirement, so that 8% of all signatures have to be collected in each House district in the state. Let's keep Doug Bruce from destroying our state even more and pass Ref. O. 

So there you have it. In short, vote YES on 50, 58, 59 and the Refs, and vote NO on everything else. 

Cheers,

SO I was on CNN

That's right. CNN does official watch parties of the debates, and I was at the Democratic one. Justin Henceroth and I were apparently on twice, once before the debates while phonebanking and once during the debates when the cameras looked into the crowd of the watch party. It was a really cool experience, watching the debates with cameras and flashes constantly in your eyes. 

That being said, what another solid performance for Sen. Obama. McCain is desperately running out of time. His remarks on Ayers were unnecessarily over the top, and his answers on choice should scare even many anti-abortion voters. Anyone who thinks that women should have the right to an abortion if their life is at risk should be given serious pause after McCain railed against the "life and health of the mother" exceptions in many state abortion codes. 

I won't get into that mess right now, but expect my Colorado ballot guide on Sunday. All 14 of the Amendments. That's right, 14. I'll even tell you which Colorado Supreme Court Justice doesn't deserve retention. Why? Because I'm kind of a dork. But that's part of the reason I'm here...I do the dorky work so you don't have to.

Cheers!

21 days...

The election is almost here. Wowsers. In 3 weeks we'll have a new president, 12 new senators (hopefully), 50 new representatives and tons of new laws on the books around the country...

For me, this time is bittersweet. The past 2 years have been like political cocaine for me, since I can spend days reading about politics without end and gladly spend years focused on a single campaign. But all good things have to come to an end. 

The next three weeks will consist of election predictions. I'll do a presidential one every week, and Senate and important House races at least once before election day. In 2006, I was off by 1 seat in the House and 1 in the Senate, so my track record isn't too shabby. 

This is my favorite part of the election season. Get ready. 

Obama v. McCain

Those of you who know me know that I love to rail about politics, whether they're local, state, national or international. I have sort of refrained from posting them here, but I'm going to be doing more political writing in the next few weeks, at least until November 4. 

So I figured I would start not with the past 18 months of the campaign, but with Friday's debate, which the American people and political pundits saw in two completely different lights. Pundits called it a draw, giving the edge to whichever candidate they were more closely aligned with on the partisan spectrum (except Leslie Sanchez, who remains the most worthless political commentator on any network, and I'm counting Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs in that mix). 

The American people, in general, saw the debate as an Obama victory, which isn't bad in what was supposedly McCain's strongest debate format (since it was 70% foreign policy). Independents gave him the edge by almost 20, and were mostly impressed with his answers on the bailout package and how it will affect the middle class along with his calls to refocus international efforts in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. The debate probably didn't move many into the "strong Obama" or "strong McCain" categories, but it did show a few things about the state of the campaign that I think are important to note.

When I watched the debate, I couldn't help paying the most attention to two things: body language and CNN's awesome real-time approval-disapproval dial, which is my favorite TV widget of the cycle. In these debates, with the exception of 2-3 statements that get replayed again and again OR a giant gaffe that came unexpectedly, any of us could probably guess what's being said. The truly important aspects are how the candidates look in comparison  to one another and to popular conceptions of what it means to be president, and how the public agrees or disagrees with the ways they are framing the issues.

Obama looked poised. He didn't look confident at first, mainly because he's not good behind a podium. It gives him an opportunity to have a pad of paper, and his professorial background makes him scribble all over it, which shows him as detached and uninterested in what his opponent was saying. He had a better entrance, addressing McCain as "John, it's a pleasure to see you" though McCain said nothing in return (probably thinking they weren't mic'ed yet...whoops).

McCain looked physically uncomfortable on stage, though he is a more natural debater than public speaker, and this format was probably beneficial to him since it gave more time for spontaneity, which he's better at than Obama is (as a function of his knowledge of laws and process, not natural ability). He scored the only discernible laugh-out-loud moment when he asked Jim Lehrer "What, didn't you think I could hear him" after Obama was told to talk to John directly. He still does his creepy smile thing, though, and he has a penchant for looking condescending when Obama talks policy. 

As far as the real-time approval ratings went, they weren't very surprising. The most negative term for the debate was "subcommittee", fitting, since this is a change election and that sounds too insider-baseball for 90% of the American public. The best results for McCain came during his personal stories. For Obama, a lot of them came when he said he agreed with John, because it makes him look pragmatic and more bipartisan. He also got good marks when he said "You're wrong John" or "That's not true". Calling McCain out toughens him up in the minds of many undecided voters, and McCain just doesn't respond, which allows the frame of "McCain makes things up" to sink it further and create some doubt in the minds of the "moveable 10" (or the 10% of voters, like my Nana, who actually vote for both Dem and Rep candidates).

There are a couple of moments that stick out. Obama's best play strategically was also his most humanizing moment, and something that anyone with a military connection heard loud and clear. After McCain told a story of a soldier whose mother gave him a bracelet to wear on the campaign trail, he said that he was running to ensure that this soldier "didn't die in vain". Obama shot right back, saying "I have a bracelet too, John", which was unexpected and risky, but his story about a mother who asked him to make sure that no one else had to feel the pain she felt at losing a son was touching and had the right amount of gravitas to answer McCain's frame about "winning in Iraq". It was a great two minutes for those of us who are debaters, because it's what we strive for. Not necessarily winning every position, but making sure our opponents don't win the ones they should.

And McCain should have won this debate. Obama is not a good debater (he was the fourth best Democratic candidate at the debates, after Biden, Clinton, and Edwards, in that order). Right now, McCain needed a game-changing moment, and now has to hope that Sarah Palin does spectacularly at the VP debates. Obama minimized McCain's greatest advantage, his public trust on foreign policy, and came across as reasonable, determined and calm. McCain looked angry, condescending at times, and unwilling to change his mind. 

Look for the polling in the next 2-3 days to show Obama leading about 52-43 in all of the major tracking polls (but only pay attention to the three day averages, please! Lower margins of error and they self-correct single-day storylines and blips in the media).