Thanks, Massachusetts

So something has happened to once again jar me out of my blogging slumber. Bear with me, because this isn't going to be pretty.

There was a special election held in the state of Massachusetts this evening, to decide who would take over for the now-deceased Senator Edward Kennedy. Due to the Democratic candidate's inability to tell a Red Sock from a Yankee, and her general lack of campaigning skills, this Senate seat now belongs to some Republican yahoo who looks a lot like a younger Mitt Romney and has posed nude on at least one occasion. But, to his credit, he's a real 'murikan, and has promised to be tough on terrorists and to vote against any and all attempts to reform the healthcare system, which is all you really need to be a Republican senator these days.

Anyway, this will leave the Dems with a 59 vote majority in the Senate, which in any other epoch of American politics would be more than enough to get quite a bit done. After all, Bush never had this type of legislative majority, but nevertheless got nearly everything he wanted during his administration. But given that the Republican party will filibuster any and all legislation coming from Democrats (including declarations that Hitler was a bad person, or that kicking puppies is mean), and also considering that the Dems have been, at best, ineffectual with a 60 vote majority, it's quite likely that they will be entirely useless from now until the likely ass-kicking that they will suffer at the end of this year. The crazies on the Right are smelling blood.

I think the events of the past year (and really, the past decade) amply demonstrate that the US political system is hopelessly ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of our time. You have one party that is weak, torn by ideological divisions, and largely beholden to the concerns of corporations and special interests, while the other party is simply insane. Obama is a huge improvement over the last occupant of the White House, but he hasn't shown the decisive leadership necessary to overcome this sad state of affairs.

Health care is a great example. Without dramatic health care reform, the US will continue to be an embarrassing exception among First World nations that guarantee quality health care to all their citizens. Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, enriching insurance and drug companies while bankrupting ordinary citizens, and eventually, the US government itself. Rather than giving up altogether on health care, the House may still pass the Senate health care reform compromise, but that hardly qualifies as "dramatic", and will do little to solve the larger problems the US faces on this front.

And we can pretty much forget about anything meaningful being done about climate change or regulating the financial sector or restoring civil liberties or transitioning to a greener economy or...I could go on. The one area where Obama will still have some room to maneuver is foreign policy, but that will make little difference when it comes to the long-term fiscal and social stability of our neighbor to the south.

I wish I could come to a more positive conclusion, but unless the Democrats man up and surprise me, or the Republicans finally come to their senses, and stop being so damned crazy and nihilistic, I don't see one. In future histories of the decline of the American empire, 2009 will surely be viewed as a huge missed opportunity to right the wrongs of the "lost decade" of the 2000s. Maybe it will take President Palin, a military dicatorship, and total economic collapse for Americans to finally come to their senses, but by that point it will be too late.

Update:

Yes.

The Democrats in Massachusetts nominated a horrendous candidate who proceeded to run a somnolent campaign (or non-campaign) that presumed victory and excited exactly no one. The Republicans were highly motivated even though Scott Brown is far from great shakes himself. So we're back to the pre-2008 electoral dynamics: Republicans vote, Democrats don't. And why would they? What kind of rallying cry could Coakley have used? "Get out to vote! Protect that watered-down embarrassment of a health care 'reform' bill! You know, the one we let the insurance companies write!" Something tells me that would not have worked. It is plainly obvious that Democratic candidates can't expect success without the voters who showed up in 2008, and they're not going to show up unless they're highly motivated by distaste for the GOP (which they aren't at the moment, given the results from 2006-08) or enthusiasm for the Congressional agenda. What we're seeing is not a schizophrenic electorate giving the GOP eight years to screw things up and expecting the Democrats to fix it all in nine months. We're seeing that nine months is more than enough time for the modern Democratic Party to disgust most of its base.

And this isn't unfair either:

In the end, however, Obama will get exactly what he deserves. He took office with all the enthusiasm in the world behind him and he proceeded to govern like an Eisenhower Republican. Like Clinton, Obama will probably survive re-election in 2012 because of his personal appeal and the pitiful field of challengers. But his brief window of opportunity to seize the initiative and take control of the Congressional agenda has passed.

Of course, it doesn't help that some Democrats are already falling all over themselves in declaring defeat. So typical .

Holiday blues update

I haven't really been motivated to blog lately. Between work, family matters, and the general stress of the Christmas splurging season, I'm not left with much energy or time to rant on the internet.

During my time away from the keyboard, the Democratic governor of Illinois went down in flames, and turns out to have been a complete asshole and egomaniac. Or, as Dickipedia so aptly summarizes:

The subject of no fewer than a dozen separate federal investigations, Blagojevich is a disgrace to all Serbian-American governors everywhere—that means you, George Voinovich of Ohio. He is also just the kind of a-hole who threatens to screw the whole thing up for Barack Obama before he even takes office.

