myopiclunacy.com

Awesome. Check out the attempts to raionalize Obama’s victory.

RedState: Obama’s 2008 Victory in Perspective

It’s going to happen, and we all know it: after two close elections, some Democrats are going to claim that Obama’s margin of victory over John McCain was a large, overwhelming repudiation of the Republican party, and that it was possibly even a historical turning point of partisan political realignment.

There’s just one problem with that theory: It’s not true.

See the image to the right (and click for the full version): It’s a complicated chart, but it has a lot to say. On it are illustrated the popular vote and electoral vote victory margins of every Presidential election 1900-2008, assuming Obama gets North Carolina and McCain gets Missouri. This also only counts Republicans and Democrats, and third parties are ignored.

Also on the chart are the mean Popular Vote and Electoral Vote margins since World War II, that is, counting the 1948-2008 elections. From that we can see one fact right away: Obama’s victory is below average. We can also look at the tiny bars representing the 2000 and 2004 elections to see that comparing with those races is simply not any kind of standard to use when judging an election.

Eisenhower 1952 and 1956. Johnson 1964. Nixon 1972. Reagan 1980 and 1984. Those elections set the standard for a blowout. Obama? His win doesn’t look like those other Presidents I just listed. He’s just slightly below average, sorry.

So rest at ease, Republicans. Even if this win isn’t a fluke, it’s not a permanent game changer.

Right. And surely the closeness of the past 5 elections don’t show any kind of demographic or other change in America, or any movement in values. Or any refinement in campaigning techniques. Lets dismiss all of that and start comparing to Eisenhower because all things are equal in 2008 America and 1952 America (as Obama has just shown).

Popularity: 8% [?]

What a great article - found on Eddie’s page. There are lots of other interesting tidbits but the highlight is here:

Highlights: Newsweek’s Special Election Project | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin’s shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent “tens of thousands” more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

you have to take it with a grain of salt, surely, but it’s still fun. I love that some of the clothes were “lost” - yeah - cuz I’ve used that excuse too! hahah. Also fun is this FOX NEWS report about Palin not knowing that Africa was a continent. Are you kidding me? Sure explains the Couric interview … and how Alaskans re-elected Ted Stevens.

Other highlights: McCain aides wanted to tell McCain that it was over before the last debate. Pain ran with the Ayers attack before the campaign approved it. McCain’s campaign was planning but scrapped a soft-on-crime Willie Horton ad as well as a “dancing with a lesbo” ad with footage from Ellen. Obama had to be convinced not to consider Hillary for VP. Hillary was on better terms with McCain than with Obama. And my favorite:

At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys’ club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. “I’ll be just a minute,” she said.

Oh yeah, daddy! That’s what I call a serious debriefing.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Stolen from Sheldon. It’s EXCELLENT.

I especially liked the part about evolution, the trinity/muslim connection, and “speak delusions to power”

Popularity: 6% [?]

According to RCP Obama needs 32 electoral votes from the battleground states and McCain needs 143. Given the margin of errors in statistical samples, a lead of less than 5 is considered to be a toss up, and in reality, should probably be given to McCain. There’s also the Bradley effect and the young-voter-apathy effect.

Makes me think that Obama’s shot will be from winning some combination of Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado for him to reach the 270. I don’t include Nevada because from what I’ve been hearing about polling there, it’s typically more favorable to Democrats than in reality. McCain needs almost all of the battleground states but if he takes all the toss ups and West Virginia, all he needs is Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, or Ohio, Colorado and Virginia. Not impossible by any means.

So here are some interesting clips from articles I’ve been reading.

On Spreading the wealth: That Wealth Spreader - TIME

We may disagree on how much to spread around and how to go about it. We all tend to think that it’s someone else’s wealth that needs to be spread around and that it ought to be spread in our direction. But the principle that the unequal distribution of wealth is a legitimate concern and government policies should mitigate it has been part of American democracy since at least the New Deal. In fact, it is a commonplace that the moderate wealth-spreading of the New Deal saved American democracy. Today collecting checks from people and issuing checks to other people–or the same people–is the government’s main domestic activity.

