More Questions Than Answers

With just a couple more days until the election, I have to admit that the results are much more up in the air than when I once posted that Obama was guaranteed an electoral landslide. What happened? Mitt Romney got on the public stage alongside President Obama and denied all of his ideas were his ideas and backtracked on all his plans. Much like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar who stares at his mother and says the cat did it, Romney's strategy was simply say, in the immortal words of Shaggy, "It wasn't me."

Obama had no answer, looked silly to America, and the entire debacle that was Romney's campaign was shaken away. Call it an Etch-a-Sketch or Romnesia or a brilliant--albeit late--pivot from primary to general election strategy (let's face it, all candidates who have to win a primary do it), it worked brilliantly, and people were no longer scared of Mitt Romney.

With all the analysis I've done of the situation, I think it all is going to come down to five questions. These are not the questions most will be asking themselves as they wait for Tuesday's results. We will probably never know the answer to these questions, but behind the scenes somewhere they will have contributed to the results of this election. Here they go, in random order:

1) Will the evangelical Christian right that pushed George Bush to victory but was not enthusiastic about John McCain vote for a Mormon. There was a piece on CNN.com yesterday about a conservative Christian voter that said he, and others like him, are merely sitting this one out. They won't vote for someone who is pro-choice, whether we're talking about abortion or gender of marriage partner, but they also won't vote for a Mormon whose view of Jesus Christ contradicts their own. If we concede that evangelical Christians carried W to re-election despite everything going wrong in his presidency, we have to admit this is probably a problem for Mitt Romney.

2) How big a fluke was Barack Obama winning in the first place? Were we really carried away by the chance to make history and by soaring rhetoric? Were we really taking George Bush out on John McCain? In short, was Obama just in the right place at the right time, or was the country really voting for his progressive agenda? The honeymoon is certainly over. Both sides were frustrated by his attempts to play nice for two years, and when he got tough, Republicans got rubbed the wrong way and now refuse to play at all. If Obama wins again, despite a failing economy, this might show us where our country is as a whole. Have we become more liberal, and have social issues like acceptance of gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and socialized medicine become acceptable to the majority? Have we become a liberal nation? Or was 2008 a fluke? That might get answered Tuesday.

3) The fact is there are about 5% more registered Democrats in this nation than Republicans. Turnout then, as usual, becomes key. The more people that actually go out to vote, the better it is for Democrats. The more people who stay home, the better it is for Republicans (assuming independent voters break even, and with the national polls tied in the final days, that seems to be the case). Who can motivate the base more to come out and win this thing? Now, I admit, that's pretty much a question every pundit is asking and goes for any election. But I think there's a different question this time in regards to this. With the apparent hatred between these two candidates, the complete and total disgust building between the polar opposites of our society, I think the question is which side hates the other side more? Will liberals disgusted by the Republican party in general come out to the polls out of anger more than conservatives who are pissed off by what they see as a socialist agenda? Who is more pissed, sickened, outraged, disgusted, and/or homicidal might be the key to this election.

4) Also related, who are the more protestyer protesters--the Tea Party movement or the Occupy movement? There is no better way to show the vast differences in America public life. Both the Tea Party and Occupy movements have had issues with both candidates, it seems, or at least think neither is either liberal enough or conservative enough to satisfy their anger. Perhaps what we're seeing through this is that both candidates are more moderate than mainstream voters gives them credit for. Some do see this and claim they're both the same candidate that really agree on most issues. Either way, even though nobody will ever be liberal enough for the 98% and nobody will ever be conservative enough to be invited to this tea party, they will definitely be voting for the candidate closest to their own agendas. Which side is stronger, more organized, and like in question three, the angriest could be a huge factor in this election.

5) Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. We live in a strange world right now where men are overwhelmingly going for Mitt Romney and women are overwhelmingly going for Barack Obama. This isn't new. When you watch the debates and you see that little meter going at the bottom, often the two lines, one for women and one for men, are heading in completely opposite directions. This means something. Think about it. This means that in several households--I'm not about to venture to do this math--the husband is voting Romney and the wife is voting Obama. How is that possible in this age of hatred between parties? It's true, though. Maybe this accounts for the divorce rates being so high. Numbers this varied can't lie. We like to think we live in this world where men and women are equal and the problems of women and men have now equalized. Men care about their children going to war and getting sick, too; don't they? Maybe not? Who knows? But for this election, the question may be who can make more inroads with the gender who seems to oppose them. Can Obama convince more men to vote for him? Can Romney win over women? The battle of the sexes could be the battle for the White House. Will married men vote for Obama just to keep their wives off their backs????? Okay, that last one was just a joke, but this will be interesting to watch.