Rod Blagojevich was the first Democrat to be elected governor of Illinois in 30 years, a distinction he proceeded to totally crap all over by continually failing to pass legislation and budgets, making many political enemies (even in his own party), committing federal and state crimes, wearing a ridiculous side-part in some seriously bouffant hair, and, in October 2008, earning the title “America’s Least Popular Governor.” All that before he got arrested.

On December 9, 2008, adding dick insult to dick injury, Blagojevich was detained by the FBI and charged with conspiracy to commit fraud as well as solicitation of bribery for allegedly trying to sell president-elect Barack Obama’s vacated seat in the U.S. Senate. This happened the day before Blagojevich’s 52nd birthday. One imagines they canceled the stripper.

Heh. Hee hee.

What else?

Oh, I should mention that the BSG spinoff Caprica has been picked up by Scifi as a series! Details here. The only downside is that we won't be seeing any of it until 2010.

Webisodes bridging seasons 4.0 and 4.5 are currently airing as well, but I refuse to link to them in protest of their unavailability for Canadian web surfers (can't see the logic in shutting out fans who happen to be outside of the US; if Space is too cheap to get the rights to them, that's their problem). Catch them on Youtube instead.

So anyway, maybe you guys were right after all...

Lost amidst everything else that has been going on, the US and Iraqi governments have quietly agreed to a withdrawal timetable, a timetable that includes the withdrawal of most combat troops by mid-2009. Bush is still in office, mind you. The same Bush who repeatedly warned us that such a thing would amount to surrendering to terror, a warning that was endlessly regurgitated by all the usual suspects in the Right Wing Noise Machine.

Never mind that the Iraqis have been requesting this for quite some time, withdrawal was a crazy moonbat Left Wing socialist Islamofascocommunist idea! Only the Defeatocrats and their terrorist allies would ever consider such a thing! USA! USA! USA!

Just thought I'd throw that out there...

Liberal disappointment with Obama

Most of Obama's cabinet appointments announced thus far have been centrist Democrats, some of whom have endorsed things like the Iraq war, "harsh interrogation methods" (if not necessarily waterboarding), and other excesses of the Bush administration. One very important post, Secretary of Defense, may even stay unchanged, if Obama decides to keep Robert Gates, albeit temporarily.

Predictably, this has resulted in some consternation from the Left. Here's Chris Bowers:

I know everyone is obsessed with the "team of rivals" idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated. Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans? Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration? Also, why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely.

Of course, we don't know his entire cabinet just yet. And many of the people being discussed have not been officially confirmed. The Left may be going nuts over Robert Gates, but we only have speculation over who Obama's SecDef will actually be.

And some appointments are very encouraging. As Glenn Greenwald explains in this post, Eric Holder for Attorney General would be a huge improvement, and offers a real possibility of reversing much of Bush's assault on the Constitution (but his rape of the Justice Department may not be as easily corrected).

Finally, while Obama may be wary of starting witch hunts over torture, and prosecuting everyone involved (a process that would be satisfying, but inevitably polarizing), he has sent signals through his advisors that he may institute a bipartisan independent commission to investigate the matter and make its findings public. Not my ideal solution (I think war crimes can and should be prosecuted, no matter how important and powerful the perpetrators are), but it's in keeping with his philosophy.

The simple truth is that Obama is not a politician that will rock the boat. Despite all his talk about "change", he is, in fact, an extremely cautious and pragmatic man. He is also not a liberal ideologue. His decisions on the transition thus far are entirely in keeping with that. To this Canadian, Democrats are almost always disappointingly center-right, but I knew that about Obama from the start. Nevertheless, he was worth supporting. And he remains so. And any progressives who harbored unrealistic expectations of Obama have no one but themselves to blame. I pretty much agree with this e-mail Digby sent to Greenwald:

The villagers and the right made it very clear what they required of Obama --- bipartisanship, technocratic competence and center-right orthodoxy. Liberals took cultural signifiers as a sign of solidarity and didn't ask for anything. So, we have the great symbolic victory of the first black president (and that's not nothing, by the way) who is also a bipartisan, centrist technocrat. Surprise.

There are things to applaud about the cabinet picks -- Clinton is a global superstar who, along with Barack himself, signals to the world that the US is no longer being run by incompetent, extremist, political fringe dwellers. Holder seems to be genuinely against torture and hostile to the concept of the imperial presidency. Gaithner is a smart guy who has the trust of the Big Money Boyz, which may end up being useful considering the enormous and risky economic challenges ahead. Emmanuel is someone who is not afraid to wield a knife and if we're lucky he might just wield it from time to time against a Republican or a right wing Democrat. Napolitano seems to have a deft political touch with difficult issues like immigration which is going to be a battleground at DHS. And on and on.

