I'm going to use a few more categories than the standard "Solid/Lean/Tossup" breakdown. I'm adding "lock" for a drop-dead 100% sure bet, and "likely" in between solid and lean. (Note: Nebraska divides its electoral votes by CD, with 2 going to the state winner)
Obama Lock - DC (3), HI (4), IL (21), MD (10), MA (12), NY (31), RI (4), VT (3) - 88EV
McCain Lock - ID (4), NE-3rd (1), TN (11), OK (7), UT (5), WY (3) - 31EV
Obama Solid - CA (55), CT (7), DE (3), ME (4), MN (10), WA (11), WI (10) - 100EV, cum. 188EV
McCain Solid - AL (9), LA (9), NE-AL (2), KS (6), KY (6), SD (3), WV (5) - 42EV, cum. 73EV
Obama Lean - CO (9), MI (17), NJ (15), NH (4), OR (7), PA (21) - 73EV, cum. 251EV
McCain Lean - AK (3), AR (6), AZ (10), GA (15), FL (27), IN (11), MS (6), MT (3), ND (3), NE-1st (1), NE-2nd (1), SC (8), TX (34) - 128EV, cum. 201EV
Tossup - IA (7), OH (20), MO (11), NC (15), NV (5), NM (5), VA (13) - 76 EV
What's obvious here is that Obama is in a lot better shape than McCain. "Serious" people have suggested that he may win any of the states in the "McCain lean" column, including Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, and Mississippi, none of which would generally be considered "Swing states", but certainly should be considered as such this election. McCain certainly has a shot at the Obama lean states, but there are a lot fewer in that category. Most are at least "Solid", which means it would take significant effort, luck, and national swing for McCain to win them.
As far as strategy suggested by this setup, we have the following:
1) If Obama wins Texas or Florida, he definitely wins. The punditry generally look at Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania as "key battleground" states, with Florida generally included as well. However, even if Obama lost 2 of MI OH PA, Texas or Florida would likely ensure he had enough EV to win.
2) McCain needs a base. The general Republican bases are in the west and the south. In the south, evangelical dislike of McCain plus an expected huge black turnout makes a lot of states possibly competitive. In the west, Obama has very strong popularity, and the Democratic party overall is on the rise. McCain has no shot unless he can establish early (before the conventions) that either Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi and Arkansas are safe (and FL NC VA are lean McCain); or that Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas are safe (and CO NM NV are lean McCain). Texas, once again, would be useful for either group.
3) McCain and California - As I mentioned above that Obama winning FL or TX would make things very easy, McCain could probably do the same thing in California. The state is probably the friendliest of the "Solid Obama" states to McCain. It's also the only way he could win if he lost MI PA OH.
4) GOP VP selection - I see three possible paths to victory for McCain. Strategy 1 involves focusing on the 55 EV of California as much as possible. Schwarzenegger would be the obvious VP choice, even though it might not help; but he's not eligible; maybe something like Carly Fiorina. Strategy 2 is the 58 EV of MI OH PA. Here, there once again aren't any governors or senators of note (Voinovich is unlikely), and I doubt Rob Portman is going to get consideration; maybe Mitt Romney's Michigan connections are the best regional tie he could get. Strategy 3 is the "We're tough and macho and Obama is an evil wimp that will surrender to the terrorists", and that can take virtually anyone, though Joe Lieberman would probably be the most likely candidate for that strength.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
I Hate Bank of America
More specifically, I hate their branding and promotions, but that's a large enough portion of my overall view that I'm not going to bother with any nits along those lines.
Exhibit 1: "Risk Free CD" - It's a short term CD, only you can take your money out early! Normally, you can do this with a small penalty. Right now, it's 2.80% APY for 9 months, while US Bank offers 3.00% for 11 months. It's a comparable rate to other big banks I suppose, but ING savings is at 3.00% and has 9 months at 3.30%, and is probably a better option for savings.
Exhibit 2: "Keep the Change" - Seriously. "We automatically transfer money between your accounts" has got to be the stupidest idea ever. It's a program designed for those people who are too spendthrifty, poor, or stupid to save even $10 or $20 per month without a gimmicky program run by someone else to help them. In that regard, it's probably a good idea from a business proposition, but still. It falls very close to "evil".