Although it was an off-the-cuff remark and one that Obama probably regrets, he actually put it well, avoiding the suggestion of envy or class war, which are the usual accusations about such talk. Spreading it around is “good for everybody,” he says. And who disagrees? Or would you like to live behind locked gates and hire guards to protect your family from kidnapping, as in places where they spread it around even less than here?

On the challenges for the next president: How They Would Lead — Printout — TIME

A sad fact of contemporary politics is that we’ve lost the ability to get through a campaign without transforming honorable alternatives into cartoons of good and evil. Disagreement is out; denunciation is in. The distinctive tune of our day is hysteria with a drumbeat of hyperbole, all set in the key of bad faith.

Underneath, however, Americans still long for the mystic chords of memory strummed by the better angels of our nature — a patriotic harmony that we like to think is the song of our nation at its best. This is why the two candidates who fared best in this election were the ones who spoke most convincingly about bringing us together. When the two are finally narrowed to one, his mandate will be change, his timetable short and his environment stormy with division. At a historic moment desperate for a successful President, everything will hinge on one man’s ability to navigate by the clouded star of common purpose.

On branding Rashid Khalidi a terrorist: The Anti-Semantic Joe Klein - Jeffrey Goldberg

he’s a fierce partisan of the Palestinian cause, of course, and in my conversations with him, and in his writing, I see that his sympathies frequently cause him to distort Middle East history. But an anti-Semite? I don’t think so. In fact, Rashid Khalidi is one of the rare Palestinian advocates who argues, as he has with me, that Arabs must study Jewish history, including and especially the history of Jew-hatred, in order to better understand Israel, and to reach a compromise with it.

On the trickle-down folly: RealClearPolitics - Articles - Referendum on Trickle-Down

McCain regularly charges that Obama wants to be the “redistributor in chief.” Speaking at the rally here at Shippensburg University, Palin was forced to say this about Obama’s support for a variety of tax credits aimed at helping the poor and middle class: “He says that he is for a tax credit, which is when government takes your money in order to give it away to someone else.”

That is, of course, a mighty peculiar definition of tax credits. It is also an odd argument from a ticket that itself is committed to a research-and-development tax credit for corporations.

It’s true that Obama favors “refundable” tax credits to help low-income workers, including some who may pay no income taxes but do pay many other taxes. McCain has argued that Obama’s refundable tax credits amount to “welfare.” That, too, is a strange claim, since McCain favors refundable credits as part of his health plan. But the whole idea is to persuade voters such as Emily Daywalt that Obama really is just out to help those “who don’t do anything.”

And that is why Obama’s 30-minute advertisement on Wednesday night was targeted directly to voters such as Daywalt, or at least to those like her who are still persuadable. It was Obama’s tribute to the country’s working people who seek nothing more than decent incomes, health care and a chance to see their children succeed. It was less a political ad than a documentary about the value of work and the responsibilities of family life.

For years, Republicans have argued that the way to help struggling working people is to give more money to the wealthy. Obama is saying that we should cut out the middleman and help working people directly. My hunch is that Obama’s argument will prevail, and that conservatives will then work overtime to try to deny the judgment the people have rendered.

On how McCain might win: Commentary » Blog Archive » 10 Reasons Why McCain Might Win

9) The fire lit under Obama’s young supporters in the winter was largely due to Iraq and his opposition to the war. The stunning decline in violence and the departure of Iraq from the front page has put out the fire, to the extent that, like the young woman who made a sexy video calling herself Obama Girl and then didn’t vote in the New York primary because she went to get a manicure, they might not want to stand on line on Tuesday.

and my favorite hypocrisy of the day: Washington Times - THOMAS: Obama’s smoking audio

Electing Barack Obama president of the United States would be a roll of loaded dice. We will live (and possibly die) to regret it. Republicans have made many mistakes and deserve the punishment they are now getting, but the one charge that cannot be laid at their doorstep is that they wanted to rewrite the Constitution and weaken the country.