None of them are liberals, but then Obama said repeatedly that he wasn't ideological, that he cared about "what works." I don't know why people didn't believe that. He's a technocrat who wants to "solve problems" and "change politics." The first may actually end up producing the kind of ideological shift liberals desire simply because of the dire set of circumstances greeting the new administration. (Hooray for the new depression!) The second was always an empty fantasy --- politics is just another word for human nature, and that hasn't changed since we were dancing around the fire outside our caves.

If you want to press for a cabinet appointment at this late date who might bring some ideological ballast, I would guess that labor and energy are where the action is. It would be really helpful to have somebody from the left in the room when the wonks start dryly parceling out the compromises on the economy and climate change. But basically, we are going to be dealing with an administration whose raison d'etre is to make government "work." That's essentially a progressive goal and one that nobody can really argue with. But he never said he would make government "work" for a liberal agenda. Liberals just assumed that.

On a related note, don't all these center-right appointments make the Right's pre-election spittle-flecked rants and nervous breakdowns over socialist left-wing firebrand Black Power Obama even more absurd? They unceasingly pushed this nonsense about him being the "most liberal senator" and a dangerous radical absent any evidence whatsoever, only the thinnest of guilt by association justifications. Does anyone think these idiots will be the least bit chastened by their pre-election rhetoric's utter disassociation from the truth? If you do, you haven't been paying attention the past 8 years.

What is wrong with Senate Democrats?

Today, Senate Democrats voted to give Lieberman a slap on the wrist, stripping him of his positions on a couple environmental subcommittees, but letting him keep his far more important chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, which has important oversight responsibilities.

And it was a pretty decisive vote, 43-12.

It's times like these that you really have to wonder what is up with the Senate. This is hardly the first time they've let their constituents down. Whether it was voting to grant the Bush administration all the new eavesdropping powers they wanted (along with telecom immunity to cover their asses), or renewing the Patriot Act, or declaring branches of the Iranian government "terrorists", or authorizing torture, Senate Democrats have been willing participants all along. There has been no shortage of "bipartisanship".

Now, confronted with an individual who voluntarily turned against his party and became a total neo-con, lost a Democratic primary, campaigned with Republicans, spoke at the Republican convention, and happily spread fear-mongering smears against the new President elect (a President elect who actually supported Lieberman in his primary battle; big mistake, in retrospect), what do the Democrats do? They let him keep his chairmanship through an overwhelmingly one sided vote, a position that he has done an exceedingly poor job at by any objective measure, failing to exercise any oversight at all over the Bush administration's failures.

All this so he can do what? Start witch hunts against the Obama administration?

This is all quite ridiculous, and makes the Democrats look weak once again, at a time of Democratic ascendancy, with the party making gains in all branches of government and with a significant progressive mandate for change.

The Democratic leadership should have called Lieberman's bluff, and stripped him of this chairmanship. Of course they want him to stay in the caucus, and he likely would have done so. As much as Lieberman wanted this committee, he still is a Democrat on most issues, and undergoing an even more extreme ideological conversion would simply ensure his defeat in 2012. It's looking very likely that the Dems will have at least 58 seats in the Senate without Holy Joe; he's not nearly as important as he thinks he is.

More broadly, this is a symptom of this overwhelming desire for "bipartisan harmony". Apparently the desire for "harmony" even overrides the rule of law. Don't hold anyone accountable, because that would be "partisan", and "vindictive".

It is important to note that Obama is not much better in this regard. He was not present for some of the aforementioned votes, but he did eventually support the disgraceful FISA bill and seemed to wash his hands of any decision on Lieberman. His aides have also signalled that his Justice Department will not be pursuing any prosecutions of those government officials involved in the Bush-Cheney torture regime.

I understand the need for healing, but justice and accountability are integral parts of that healing process.

Wednesday night rambling

This clip is interesting for two reasons.



First, the part 1:15 in, where Lauer is talking to one of Palin's daughters, and she says that yes, she missed a lot of school, and that "it's really hard". Gotta feel bad for the little ones, even if their mother is a power-hungry narcissist who doesn't realize that her 15 minutes are up.

Second, Bush's awkward silence starting around 1:39 where he jokes about looking forward to the lame duck session.

Bush sounded like a defeated man, not just yesterday, but today as well, with him actually admitting to various mistakes he has made during his presidency, something he was previously loathe to do.