And the worst part of both of these is the ads. "What if you couldn't kiss your kids for 9 months, or go outside? Why should it be different with your money. This is America. You deserve a risk-free CD". or "We save everything in America, the whales, jam, everything. Why not your money? This is America. You deserve to keep the change." It's both the moronic jingoistic patriotism, the horrible metaphors, the annoying narrator, and really the entire thing.
Exhibit 1: "Risk Free CD" - It's a short term CD, only you can take your money out early! Normally, you can do this with a small penalty. Right now, it's 2.80% APY for 9 months, while US Bank offers 3.00% for 11 months. It's a comparable rate to other big banks I suppose, but ING savings is at 3.00% and has 9 months at 3.30%, and is probably a better option for savings.
Exhibit 2: "Keep the Change" - Seriously. "We automatically transfer money between your accounts" has got to be the stupidest idea ever. It's a program designed for those people who are too spendthrifty, poor, or stupid to save even $10 or $20 per month without a gimmicky program run by someone else to help them. In that regard, it's probably a good idea from a business proposition, but still. It falls very close to "evil".
And the worst part of both of these is the ads. "What if you couldn't kiss your kids for 9 months, or go outside? Why should it be different with your money. This is America. You deserve a risk-free CD". or "We save everything in America, the whales, jam, everything. Why not your money? This is America. You deserve to keep the change." It's both the moronic jingoistic patriotism, the horrible metaphors, the annoying narrator, and really the entire thing.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Book Review: The End of Science
John Horgan summarizes his conversations with dozens of top physicists, philosophers, and other scientists, trying to get an answer to the question: What will happen once we have "The Answer" to everything?
Of course, this question presupposes that there is such an answer (or a collection of answers), and Horgan makes no attempt to be anything but biased in his view that there is such an answer, and that the peak of scientific progress has already passed. He claims that since the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity, and to a lesser extent evolution, the double helix, and a few other developments, very few has occurred in science. Furthermore, that which has occurred has mostly been "minor details". There has been no Grand Unified Theory in physics over the past 50 years.
However, his examples of "the end of science" are carefully cherry-picked and calculated to be able to support his hypothesis. The data for relativity and quantum mechanics came as a result of the massive increase in the scale of observations caused by improvements in telescopes and microscopes, which are a continuous trend from Galileo to around the 1940s, where we hit Heisenburg uncertainty limits on one scale, and a sheer lack of observable data on the other scale. At some point, Moore's Law will break, and computer capacity increases will taper off. However, he generally ignores mathematics and social sciences, and says very little about chemistry as well. While these can be chalked up to the specific interviews he has conducted, it is more than coincidental that he focuses most on the few topics where the end of science may come sooner rather than later or never.
Horgan claims that there are no "surprises" forthcoming in science. He cites relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution as "surprises", but doubts that these will be forthcoming in the future. This is the silliest of logical errors; if it were expected to occur, it wouldn't be a surprise. He dismisses out of hand that the solution to "dark matter" might be something unexpected, though I cannot imagine how it could be explained purely by "details".
The book doesn't support the end of science very well, and some of his claims on where "the end of progress" lies seem out of date after only about 10 years (especially relating to AI and computing). However, the discussions with various scientists are generally fascinating. One scientist suggests that while bacteria and viruses come from the fabric of the universe, AIDS must come from a research lab, while another suggests that environmentalism is a plot to impoverish black children. Many of them are based on his interviews with Scientific American, and this book is worth reading solely on these accounts.
Of course, this question presupposes that there is such an answer (or a collection of answers), and Horgan makes no attempt to be anything but biased in his view that there is such an answer, and that the peak of scientific progress has already passed. He claims that since the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity, and to a lesser extent evolution, the double helix, and a few other developments, very few has occurred in science. Furthermore, that which has occurred has mostly been "minor details". There has been no Grand Unified Theory in physics over the past 50 years.
However, his examples of "the end of science" are carefully cherry-picked and calculated to be able to support his hypothesis. The data for relativity and quantum mechanics came as a result of the massive increase in the scale of observations caused by improvements in telescopes and microscopes, which are a continuous trend from Galileo to around the 1940s, where we hit Heisenburg uncertainty limits on one scale, and a sheer lack of observable data on the other scale. At some point, Moore's Law will break, and computer capacity increases will taper off. However, he generally ignores mathematics and social sciences, and says very little about chemistry as well. While these can be chalked up to the specific interviews he has conducted, it is more than coincidental that he focuses most on the few topics where the end of science may come sooner rather than later or never.
