Presidential Candidates, Summed Up in Brief

Dan, my blogging adversary and friend from Las Vegas days (we've each since moved away) posted his quick takes on the presidential field thus far, on his much more successful blog, Las Vegas Badger. I thought it was an interesting idea, so here is my take.

Hillary Clinton: It's hers to lose, but the attempted "death by a thousand cuts" by her opponents may hurt her.
Lincoln Chafee: Has gone from Republican to Independent to Democrat. . .and made little splash in any of them.
Martin O'Malley: Who?
Bernie Sanders: The anti-Trump speaks completely unfiltered, but does so with substance.
Jim Webb: Eh.
Joe Biden: Prone to blunders, but a good guy. Won't win.

Jeb! Bush: Just say no to a third Bush.
Dr. Ben Carson: Completely inexperienced, and a bit of a nutbar.
Chris Christie:  Four years too late, too much scandal, and rude to boot.
Ted Cruz: Crazy dad, pandering, smarmy and unctuous son. Plus, too much religion in the politics.
Carly Fiorina: Only claims to fame are spectacular failures.
Lindsey Graham:  Closest (almost said closet) thing to a GOP candidate I'd vote for, and I still wouldn't vote for him.
Mike Huckabee:  No preachers for president please. Anyway, his media back catalog of crazy will sink him.
Bobby Jindal:  Religion in politics is his stock-in-trade, and he's not ready for prime time.
John Kasich: A former FOX "News" guy for president? No thanks.
George Pataki: Not crazy enough to stand out in this field.
Rand Paul:  Plagiarist chip off the old block, but not really a libertarian.
Rick Perry: Oops.
Marco Rubio: Stay thirsty, my friend. Try again next time.
Rick Santorum: Fluke runner-up last time will get nowhere this time.
Donald Trump: A bullshitting buffoon who will make a mockery of the entire field, but might make them look normal by comparison.
Scott Walker: Bland and boring, has his fans but will only rise to the top if it's by process of elimination.
Jim Gilmore: Who?

There are others, but I doubt they're worthy of notice.

Personally, I'd like to see Hillary Clinton win the nomination, and the general election. She would have been fine with me last time, if I hadn't liked Barack Obama (and his supporters) more. She's capable, smart, tenacious and tough. Bernie Sanders would be terrific too, but I'm afraid if he won the nomination, he'd lose the general election (too Socialist, irascible, elderly, unkempt and Jewish for the general public, I fear). I love him though, and you'd better believe I'd vote for him over any GOP candidate. Martin O'Malley made no impression on me in particular, and both Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb may trend too Blue Dog for my tastes (besides having little to no zazz). Given my choice in a perfect world? Senator Elizabeth Warren for the win, any other Democratic candidate (but preferably a younger heir apparent) for Veep.

This team would be fine with me too.

I fear that Jeb! Bush will win the GOP primary having both the most well-known name, and generally being in the more sane column. I think having the last three Republican presidents all from the same family, with one of them having served two terms as Vice President in the one before that, is just too much. Way too much. Even if the previous Bushes had been terrific at their jobs. Instead, we had a middling Poppy and a disastrous Dubya. Jeb!'s motto should be, "Third Time's the Charm?"

The win in the general will depend entirely upon the mood of the country at the time, and just how well anybody can keep the momentum going through these next two summers. Ugh. That's a long slog. And we just can't know what will be going on politically. It's a tough hat trick for one party to extend a two-term presidency into another four or eight in the White House. But the rules are different in this 24/7, post-Citizens United, rapid news cycle era. At present, there's just no way to know.

Greenlee Gazette Predicted Election Perfectly!

On the day before Tuesday's election, I put up an election prediction. More precisely, I put up two: 1) a happy-clappy, wished for best case scenario, and 2) a second--what I deemed "more realistic" one. Turns out that America is just as happy clappy as I am! With the Mitt Romney concession of Florida today, it turns out I was exactly correct. I even beat Nate Silver! And the right-wing media? Trashed 'em all. You heard it here!