Fox news' Shep Smith definitely has his moments. As does Chris Matthews.

And it looks like Alaskan GOP Senator convicted felon Ted Stevens is in trouble. The latest count, including thousands of absentee ballots, has him down by precisely three votes. Still more votes to count, but Alaska might not have let everyone down after all.

Finally, as the stock markets keep crashing on the heels of more bad economic news, and modifications to the Bailout plan, the fact that anyone even needs to ask why rich Americans voted Democratic this year is pretty depressing.

Here's a newsflash, Daniel Gross, taxes aren't everything. Sure, they are for the perennial tax-whiners. But smart rich people know better. A marginal tax rate of 36% is marginally better than a marginal tax rate of 39%. But what good is that if your stock portfolio has lost 50% of its value? For all the gnashing of teeth over Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the stock markets are lower now than they were eight years ago.

And this isn't just some historical aberration. Over the last few decades, rates of return on the stock market have been consistently higher during Democratic presidencies. If you invested $10,000 dollars in the S&P index in 1929, this is the difference:



(image from here)

Rather than obsessing over marginal differences in marginal tax rates, pundits and journalists need only to look at the above picture to understand why the rich voted for Obama despite his desire to raise their taxes.

Huge turnout? Not so much...

For all the hooplah over Obama's massive voter registration drive and GOTV operation, it is surprising to discover that turnout was up only slightly over 2004. In that year, turnout was 60.6%. This year it was between 60.7% and 61.7%, an increase of only 0.1 - 1.1 percentage points.

So is this the same old story of perennially lazy young voters not showing up at the polls? Not entirely. Youth turnout was actually up by a few points, not too impressive, but that isn't the full story.

I think a large part of what happened was simply depressed Republican turnout. Obama received fewer votes than Kerry in the state of Ohio, but won by a couple hundred thousand votes anyway. Even if there was some movement to the Democrat, that doesn't explain the lower numbers overall. Clearly Republicans just weren't as motivated to vote, "Palinmania" notwithstanding.

In Indiana, we see a much different effect. McCain won only slightly fewer votes than Bush, but Obama's total was up by nearly 50% over Kerry's. Turnout overall was up, and it decisively benefited the Democrat. This was one state where the GOTV advantage was very real. Likewise, the only reason Obama won North Carolina was because of significantly higher African American turnout.

But this wasn't quite the revolution some of us were anticipating.

(h/t Far and Wide)

Prediction craziness

Kos has a post up making fun of Bill O'Reilly's ridiculous pre-election projection. O'Reilly classified states like Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan (which McCain gave up on well over a month before the election and where polls showed Obama 15-20 points up), Iowa, and Pennsylvania as tossups, while putting Indiana and North Carolina solidly into the McCain column. As late as October 29, a Republican loyalist could have looked at that map and thought they were winning.

Kos also ridicules Dick Morris's map, not so much for silly Republican optimism, but just for its sheer craziness and inconsistency.

Morris is a little strange, to put it mildly. He was an advisor in the Clinton administration before being caught up in a sex scandal involving a prostitute and a preference for "toe-sucking and dominance". He and Clinton did not part on good terms.

Since then, he has spent his time sniping at Democrats, making stupid electoral predictions, and appearing on Fox news, saying idiotic things like "Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan".

For my part, I'd say my prediction was pretty close to the mark. I came within 2 electoral votes (367 predicted; actual was 365), and the only states I got wrong were North Dakota, Indiana and Missouri. Like many others, I thought Missouri would go blue before Indiana. My popular vote prediction was 52-47; it ended up being 52.6-46.1.

Wrapping up a crazy election

The post-game euphoria is beginning to wear off, but there is still a lot to say.

1. First, everyone should read this, a secret history of the campaign. These reporters were not allowed to publish their story until after the election, so as you might imagine, there are a lot of juicy tidbits.

2. Speaking of juicy tidbits, over the past few days, we have learned from McCain campaign insiders that Palin apparently didn't know that Africa was a continent and not a country, nor was she aware of which countries were part of NAFTA (hint: there's only three countries in North America). Needless to say, campaign insiders sniping at each other is probably not the very best source of information, but it says something about Palin that such a story seems even the least bit plausible.

And, backed up by the Newsweek article, it seems that Palin was frustrated with all the coaching for the Gibson interview, and refused to be coached in preparation for the Couric interview. Hmmm...that explains a few things. The Gibson interview was bad, but the Couric one was a whole new level of epic fail.

The product of all this foolishness?