Horgan claims that there are no "surprises" forthcoming in science. He cites relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution as "surprises", but doubts that these will be forthcoming in the future. This is the silliest of logical errors; if it were expected to occur, it wouldn't be a surprise. He dismisses out of hand that the solution to "dark matter" might be something unexpected, though I cannot imagine how it could be explained purely by "details".
The book doesn't support the end of science very well, and some of his claims on where "the end of progress" lies seem out of date after only about 10 years (especially relating to AI and computing). However, the discussions with various scientists are generally fascinating. One scientist suggests that while bacteria and viruses come from the fabric of the universe, AIDS must come from a research lab, while another suggests that environmentalism is a plot to impoverish black children. Many of them are based on his interviews with Scientific American, and this book is worth reading solely on these accounts.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Coincidence
John Adams, Jr. (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) was the second President of the United States (1797–1801).
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–1809), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States.
Can you imagine if Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush were to both die on July 4th of this year? I don't know if the JFK-style conspiracy theories or the terrorist conspiracy theories would win out.
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–1809), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States.
Can you imagine if Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush were to both die on July 4th of this year? I don't know if the JFK-style conspiracy theories or the terrorist conspiracy theories would win out.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
A Modest Proposal on Gender in Language
There are all sorts of half-baked proposals to develop a new set of "gender-neutral" pronouns and other relevant gendered words (co, zie, jhe, te, hir, che, and many more). However, most of them are generally silly-sounding words, and all of them have a very high barrier to start being used.
How about this approach:
Step 1) "She" ("her", etc.) is the new gender-neutral pronoun, as well as referring to females. "He" refers specifically to males.
Step 2) "She" ("her", etc.) is the pronoun used to refer to anyone, either male, female, or of indeterminate gender. "He" is abandoned as an abandoned linguistic relic.
This has the advantage that even if someone thinks you sound weird, she will still understand what you are saying. It should also provide a jumping point for a single neutral pronoun that using "he" for just won't work.
How about this approach:
Step 1) "She" ("her", etc.) is the new gender-neutral pronoun, as well as referring to females. "He" refers specifically to males.
Step 2) "She" ("her", etc.) is the pronoun used to refer to anyone, either male, female, or of indeterminate gender. "He" is abandoned as an abandoned linguistic relic.
This has the advantage that even if someone thinks you sound weird, she will still understand what you are saying. It should also provide a jumping point for a single neutral pronoun that using "he" for just won't work.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
What's up with Firedoglake?
A common claim of the right-wing is that they are the "real" friends of Israel, and that Democrats hate Israel or are anti-semitic, or whatever else they claim.
Of course, this is normally bogus. In general, this is either meant to mean "I hate Arabs, and thus I must support Israel", or "I support Israel because the Bible says I should, though if the situation changes I probably wouldn't", or even "I hate Israel, but I'll claim you do".
However, I found this recent post at Firedoglake God Bless Jimmy Carter, the Best Friend Israel Ever Had to be one of the few examples of somebody on the left that isn't a certified racist nut to be actually and blatantly anti-Israel. It's generally weak on logic and facts as well, so I won't go for a point-by-point breakdown. It also seems to vacillate between "Israel has lost" and "Israel will lose", and I don't see how Jimmy Carter comes into play anywhere other than "He's kind of on my side, so he gets the lede".
Of course, this is normally bogus. In general, this is either meant to mean "I hate Arabs, and thus I must support Israel", or "I support Israel because the Bible says I should, though if the situation changes I probably wouldn't", or even "I hate Israel, but I'll claim you do".
However, I found this recent post at Firedoglake God Bless Jimmy Carter, the Best Friend Israel Ever Had to be one of the few examples of somebody on the left that isn't a certified racist nut to be actually and blatantly anti-Israel. It's generally weak on logic and facts as well, so I won't go for a point-by-point breakdown. It also seems to vacillate between "Israel has lost" and "Israel will lose", and I don't see how Jimmy Carter comes into play anywhere other than "He's kind of on my side, so he gets the lede".