My prediction from before the election:

Greenlee Gazette's Election Predictions

I'm am not a soothsayer, though I've had a psychic moment or two in my life (said as an atheist, so take that for what it's worth). But I'm a student of politics, and have been following it very closely over these last several years, and I can play a hunch. I live in Las Vegas after all. So here is my gut feeling for how this election is going to go down. First, my hopeful, happy-clappy feeling:

Click to embiggen. Map Made at Huffington Post.

In that scenario, Obama wins 8 of 9 swing states, which is possibly a bit far-fetched, but not impossible. I don't fully expect this, but I'd like to see it. I suspect it's possible that Obama will lose Florida in a squeaker (or worse), possibly New Hampshire, maybe Colorado? In a worst-case scenario (barring losing the whole shebang, this is how I'd call it:

Click to embiggen. Map made at Huffington Post.

That's probably more realistic, but I'd take anything between these two scenarios. I've got a fierce wiggins grabbing me about shenanigans in Ohio, which is not crucial to Obama (though it is for Romney), but is important. I'm pretty sure Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin are all good.  Of course, I could be a victim of wishful thinking. Hoping not.

As for the rest of the elections, I'm just hoping for the best. The fact that America is likely going to retain a majority-Republican House of Representatives makes zero sense logically. The obstructionist, tea bagging, batshit crazy members of the Congress are so unpalatable, their likely wins cast a pall upon the intelligence of the voting public. I'll be heartened if some of the nuttier ones like Michele Bachmann and Joe Walsh lose their seats. I'll be very happy if Senator Scott Brown loses to Elizabeth Warren.  I'll be thrilled to see Paul Ryan lose both the Vice Presidency and his House seat.

My gut tells me Obama's going to win. My inner milquetoast Democrat is worried, all the same. I think we're going to keep a Democratic Senate (with a slight bump up or down, either way), and still be miles away from winning the House, which will remain obstructionist and looney-tunes. As I said, I'm an atheist, so I don't pray, or really believe in "luck" or "kismet" or "fate." But I'm hoping with all of my crossable parts crossed!

Nate Silver's Election Eve 538 Forecast

OMG!!! 

What would cause me to use a 12-year-old's exclamation? Nate Silver, the wunderkind statistician--so good at what he does the New York Times absorbed his FiveThirtyEight.com--has revised his election eve figures. And the news is awesome if you're a Barack Obama supporter. Nate's figures have been an oasis in a desert of bad news during the post-Denver debate, and a continuing boost of confidence during what has been relentlessly called a very tight race. Take a look:

Pretty sweet, right? I mean, that doesn't exactly look like a squeaker, does it? In fact, it makes me feel much, much better. So much, that I might be able to sleep tonight.

Now, I'm not going to get over-confident, and declare that this sucker is over. I mean there are several things to note:

- Even Nate Silver says an 8.6% chance that Romney wins is still a chance. It isn't impossible.

- Nate himself could have gotten overconfident, or forgotten to carry a 2 somewhere.

- Voter suppression efforts in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere could have caused erosion in the vote that doesn't show up in the polls.

- This kind of prediction--if taken too much to heart--could discourage people from bothering to vote. So VOTE!

Source: FiveThirtyEight.com

FOX "News" Has a Wildly Optimistic Election Map For You

Wow. I'm not going to say the map that FOX "News" presents is impossible, mind you. Anything is possible. Joltin' Joe could fumble his debate. The Prez could snooze through the next two. Romney could save a half-black, half-Latino lesbian from a rampaging right-winger, and win the black, Latino and gay vote. . . I'm just spit-balling here. Yes, Obama fumbled his first debate. A bit. If you watched--and are honest--you know that the entire debate was a snooze-fest, and that Romney seemed like a wound-up, caffienated, steam-roller. He wasn't "good," he was bigger, louder. If that's a win, take it. But it wasn't what it's been made to be.

All of that said, nothing at this point paints a picture as red as the map FOX "News" has foisted upon their viewers. But you know what? Have at it, bubble-dwellers. Coast safely along--perhaps like we liberals until last week--thinking it's in the bag. That's it, nice and easy. You're getting sleepy. . .

Only FOX. Image from source, Wonkette.