Why non-McCain voters doubted McCain:



(CNN's exit poll, via Daily Kos)

McCain would have lost whether he had chosen Palin or not, but Palin didn't help. Despite what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity might want to believe, most Americans actually don't respond well to divisive bullshit about "Real America", or "pallin' around with terrorists", or "small-town hockey mom", or "as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there."

No, most Americans responded thusly: "Jesus Christ! McCain's totally lost his mind!"

Some Republicans might want her to be the future leader of the party, but ALL Democrats hope she will be.

3. Speaking of the future of the Republican party, this is good. As is this. And this. All written by conservatives, BTW, just not the wingnuts that dominate the "conservative" movement.

I honestly think the Republicans are going to just descend further into the backwoods of regionalism, anti-intellectualism, and tinfoil hat wearing. It'll be a repeat of the 1990s, when Republicans went after Clinton with a vengeance, drumming up one bullshit scandal after another. Hell, there's even an Obama death list. The difference this time is that Democrats are ready for it. And Obama is not Clinton.

UPDATE: Via Pharyngula:



The know-nothing party. Man, I never realized Buchanan was such an ignorant blowhard. O'Donnell should have followed up by asking him whether he thought the Earth was 6,000 years old and whether humans co-existed with dinosaurs.

Harper truly inspired

Harper says Obama election 'truly inspiring'

Well that's nice to know. Honestly, on a lot of issues, the two aren't that far apart. Obama pledges to withdraw from Iraq in two years. Harper pledges to withdraw from Afghanistan in two years. Obama supports continued private sector involvement in the health insurance industry and limited expansion of government health insurance. Harper supports more private sector involvement in our government health insurance industry. Obama supports a cap and trade system to address climate change. Harper supports cap and trade but doesn't like to talk about it much and has a much lower emissions reduction target.

I really don't forsee much friction in this relationship. Some might put forward Obama's remarks on NAFTA, but those were made during a tough primary battle in Ohio, where sentiment against NAFTA runs strong. And Obama's objections seem mainly to do with what the treaty is lacking, specifically environmental standards, and not what it includes. He is not anti-free trade. And let's not forget the battles over soft-wood lumber that occurred during Bush's presidency; a conservative in the White House is no guarantee against protectionism.

And I see that there is already some talk over a possible bilateral climate change agreement between the US and Canada. If anything, this might push Harper's position more to the Left, since Obama will certainly have much more influence in any arrangement between our two countries. Alberta is probably safe no matter what, since the US needs a secure oil supply outside of hostile OPEC states.

UPDATE: Calgary Grit makes pretty much the same point here, and also links to an interesting post comparing Harper and Hillary Clinton's positions.

The day after

(Tribune photo by Chris Walker / November 4, 2008)

Last night was fun (much funner for the tens of thousands in Grant park). Obama beat the Clintons, beat the GOP, and beat the odds. Now he is the first black President of the United States, only 44 years after the end of segregation. It's a little hard to believe, given what many of us thought about America only four years ago. Remember this?



If someone had told me in 2004 that in just four years, the US would elect a black man of second-generation Kenyan ancestry with a Muslim name President, I would have laughed in their face. The only ones laughing now are Democrats.

The way I see it, the greatest challenge that Obama will face as he begins his presidency is pressure from the pundits and talking heads to "govern from the centre", and ignore all those Dirty Fucking Hippies who want crazy batshit insane stuff like health care reform, a green economy freed of dependence on fossil fuels, and withdrawal from Iraq. Hopefully Obama listens to his better angels and moves ahead with a badly needed progressive agenda.

Already, conservative columnists are gravely warning Obama against taking on health care due to the poor economy. Which totally misses the point, of course, but expect to see a lot of this.

Couple other things worth mentioning:

The polls actually underestimated Obama's support in swing states, making a mockery of right wing claims of "pollster bias". Damn reality and its well known Liberal Bias.

And a final laugh at Mrs. Mooseburger's expense; remember the dust-up over Palin's $150,000 wardrobe, and how Palin went to great pains explaining that she had nothing to do with it? It was all the campaign's fault, you see.

Well, not exactly :

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.

I sooo hope she runs in 2012. Given that convicted felon Ted Stevens seems to have been inexplicably re-elected by his Alaskan constituents to the Senate, and that his Senate colleagues will now kick his ass out of Washington and into a jail cell, thus necessitating a special election, good ol' Caribou Barbie might just decide to resign the governorship and run for Stevens' vacant seat. Assuming she won, she would have just as much national political experience by 2012 as Obama did in 2008. Is that idea floating through her head even now? You betcha!

Also, this gem from the same article:

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

Obama's awesome.

What more can you say?

Just an incredible night for America and the world. Obama's presidency will be difficult, but tonight, when he said "yes we can", millions of people around the world heard him and believed. And that's something special.