There are a slew of other factors going on out there, city vs. rural vs. suburban for example. In a recent Colorado poll that has Obama up slightly, Obama leads handily in the cities, has a comfortable but more modest lead in the suburbs, but is losing in the rural towns. Will cities and lukewarm support in the burbs win despite Romney's support from rural towns. What about the Hispanic vote that Obama will win by a landslide? What will that turnout be like in states like Florida?

There's so many interesting angles this time around that I could see Obama winning an electoral landslide (not a popular vote landslide), and I could see him losing altogether. I could see Obama winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote. Heck, there's even a chance at an electoral college tie which, though various legal messes, could end in a Romney/Biden White House. What a goldmine for SNL!

It's going to be an exciting night full of answered questions, but when it's all said and done, whoever is the president is going to have a lame-duck Congress that needs to get to work on debt reduction and the debt ceiling. Actually, the "George-Bush-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy" issue will be the first thing to decide with that deadline for their expiration looming. What happens after the election, before the new Senate and House are sworn in, might be just as politically exciting as this election.

Well, that's my final word on this election. I'm guessing Obama wins with 303 electoral votes, but I'm not exactly sure. Romney might pull it out or Obama could win by more. There's too many questions left unanswered. We'll have to tune in Tuesday night to find out.

Peace, and may the force be with you.

 Why can't this happen more often?

Let's Get Political...

With so much going on in the world, I'm not sure what to blog about. The Olympics? Too boring. NFL training camp? Now there's some real sports, but it's pretty quiet in Giants world. Michelle Bachman? Sure, if I were writing a comedy routine, I'd start right there, but she's quickly proving her irrelevance. Revisions on my book? That's going smoothly, so not much to tell there. I only write about my writing when I'm whining about something. I've got an agent meeting on Friday with an agent that seems perfect for everything I'm trying to do in my first book, but I've gotten excited about those before, and here I sit unpublished. So we'll just let go and let God on that one.

So what to write about?

I think I won't be timely. Let's look 100 days in the future, as all those emails from every Democrat in America are asking me to do. Election 2012! I was doing some research around the web, looking at poles, maps, reading articles, even checking out data on Tweets and followers for both candidates. The fact of the matter is, as much as the media is trying to make a story out of every little thing on the campaign, it's not much of a story at all. This is looking like another incumbent cruises to victory kind of election, and the media must hate that. Well, unless you Keith Olbermann, and then you're ecstatic. Your guy wins.

I imagine it's time for the FOX News crew to start manufacturing things to bring Obama down, never mind the fact that all past attempts have failed. Let's face it, Hillary Clinton did a better job of vetting Obama than any Republican could. And MSNBC will get in on it too, focusing more on where Obama is vulnerable, they'll probably call it white-voters-buyers-remorse or something like that. Anything to scare liberals into thinking Romney has a chance in order to help Obama gain votes and keep people interested in their news coverage. Maybe they'll highlight voter suppression or something like that.

I think back to 2008 when Keith Olbermann did the basic math about half way through the night and was all like, "With California certain to go to Obama, hasn't he already won?" and Chuck Todd chastising him with something like, "Shut up Olbermann, we still have two hours left of coverage!" These are paraphrases, of course. Don't quote me on this (or anything ever).

Either way, 270towin.com, my favorite source for election hanky panky, has Obama as a 94% chance of winning, and there's nearly as good a chance of a freakish tie as there is of Romney winning. Basically, if you really focus on the maps, all Obama has to do is win Virginia OR Ohio OR Florida OR Iowa (Iowa, for crying out loud!). Obama is polling well in Ohio, close in VA, and has a shot in Florida and Iowa. I think the key to the new electoral reality we're facing is Pennsylvania. I remember during the Bush elections we used to call PA a swing state as much as Ohio and Florida, a key chunk of electoral votes. Now it is solid blue, probably with the help of Joey-B.

The website runs 10,000 simulated elections daily based on crunching state-by-state polling numbers and other trends, and Obama wins 91% of the time. The mean, median, and mode for his electoral votes in those simulations is 303, a number I'm comfortable with and expect may be the count, unless Romney makes even more "gaffes" before election day and Obama takes North Carolina and Florida too. Right now I have the most Obama could take up in the 340's, with the absolute most Romney could take at 276. That means that even with Romney taking the popular vote and winning all the states that even Obama has a slight lead in right now, he would just barely make the 270 necessary to be president.