Yes - because if there’s anyone we know has never rewritten the constitution it’s Republicans - especially this strain of Republicans. Just ask Palin what the powers of the VP are.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Awesome. I saw this sentiment too in the comments at redstate.com. It’s armageddon!!!

Economy lags, gun sales don’t - St. Petersburg Times

The economy is in turmoil and consumer spending lags, but Americans continue to buy guns.

Firearms and ammunition sales rose by 8 to 10 percent this year, according to state and federal data analyzed by the Washington Post.

Why? Economic concerns and fears that Sen. Barack Obama, if elected president, could tighten gun laws lead the discussion.

There are no scientific studies linking gun sales and economic conditions, said Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, but people often buy firearms during periods of uncertainty.

Spikes in sales of weapons often coincide with concerns about personal safety or government actions to limit access to firearms, Kleck told the Post.

which reminds me - I need to join the NRA.

Popularity: 1% [?]

This is what it has become. The promise of Goldwater with the pizzazz of Reagan has devolved into a steaming pile of cow dung. Colin Powell realized it (even if a bit two late for some) and is doing his part to save it by endorsing Obama. But as you can imagine … all the credit his fellow party members were willing to dole out to him a month ago is now toast … and all that’s left is the belittling name calling and sad spin:

Now that the most prominent military figure of our era - also a lifelong Republican, also George W. Bush’s first Secretary of State, also a friend of John McCain’s for 25 years - has publicly endorsed Barack Obama, it will be fascinating to behold the McCain surrogates and under-the-radar whisperers as they try to spin this one away. Maybe we’ll get variations of these:

1. Colin Powell has no credibility anymore, ever since he lied at the United Nations.

2. Colin Powell, a longtime moderate and supporter of abortion, has never been a real Republican anyway.

3. Colin Powell lives in McLean, Virginia, and we all know that Northern Virginia is not the “real” Virginia.

4. ACORN put him up to it.

5. Black people always stick together.

6. We’ve still got Joe the Plumber.

Colin Powell’s symbolic power

And he’s merely the last of a long line of moderate and/or pragmatic conservatives that are jumping from the ship before it takes on water. Some of the unlikeliest of candidates:

Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (”not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself.

Neocon Iraq War Promoter Adelman Endorses Obama

It’s easy to blame this on the war or the economy or even Katrina. But in reality the blame goes squarely to the party’s most visible member - President George W Bush. Under his leadership (or lack thereof) the party has engaged in such divisive and brazenly corrupt behavior that even the enemies of the Clintons had to cringe. And the result? Rubble:

A column, like a good movie, should have an arc — start here, end there and somehow connect the two. So this column will begin with the speech Condi Rice made to the Republican National Convention in 2000 in praise of George W. Bush and end with Colin Powell’s appearance Sunday on “Meet the Press” in praise of Barack Obama. Between the first and the second lie the ruins of the GOP, a party gone very, very wrong.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bush and now John McCain have constructed a mean, grumpy, exclusive, narrow-minded and altogether retrograde Republican Party. It has the sharp scent of the old Barry Goldwater GOP — the angry one of 1964 and not the one perfumed by nostalgia — that is home, by design or mere dumb luck, to those who think that Obama is “The Madrassian Candidate.” Karl Rove, take a bow.

It is worth remembering that both Rice and Powell spoke to that Philadelphia convention. And it is worth recalling, too, that Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” and had compiled a record as Texas governor to warrant the hope, if not the belief, that he was indeed a different sort of Republican. When he ran for re-election as governor in 1998, he went from 15 percent of the black vote to 27 percent, and from 28 percent of the Hispanic vote to an astounding 49 percent. Here was a coalition-builder of considerable achievement.

Now, all this is rubble …

Those of us who traveled with Bush in the 2000 campaign could tell that when he spoke of education, of the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” he meant it. Education, along with racial and ethnic reconciliation, was going to be his legacy. Then came 9/11, Afghanistan and finally the misbegotten war in Iraq. After that, nothing else really mattered. But just as Bush could not manage the wars, he could not manage his own party. His legacy is not merely in tatters. It does not, as he intended, even exist.