Good night.

Election liveblogging #2

9:31 PM - Another one bites the dust; New Hampshire called for Obama. I guess he won't be losing any blue states. It's all offense from here on in.

9:58 PM - Okay, Virginia is finally tightening. It's about damn time. It looks like it might be a squeaker, and not the five or six point race the polls were predicting, but I honestly don't know enough to say for sure.

10:16 PM - Lots of states called now, with Obama at around 174 EV, still leading in Florida and North Carolina by significant margins. Early numbers from Ohio look good as well. But the one I'm really interested remains Indiana, partly because it's a real bell-weather state. Way too close to call at this point, but it looks like Gary is really late reporting, just as they were in the primary.

As it stands, Obama needs less than 100 more EV, with more than 50 already accounted for with California.

10:27 PM - Nets are calling Ohio for Obama. Ladies and gentlemen, it is fucking over.

11:10 PM - Well, Obama's finally pulled ahead in Virginia. Indiana is still irritatingly close, but I think he'll pull ahead there as well. Look for the popular vote spread to increase once New York and California start reporting in large numbers, which is important. I think Obama needs a bigger mandate than a 50-50 election.

12:02 PM - Okay, CNN just called it as California and the Pacific Northwest came in. Awesome. Feels damn good, after 2 years of being so invested in this election.

Election liveblogging

Been away for a couple hours playing Rock Band; doesn't look like I missed much. Still no exit polls, which are useless anyway, so when they do come out and show an Obama blowout, don't pay attention to them!

Stay tuned....

6:11 PM - SuperBarack:



Just awesome.

6:25 PM - Whoever produced that Reverend Wright ad spent a shitload of money on airtime. I've seen it at least five or six times since last night, and I haven't even watched much TV.

6:37 PM - Yglesias takes the time to remind us all just how horrible Bush is. No argument here.

6:47 PM - Like clockwork. Drudge:

SENATE: DEMS SEE 58 SEATS; EXIT POLLS SHOW OBAMA BIG

Allow yourself to be optimistic. But take nothing for granted. Exit polls are utterly unscientific and highly unreliable.

6:59 PM - Well, I'm all set. I've got CNN on my TV, MSNBC on my PC, and an IE tab open for TPM. And I've started drinking. First polls close in one minute. Fired up and ready to go!

7:03 PM - Ah, dammit. Looks like they can't report results until all the polls in a state close. Well, that totally spoils my fun.

7:20 PM - John King's talking about the glum situation for House Republicans. The best case scenario for them is a loss of around 25 seats, but if there's a big turnout for Obama, and those voters remember to vote for congressmen, they could be looking at a 30-35 seat loss. Ouch.

7:33 PM - Okay, CNN's got some results, very early ones, of course, but so far, McCain's winning Kentucky (no surprise), and Obama's winning Indiana with 20,000 or so votes in. Doesn't mean much, but normally the rural counties report first, so that may be a good sign.

7:54 PM - Obama's still hanging onto a narrow lead in Indiana, with about 80,000 votes in. It doesn't look like the bigger urban areas have started reporting yet, so this could be very good news for Obama. The last few polls showed McCain around 5 points ahead in that state, so if Indiana is a nail-biter, McCain is finished.

BTW, it looks like TPM's cool election map thingy is fucked. I'm trying IE and Firefox and can't get it to load. Will check it later.

8:14 PM - Just had a quick supper; Indiana is still very close, Kentucky called for McCain and Vermont called for Obama, with polls now closed in Virginia and South Carolina. Scarborough basically already called the election for the Democrats, saying that if you're a Republican, and Indiana and South Carolina are "too close to call", you better be worried. I agree.

8:31 PM - Still very, very early. Can't read much into the Florida/Virginia/Georgia numbers just yet, but Indiana is the real story so far, with Obama neck and neck with McCain even without the Democratic strongholds of Indianapolis, Bloomington, or Gary reporting at all.

9:06 PM - I'm starting to feel good about Florida; Obama seems to have banked a lot of early votes. Virginia is a little annoying thus far, with McCain holding a persistent lead, but I don't know which areas are reporting or which areas are strong for Obama.

9:16 PM - Lots of numbers coming in now; most of it looks good. MSNBC and ABC have already called Pennsylvania for Obama, based on a pretty overwhelming exit poll, I guess. Terrible news for McCain. Flipping PA was his one chance at pulling off the upset.

Going to start a new post, as this one is getting crowded.

Three o'clock update

1. Obama's late grandmother's vote will count. It's a shame that she didn't live to see her grandson become President. Maybe she's watching from above.