Other sites seem to agree. I've seen projections of 290, 303, and 274 safe for Obama at various polling sites across the internet. That's the safe number with the possibility for more. So while the national polls are showing a close race, with quite a few undecided, we don't elect presidents nationally. A candidate could have a national lead by winning by large margins in states he was going to win anyway, but losing very close elections in the states he loses, but if he loses those close battles in key states and enough of them, he loses the electoral college. Ask Al Gore all about that.

So, unless something drastic comes out on Obama or happens in the next 98 days, the 98% are going to be celebrating four more years of Barack-n-roll in the White House. And truthfully, with all that Obama has weathered, and all the attempts at using his past and his various connections to bring him down, if a surprise is coming our way, it's coming from Mittens, not Obama. Just think about those tax returns that must be so damaging that taking the hit for not bringing them out is less of a political setback than letting us see them.

The good news is that if the political nonsense of false promises that can't possibly be followed through on has got you down, you now have my permission to quit watching. No matter how much the cable news networks try to hype the race, it's a foregone conclusion the incumbent is going to win yet again. If you want political drama, watch the race for the House and Senate. Most have the Senate at a tie, with VP Biden breaking the tie, and I've seen equally reliable predictions for both the Dems taking back Congress and the GOP making major gains on their majority. And let's face it, there's a lot more at stake with who is making the laws than who is signing them. We've seen already that no matter what progressive agendas the President wants to push, it doesn't matter with a block-and-blame Congress.

If the Democrats take back the law-making body of government, and have Obama in the White House to put the stamp of approval on their legislation, we could see some of the most innovating, controversial, and history-making legislation of all time. We are ripe with debate in this country, and a sweep of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House could mean single-payer health care, gay marriage, legalized pot, a new immigration policy based on compassion, and the 1990s tax codes sweeping the nation. (Ahhh...Clinton-era budget reduction gets me all wispy in the morning.)

If you're a Democrat and all of that excites you, get campaigning, donating, and voting. Strike hard and fight. If you're a Republican and that scares you, stop being crazy. Stop showing the nation daily that you're more concerned with hate and childish squabbling than with helping the people of this country. In fact, I even know a way you could possibly turn the Presidential race on its head. Should I tell?

The fact is, nobody is excited about 2012. Obama would be winning by a bigger landslide if liberals were still excited about him, and conservatives hate their candidate. Not much excitement there or a struggling economy could guarantee Obama doesn't get a second term. So how does the GOP excite their base when all the candidates that get tea-party folks and hard-line cultural conservatives frothing at the mouth make independent voters sick to their stomachs?

Condi. She's tough. She stood up to Bush and Cheney at times. She's a woman, a real woman, not a woman that sends womanhood back to the 1800's. African-American voters might give her a look, and on every controversial issue her stances wiggle right down the middle. Abortion is bad, but the family should decide. We need to be tough on immigration law enforcement while realizing we are a country of immigrants. And I love this quote, ‘“Let me be clear. I’m evangelical and I’m proud of it. I consider an evangelical to be someone who professes faith in a way that draws others to it.” (As oppose to scaring the living shit out of others.)

Source: The Politico

Not only do I think Condoleeza Rice could shake up this election, though probably not win it, I think she has what it takes to be the first woman president in 2016. Tell me Hillary vs. Condi wouldn't be the greatest presidential campaign story in the history of our nation. I think Rice actually brings some honesty to the table, will stand up for what she believes in even if I don't agree with her on some things, and could take the GOP in a direction it hasn't gone recently with fiscal conservatism and social sanity. What a great alternative to the Michelle Bachmans of the party. She also handles herself in an interview in such a way I think she'd be a master debater (see what I did there?), so no Sarah Palin "I can see Russia from my house" jokes on SNL

Well, the veepstakes should come to a close shortly after Romney returns from his international dating game, a game he is losing, so probably in a week or two we'll know for sure. I predict he'll pick another white, male stuffed-suit that does nothing to excite and everything to simply "do no harm," ushering in another four years of Obama. The only question left to answer is what type of four years will it be. Four years of Congressional cooperation in changing the world as we know it, or four more years of block-and-blame campaigning for the 2016 presidency.

I'm thinking, sadly, we're looking at the latter.

Get it?