[Excerpt]

Fox News Starting To Get A Wee Bit Cocky

Here is a map from an “election forecasting model” that the Fox News sent out to America, and your Editrix found it on the Twitter and shared it in the Secret Wonkette Chat Room, for panic-laughs. But seriously. . .

Read more at: Wonkette

The World Ends Today, Sorry

James Van Der Beek expresses my reaction to
Harold Camping's prediction.

Harold Camping, the soothsaying preacher with a .000 batting average at doomsday predictions says that Friday, October 21 is the end of the world. Or at least the beginning of the end. Or something. Plan accordingly.

[Excerpt]

Harold Camping Revises Apocalypse Prediction For Friday 

Like every other doomsday prophecy throughout history, the May 21st rapture promised by Oakland-based Family Radio network owner Harold Camping never materialized. The 90-year-old, self-styled prophet now claims the world will end by this Friday and not with a bang, as previously predicted, but rather with a whimper. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Greenlee Gazette Prediction Accurate. Sorta.

Image from From the Wilderness

Map from Electoral-Vote.com

Last October, long before Barack Obama's Presidential win was a sure thing, I wrote a post predicting the down side of such a win. I got a lot right. But there was something I didn't count on. I knew that the right-wing, and their supporters on talk radio and FOX "News" would be picking apart every tiny thing the new President would do. Here's where I got it wrong, though.

Back when Bill Clinton was President, it seemed as though the talking heads and the think tanks were setting the agenda, doing the digging and coming up with the talking points. The base conservatives--from merely staunch partisans to the wing nut fringe--provided the support, and spread the word. This time around, it is the wing nut fringe doing the heavy lifting, and it is they who are getting support from the talking heads and, yes, FOX "News."

Even the most skilled prognosticator--and I do not claim to be one--couldn't have predicted the nuttiness that would ensue. We've got several groups of separate but overlapping groups of nutters: birthers, deathers, tenthers, tea baggers, town hallies. . .there seems to be no end to it. It doesn't matter how kooky or debunked the theory, it just keeps coming, full steam ahead. Surprisingly, Congressmen, Senators, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et. al are pushing almost all of it. I can only hope that when President Obama says he will "call them out" on their falsehoods, he means it. And I wonder what took him so long?

[Excerpts from Original Post, October 4, 2008]

Democrats, Don't Forget the Downside to an Obama Win

. . .So, while we can't be sure, the odds are that Obama will win. What we need to keep in mind, should this happen, is that Republicans and conservatives are not going to take that well. And that's putting it mildly. It will make the sour grapes attitude of the PUMAs look like a 5-year-old's temper tantrum.

Remember how Republicans acted during the Clinton administration? Every nit was picked, everything was blown up into a scandal, no matter how frivolous or stupid. Millions of dollars were spent on investigations that proved nothing. Right-wing think tanks worked with right-wing media and politicians to impeach Bill Clinton, for anything they could. It was an impeachment in search of a reason. Unfortunately, Clinton walked right into the trap, and what a stupid trap it was.

But that may have been just a preview of what Obama might have to deal with. The right had power for 12 uninterrupted years before Clinton, but they hadn't tasted real power yet. . .

So, if Obama wins, this team of "win at all costs" partisans will have nothing to do, except pick apart the Obama Administration. And pick they will. Every. Little. Thing. You think you're tired of the blowholes like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly now? They will be in full-on attack mode.

The irony of course is that George W. Bush and his administration is guilty of so much, in many cases actual crimes. And that list of people above, in addition to the right-wing blogs, have excused it all. There is very little Obama could do that would even approach the shenanigans of Bush, and yet they will act like it is the worst thing a President has ever done, whatever it is.

So, be aware, liberals, progressives and Democrats. Be prepared to fight. Be prepared to rebut the inevitable inanity. If Obama wins on November 4, we will breathe an ecstatic sigh of relief. In fact, I think the emotion is going to be so strong, it will be hard to name (with the opposite being true with a loss). But the honeymoon is bound to be short. I wouldn't be surprised--again with an Obama win--if the conservatives went to work on November 5, and worked right up to inauguration day to start the slime from day 1. . .