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Veep-Stakes, Part 1
So, since the Presidential nominations are winding down, it's time to start looking at the Veep-Stakes. There are 3 schools of thought for this: Pick the best available without regards to "balance", pick someone who bolsters your strengths, or pick someone who helps shore up your weaknesses.
First, for the Democrats, since they have to announce their nominee first.
For the best available, my choice would be 1) Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana; 2) Russ Feingold, Senator of Wisconsin; 3) the loser in the presidential race.
For the "bolsters strengths" and "shores weaknesses", it is different per-candidate. These aren't quite mirror images, but they're close. http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9805/countieszq8.gif and the other images on http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4414 are very useful images of the primary results to get a sense of strengths.
For Obama, this is the West and the coastal Southeast (Virginia and the Carolinas). For the west, someone like Schweitzer or Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas, seem like good picks. Even Texas is possible, but I don't see any good candidates from the state. For the southeast, John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina and VP candidate, Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia, or Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia are the obvious names. Edwards seems like a poor choice given his history on the ticket.
For Clinton, this is Hispanic areas and Appalachia (Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, Ohio, Pennsylvania). For Hispanic areas (Florida and Texas(!) are both winnable), Bill Richardson (governor of New Mexico) is the obvious name. Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles, strikes me as another good possibility. None of the statewide officeholders in CA, FL, TX, or CO seem likely. For Appalachia, Ted Strickland (governor of Ohio) is the obvious name, and pretty much the only viable candidate. Phil Bredesen (governor of Tennessee) is plausible except for the echoes of another Clinton picking another Tennessean (Al Gore). Ed Rendell (governor of Pennsylvania) isn't plausible, and most of the other prominent Democratic officeholders in these states are newly elected (Steve Beshear, governor of Kentucky), anti-choice (Bob Casey) or old (Robert Byrd).
As far as weaknesses, for Obama it is specifically Appalachia (Ohio, Pennsylvania) where he is weak (he does OK in Hispanic areas, just not as good as Clinton). As above, Ted Strickland is the obvious choice here. There's also the gender factor, and besides Clinton, Sebelius is the only female mentioned. Debbie Stabenow (Senator from Michigan) and Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell (Senators from Washington) seem to be the only other plausible options. Janet Napolitano (Governor of Arizona) seems less likely with Arizona being a likely lost cause in the general election.
For Clinton, it is Democratic states in the upper Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan somewhat) and Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington). For the Midwest, Russ Feingold is an option, as is Obama. For the Pacific Northwest, I don't see too much. None of the Senators or Governors or Representatives strike me as particularly charismatic or popular. There's also the race factor, but aside from Obama I don't see many other options. John Lewis and John Conyers are both too old, and I don't see any other people who'd fit.
Now, for McCain. He needs help in parts of the South against either candidates, and in the West against Obama. Huckabee would be a disaster in any swing state (I know multiple Republicans who would rather vote for the Democrat than let Huckabee near the White House). Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, has been a name with buzz for a long time. Shelley Moore Capito, representative from West Virginia, could help, as well as guard against "Republicans hate women and minorities" claims. As far as the West goes, Mitt Romney is the obvious choice. Former Governors Bill Owens (of Colorado) and Kenny Guinn (of Nevada) had buzz several years ago, but seem to have faded away, in Owens' case because of ethics issues. John Thune (Senator from South Dakota) and Kay Bailey Hutcheson (Senator from Texas) are the only other officeholders in the West I see possible.
As far as strengths, this would be rust belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. Romney once again is the best choice for Michigan. Santorum has the same problem as Huckabee. Ohio Republicans have uniformly been run through the mud on a state level, so an Ohio Republican might actually hurt them on the ticket.
It's important to note that the last Republican nominees for VP have been a retired Congressman (Cheney), a retired Congressman (Jack Kemp), a useless Senator from Indiana (Quayle), the runner-up for the nomination (HW Bush), and Bob Dole (in 1976). Romney seems to fit the pattern rather well; Rob Portman, a retired Congressman, has also had buzz.