2. Top stories on Drudge:

FOXNEWS: 'BLACK PANTHERS' BLOCK ACCESS TO VOTING STATION...
VIDEO: HILLARY POLITICKING INSIDE NY POLLING AREA, 5 FEET FROM BOOTHS...
TOLEDO, OHIO POLICE ISSUED RIOT GEAR...
VA VOTERS FACE WET BALLOTS...
REPUBLICAN ELECTION BOARD WORKERS THROWN OUT IN PHILLY...
MCCAIN SUES OVER MILITARY BALLOTS...
TAMPA: HUNDREDS OF VOTER SURVEYS SCATTERED ACROSS INTERSTATE...

What a tool.

3. 538's final prediction: Obama 349, McCain 189.

Sounds about right. Crucially, 4 of 5 Florida polls today show Obama ahead, albeit narrowly. That'll be one to watch.

4. Is Obama afraid of the job to come? I'd be worried if he wasn't.

And so it begins

This kind of thing should make us Canadians pretty ashamed:




(Photos from here)

These people are not waiting for hours on end to see a show, or to get paid, or anything else of that nature. They're waiting to exercise their right to vote. Something that more than 40% of eligible voters in this country couldn't be bothered to do.

Vote or be ignored.

PS: I'll probably be posting sporadically throughout the afternoon and early evening, and later on, I plan to liveblog the results as they come in with my always astute and entertaining commentary. TPM seems to be a good place to be tonight, as they have a cool map thingy that you can zoom in on and see numbers for specific counties, and they also have tabs for Senate and House results.

Late night update

One last disgusting gasp from Palin:

Sarah Palin has been an embarrassment to herself and her party since joining the Republican ticket in late August, so it stands to reason that she'd want to end the campaign season with her most disgraceful rhetoric to date. After blasting the notion that some Democrats want to cut the defense budget, Palin told a Missouri audience this morning:

"What do they think? Do they think that the terrorists have all of a sudden become the good guys, and changed their minds? No! The terrorists still seek to destroy America and her allies and all that it is that is that we stand for: Freedom, tolerance, equality."

First of all, McCain has bragged repeatedly about his intention to cut funding to the Pentagon. (I'm still looking forward to her condemnation of her running mate.) Second of all, to even suggest that Democrats think terrorists are "good guys" is sickening. It seems Palin hit the bottom of the barrel, and then dug a hole so as to sink a little lower. She added:

"John served our nation in uniform for twenty two years. He spent five and a half years as a POW. He has met great adversity in his life and in the service to this country. He knows how tough challenges are overcome, he will not wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists, he will not -- as our opponent did -- he will not support cutting off funding for our troops over in the war zone."

In reality, McCain did support "cutting off funding for our troops over in the war zone." (Again, we await Palin's condemnation of McCain.) For that matter, playing the P.O.W. card this blatantly, this shamelessly, reflects a striking desperation.

Greg Sargent concluded, "Palin's final appeal on the eve of almost certain defeat puts it right out in the open: It's war hero versus ally of terrorists who want to destroy America and kill your children."

The entire Republican campaign is built entirely on hate, fear, and ignorance. If there's ever been a more offensive campaign for national office, it doesn't come to mind.

This is why I hope for an absolute thrashing tomorrow. This brand of politics needs to be resoundingly repudiated.

In a way, these comments are like a microcosm of the entire campaign. McCain/Palin blast Obama for something stupid, probably a comment taken out of context and maybe something they're guilty of as well (like having ties to Fannie May and Freddie Mac) or something they actually agree with him on (like cutting military spending), and they conclude by questioning his patriotism and injecting subtle racism (like describing progressive income taxation as "welfare").

T-minus 28 hours...

Good sign.

All the national polls except for the stupid IBD/TIPP have Obama over 50% nationally.

Gallup's final prediction is 55-44 in favor of Obama, thanks to big leads in all three of their trackers.

And for all you worryworts, the last few Pennsylvania polls look good enough , with Obama drawing the support of 52-53%.

I honestly don't see much to worry about here. The big question is going to be whether he lives up to his apparent leads in Ohio, and whether he can win some of these really close swing states like Florida, North Carolina, and Missouri. But all of that is just icing on the cake, since Obama wins with Colorado or Virginia alone. Winning the presidency seems almost like a foregone conclusion at this point, unless ALL the polls are dramatically, unforgivably wrong. If McCain somehow pulls this out of the bag, lots of people will have some 'splainin to do.

As for myself, I look forward to the coming Republican meltdown. The cracks have already been showing for the past couple weeks, from numerous moderates jumping ship, to vicious infighting within the McCain campaign, to Palin "going rogue", but I think it's just a taste of what is to come. It should be fun.