OK, so I might not be Miss Cleo, but I got it pretty much right.

A Sea of Blue Washes Over Red States

All maps from sources below (except Greenlee Gazette prediction), all dated October 19, 2008

I've been a registered Democrat only since the 2006 elections, but I've been voting for Democratic Presidential candidates since Bill Clinton ran against George H.W. Bush. I can thank Pat Buchanan's "culture wars" speech that year for the change. Before that, I was nominally a Republican, just like good old Mom and Dad (and Step Dad, and Step Mom).

In this jumble, I've had a pretty good track record picking Presidents. In 1984, at the tender age of 18, I voted for Ronald Reagan. Landslide victory. In 1998, I voted (tepidly) for George H.W. Pretty sizable victory there too. In 1992 and 1996 I voted for Bill Clinton, and while he won neither in a blowout (H. Ross Perot was in the mix), he still won pretty solidly. In 2000, things got a little murky, with Al Gore eking out popular vote win, and probably electoral too, though that will be argued for the rest of American history. And in 2004, I voted for John Kerry, which George W. Bush won in a squeaker--and I'll never be convinced that Ohio, the toss-up state, wasn't stolen. Never.

So, as a two-time (sort of) loser in these things, I'm very, very leery of getting too excited about Barack Obama's apparent lead. Still, there's something a little thrilling about looking at some of these predictive maps. See, in 2000 and 2004, where "red states" and "blue states" were solidified in the public's minds as "GOP" and "Democratic", those final maps were awash with a large field of red in the middle, and some blue fringe around the edges.

This was parodied on several web sites as "Jesusland" or "Dumbf**kistan" in the middle, and America on the sides. I'm sure conservatives had a flipped version of their own. But even as intelligent people are aware that large numbers of people live in those blue states, and smaller numbers live in the red ones, it was disheartening to see that vast field of red. Oddly, in the mainland, the red was contiguous, and the blue mainly was too, just around the edges in clumps.

On all of the sites listed below, as I've followed them through the last couple of months, "Jesusland" has gotten smaller and smaller. Red states have switched to pink, to neutral, to light blue. Deep red states have gone pink in many cases. If viewed as an animation, you'd see blue pouring in toward the middle of the country from all sides, seemingly somewhat buffeted by the Rocky and Appalachian mountains.

Red America (a term that is ironic and very funny to me) is still contiguous, excepting Alaska. But Blue America nearly is too. A stubborn slip of Idaho may be all that prevents them from meeting at the top. Georgia might surprise us, and link a strip through the south. New Mexico and Colorado probably have no hope of linking up with states around them, but who knows? Arizona could link it up in the southwest. This weary voter longs to see a little more thoughtfulness from voters. We've seen a lot of almost solid red fields on this map in the past (if you allow for revisionist colorization). It sure would be nice to see that map swallowed up by a sea of blue.

Below, just for the fun of it, are my best case scenario prediction, and my more realistic scenario. Absolutely no science involved, just guessing and (probably) wishful thinking. This is simply my pie-in-the-sky expectation, tempered with the realization that I could be wrong. A lot can change in two weeks. I'll follow up on November 5 (provided we know who the winner is this time) to see how I did. Well, unless I'm vastly off, in which case I'll be curled in a corner sobbing somewhere. . .

Resources:

www.Electoral-vote.com

www.FiveThirtyEight.com

www.Pollster.com

www.RealClearPolitics.com

Pat Robertson Predicts the Year Ahead

Yes, Crazy Uncle Chuckles (™ The Stephanie Miller Show), Pat Robertson is doing the prognostication thing again. I guess since Jeanne Dixon has passed on into the ether, the sooth-saying field is wide open. 'Course, I'm pretty sure that fortune telling is a no-no in evangelical circles. And I've got to wonder, has anyone ever checked this guy's track record?

[Excerpt]

Pat Robertson Predicts Worldwide Violence, U.S. Recession in 2008

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Wednesday that 2008 will be a year of violence worldwide and a recession in the United States, followed by a major stock-market crash by 2010. . .

Read more at (Pat's favorite news channel): FOX "News"