Hello all. Hopefully, this will be the last political post for a while and will be unless this goes past election day, which I hope it doesn't.
So, this post will be about how I expect tomorrow night to go. I'm not getting into the congressional elections as this will focus specifically on the Presidential election. This isn't a post in which I am predicting the outcome, but rather how the night will play out regardless of result.
Let's start with poll closing times. Here is nice and organized list of all the closing times: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G12/closing.phtml?format=gc
So, the first closings will be Indiana and Kentucky. The portions of those states in the Eastern Timezone close at 6:00pm EST and at that point networks may project the winner in both of those states. These states will go Republican
The next batch comes at 7:00pm EST. Three non-competitive states close at this time, but the first biggie closes in Virginia.
7:30pm EST brings the closing of what seems to be the most coveted state of Ohio. The semi-competitive state of North Carolina will also close.
The biggest closing of the night occurs at 8:00pm EST. Mostly non-competitive states and Obama will get quite a few electoral votes out of this group. The Central Time Florida polls close at this time and as the networks found out in 2000 projecting prior to this is very unwise. The seemingly non-competitive Pennsylvania will also close.
Arkansas is the lone closee at 8:30pm EST
Another big group comes at 9:00pm EST. Wisconsin and Colorado are the two competitive states in this group.
A group of mostly red states closes at 10:00pm EST. Nevada and Iowa are in this group and are the final two 'battleground states' to close.
The left coast closes at 11:00pm EST. If the night goes well for Barack Obama this is the point at which the election will be called.
The final polls close with the Aleutian Islands in Alaska at 1:00am EST.
Okay, that's all nice orderly. However, it won't be that neat. I suspect that there will be emergency injunctions sought by the campaigns and granted by judges to extend polling time in states like Ohio. This has become a common practice and I see no reason to think it'll stop this year.
Alright, I want to talk about the four possible distinctions that each state will be given by the networks at their closing.
Obama wins the state's electoral votes: This is given to a state that based on pre-election polling, exit polls, and voting history will undoubtedly give its electoral votes to Obama
Romney wins the state's electoral: This is given to a state that based on pre-election polling, exit polls, and voting history will undoubtedly give its electoral votes to Romney
Too Early to Call: A state is likely to go to one candidate or another, but the network would like to see actual returns to confirm the result implied by the exit polling, pre-election polling and history.
Too Close to Call: All available data suggests a close contest in that state.
These distinctions with the early states can provide clues as to how the nation is breaking. The networks are extremely cautious with these things post the 2000 election. However, I will tell you that the people who make these calls are highly informed and the difference between 'early' and 'close' is significant.
A few possible hints that these distinctions could provide tomorrow night:
How North Carolina is initially classified. This state almost certainly a Romney state, but if it is given the 'too close' distinction instead of 'too early' it will be a good sign for Obama.
Another possible good sign for Obama would be Georgia not being immediately called.
A potential good sign for Romney could come in a very specific distinction for Maine. Maine can split it's electoral votes. Four are certainly going to be for Obama, but if the fifth isn't given to Obama quickly after close it's a good sign for Mittens.
Another potential positive sign for Romney could come from Michigan. It is state that should be called for the Democrats right a close, but another distinction could hint at a national trend.
I think there are several states whose results could take days. My ranking of likelihood:
1. Virginia
2. Florida
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Ohio
The electoral votes of any of those individual states may not be important after election night though. So, while recounts may happen, they could be just for a consolation prize or a few extra electoral votes.
So, there you have it.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
Monday, November 5, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
2004 Deja Vu
Since it became clear that Mitt Romney would win the nomination, I've felt like this election has been strangely similar to that of 2004. When I say that, I mean in terms of incumbent vs. challenger not Republican vs. Democrat.
It is really hard not to find Mitt Romney reminiscent of John Kerry. Both are stuffy, rich white guys from Massachusetts who lack the public speaking ability of their opponent. Both stick their foot in their mouths often and it just proves how disconnected they are with the people. And both have a tendency to conveniently change their positions over and over again when it is politically advantageous.