The Republicans need their 40 years in the wilderness, and after a lot of soul-searching, they just might one day become a viable political party once again.

So to all liberals, progressives, moderates, and otherwise sane individuals of any nationality who read my blog, rejoice! The Bush era is over, and American voters are finally getting wise to the deceptive and divisive politics of Nixon and Rove, which is good news for all of us.

My prediction

Given that it's a little late for an October surprise (unless we're talking about the Bush administration conveniently leaking embarassing details about Obama's Kenyan half-aunt and her US citizenship status three days before the election), I think it's probably safe for me to come out with my election prediction.

So here goes (I'm using RCP's electoral map calculator):



Popular vote: Obama 52%, McCain 47%

To clarify what I'm doing, all the solid blues are states that I think Obama will win. The light pink, "lean GOP" states are ones that I think Obama can win, but ones that I don't have the guts to actually predict an outcome for.

In a best case scenario, where Obama wins Indiana, Georgia, Montana, and even McCain's home state of Arizona, that would give him 406 electoral votes, which sounds pretty impressive. It's more than Clinton won in either '92 or '96, but still not in the same category as the Republican landslides of the 80s. Reagan won 489 in 1980, 525 in 1984, and Bush I achieved 426 in 1988.

I think that says something about the increased polarization of the American electorate. The two Bush nailbiters earlier this decade were not aberrations; starting with Nixon and continuing through the Reagan and Bush years, there has been a conscious strategy to divide the American people among cultural and religious lines. Otherwise irrelevant issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control have dominated the political discourse; discourse that could otherwise have been concentrated on the decline of the middle class and increasing inequality in society, the utter travesty that privatized health care has become, or the increasingly shaky merits of an Imperial foreign policy. Largely because of the Right's obsession with cultural division and their co-opting of the Christian religion, they have won five of the last seven presidential elections.

An Obama victory will be an important first step in pushing back against this toxic state of affairs, but let's not confuse a solid Obama victory with a transformational landslide and dramatic realignment. Democrats still have a lot of work to do in convincing Americans that they have better ideas about national security and foreign policy, and also that it is possible to find some common ground on these controversial cultural issues. Hopefully they'll build on a solid victory in 2008 with a true landslide in 2012.

T-minus 3 days...

Only three more days, kids! I'm going to take a cue from Atrios and recommend a news blackout and heavy drinking.

1. Great discussion on Real Time last night, ranging from McCain's "hero and role model", Joe the Plumber, to creepy Evangelical Jew-love, to this week's Exit Strategy, Russia:



Maher himself was on fire too, with a great election-retrospective New Rules segment:



"By the grace of Allah, Comrade Obama and his Nubian army will usher in a new era of socialism and gay marriage. So vote early and vote often, and if you're not registered, just ask one of the nice people at ACORN for a form."

Hee.

2. From Open Left:

(1) Social Security is not in crisis, and may not even ever have a shortfall. The projections used to show a shortfall are based on worst-case, GWB-style economic "growth", not on anything seen in our historical record over a similar multi-decade period. Furthermore, even with such miserable, precedented economic performance, we could fill most of the shortfall simply by raising the SS/Medicare taxes on those whose taxes are currently capped.

(2) Medicare costs are skyrocketing because our entire medical system is far more costly than that of other countries. From my diary from last April, "Medicare Myths--Don't Blame The Boomers":

Treating medicine as a commodity in our economy has caused it to become far more costly than in any other country, but with poorer overall health outcomes than all other advanced industrial nations. Thus the solution to exploding Medicare costs is not to abandon or try to replace Medicare, but to universalize it--the exact opposite direction of change from that suggested by the generational warfare meme.

Good points. Especially the latter. How many times have I said it now? The US health care system is a complete disgrace, and what is even more of a disgrace is the way that Americans cannot have an honest debate about health care reform.

3. I can't help but be entertained by Stephen Harper's revolving door of Foreign Affairs Ministers. The posting has been treated with utter unseriousness by the last few governments, and the latest selection, Lawrence Cannon, who seems not to even want the job (great start), will be the eighth in eight years.

This is part of the reason why Canada's influence in the world has diminished. Sure, we've taken on a greater military role in Afghanistan, but in many ways, Canada used to be the world's elder statesman, a grownup in a club of adolescents. That seems like a long time ago.

4. Watch as Lawrence Eagleburger falls all over himself apologizing for criticizing Sarah Palin's qualifications for office:



Wow. Josh Marshall has it about right; this is more than a little evocative of coerced public apologies in Communist countries. From the party running against "socialism".