In conclusion, it seems that the Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton superticket is actually a likely possibility on the merits, even if it isn't forced at the convention. I could see Clinton going with Bill Richardson or Villaraigosa, or Obama with Ted Strickland, but that's about it. For the Republicans, Romney seems like the heavy favorite, though I can imagine many possible options.
First, for the Democrats, since they have to announce their nominee first.
For the best available, my choice would be 1) Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana; 2) Russ Feingold, Senator of Wisconsin; 3) the loser in the presidential race.
For the "bolsters strengths" and "shores weaknesses", it is different per-candidate. These aren't quite mirror images, but they're close. http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9805/countieszq8.gif and the other images on http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4414 are very useful images of the primary results to get a sense of strengths.
For Obama, this is the West and the coastal Southeast (Virginia and the Carolinas). For the west, someone like Schweitzer or Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas, seem like good picks. Even Texas is possible, but I don't see any good candidates from the state. For the southeast, John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina and VP candidate, Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia, or Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia are the obvious names. Edwards seems like a poor choice given his history on the ticket.
For Clinton, this is Hispanic areas and Appalachia (Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, Ohio, Pennsylvania). For Hispanic areas (Florida and Texas(!) are both winnable), Bill Richardson (governor of New Mexico) is the obvious name. Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles, strikes me as another good possibility. None of the statewide officeholders in CA, FL, TX, or CO seem likely. For Appalachia, Ted Strickland (governor of Ohio) is the obvious name, and pretty much the only viable candidate. Phil Bredesen (governor of Tennessee) is plausible except for the echoes of another Clinton picking another Tennessean (Al Gore). Ed Rendell (governor of Pennsylvania) isn't plausible, and most of the other prominent Democratic officeholders in these states are newly elected (Steve Beshear, governor of Kentucky), anti-choice (Bob Casey) or old (Robert Byrd).
As far as weaknesses, for Obama it is specifically Appalachia (Ohio, Pennsylvania) where he is weak (he does OK in Hispanic areas, just not as good as Clinton). As above, Ted Strickland is the obvious choice here. There's also the gender factor, and besides Clinton, Sebelius is the only female mentioned. Debbie Stabenow (Senator from Michigan) and Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell (Senators from Washington) seem to be the only other plausible options. Janet Napolitano (Governor of Arizona) seems less likely with Arizona being a likely lost cause in the general election.
For Clinton, it is Democratic states in the upper Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan somewhat) and Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington). For the Midwest, Russ Feingold is an option, as is Obama. For the Pacific Northwest, I don't see too much. None of the Senators or Governors or Representatives strike me as particularly charismatic or popular. There's also the race factor, but aside from Obama I don't see many other options. John Lewis and John Conyers are both too old, and I don't see any other people who'd fit.
Now, for McCain. He needs help in parts of the South against either candidates, and in the West against Obama. Huckabee would be a disaster in any swing state (I know multiple Republicans who would rather vote for the Democrat than let Huckabee near the White House). Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, has been a name with buzz for a long time. Shelley Moore Capito, representative from West Virginia, could help, as well as guard against "Republicans hate women and minorities" claims. As far as the West goes, Mitt Romney is the obvious choice. Former Governors Bill Owens (of Colorado) and Kenny Guinn (of Nevada) had buzz several years ago, but seem to have faded away, in Owens' case because of ethics issues. John Thune (Senator from South Dakota) and Kay Bailey Hutcheson (Senator from Texas) are the only other officeholders in the West I see possible.
As far as strengths, this would be rust belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. Romney once again is the best choice for Michigan. Santorum has the same problem as Huckabee. Ohio Republicans have uniformly been run through the mud on a state level, so an Ohio Republican might actually hurt them on the ticket.
It's important to note that the last Republican nominees for VP have been a retired Congressman (Cheney), a retired Congressman (Jack Kemp), a useless Senator from Indiana (Quayle), the runner-up for the nomination (HW Bush), and Bob Dole (in 1976). Romney seems to fit the pattern rather well; Rob Portman, a retired Congressman, has also had buzz.
In conclusion, it seems that the Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton superticket is actually a likely possibility on the merits, even if it isn't forced at the convention. I could see Clinton going with Bill Richardson or Villaraigosa, or Obama with Ted Strickland, but that's about it. For the Republicans, Romney seems like the heavy favorite, though I can imagine many possible options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)