In 2004, the incumbent party had the much stronger convention and saw a surprisingly large bounce out of it; much like this year. John Kerry won the first debate handily in 2004 as Mitt Romney did this year and it tightened the race basically by undoing the post convention bounce. The Vice Presidential debate were eerily similarly, with the incumbent V.P. pretty much schooling the young candidate. George W. Bush recovered and effectively fought the last two debates to a draw. Obama recovered a bit better, but the key in both cases was the poor first debate performances were made up for with the 2nd and 3rd debate.
I think the most significant comparison between the two campaigns is this: The challenging party is not enthused about their candidate, but are just wanting to get rid of the incumbent. Liberals hated George W. Bush as much the right hates Obama. However, that didn't seem to be an electoral advantage. Bush hovered around 50% approval as Obama has, but the challenger was less popular in both cases.
I think Obama is in a better position heading into election than Bush was in 2004 though. Obama seems to have bigger lead than Bush did in the polls (both national and swing state) and his electoral path is a clear and likely one.
Probably another post tomorrow night about the election (my apologies)
Thanks for reading
-Michael
It is really hard not to find Mitt Romney reminiscent of John Kerry. Both are stuffy, rich white guys from Massachusetts who lack the public speaking ability of their opponent. Both stick their foot in their mouths often and it just proves how disconnected they are with the people. And both have a tendency to conveniently change their positions over and over again when it is politically advantageous.
In 2004, the incumbent party had the much stronger convention and saw a surprisingly large bounce out of it; much like this year. John Kerry won the first debate handily in 2004 as Mitt Romney did this year and it tightened the race basically by undoing the post convention bounce. The Vice Presidential debate were eerily similarly, with the incumbent V.P. pretty much schooling the young candidate. George W. Bush recovered and effectively fought the last two debates to a draw. Obama recovered a bit better, but the key in both cases was the poor first debate performances were made up for with the 2nd and 3rd debate.
I think the most significant comparison between the two campaigns is this: The challenging party is not enthused about their candidate, but are just wanting to get rid of the incumbent. Liberals hated George W. Bush as much the right hates Obama. However, that didn't seem to be an electoral advantage. Bush hovered around 50% approval as Obama has, but the challenger was less popular in both cases.
I think Obama is in a better position heading into election than Bush was in 2004 though. Obama seems to have bigger lead than Bush did in the polls (both national and swing state) and his electoral path is a clear and likely one.
Probably another post tomorrow night about the election (my apologies)
Thanks for reading
-Michael
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Electoral Blawg
I will eventually get back to blogging regularly. And maybe make a post about my own life. However, this post is not personal. It's one of my dreaded political posts. Anyway, at least this will be short.
So quite a bit of my time these days is spent playing on interactive Electoral maps. Long time readers may know about my kind of ridiculous knowledge of the electoral college. Anyway, in looking at this election from a very broad perspective there are two really obvious things to consider:
-President Obama will lose states he won in 2008
-President Obama loses electoral votes due to the 2010 census
Okay, with that said the electoral victory Obama had in 2008 was overwhelming. He could lose a lot and still be just fine. Also given the way the way the states are likely to go Obama is much closer to hitting 270 in my opinion that Romney.
At this point there are eight states that can be considered competitive when I look at the map. They are: Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada. Taking those states out of the equation that leaves the electoral vote looking like this: Obama 237 Romney 206.
Now of those eight state, I believe that 5 of them are likely going to a candidate. I feel reasonably sure that New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada are going to be states that the President wins and Florida will go to Romney. So taken these predicted results into consideration the electoral vote becomes: Obama 263 Romney 235.
These leaves Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado as the true toss-up states in my book. If this really is the case, it is very likely the President will win the electoral college. Romney would have to carry all three of those states, while not an impossibility, it is very unlikely; in fact, I think it is considerably more likely that the President will carry all three of them than Romney.
I really think it is unlikely for Mitt Romney to win the electoral college. He could very well win the popular vote, but the electoral math is pretty daunting for him. He really needs to carry most of the states that are still up for contention and that seems highly unlikely. It could happen, but nothing in the polls or political trends really suggests that will happen.
I really feel that this election has been Obama's to lose all along. The Republican candidate was going to be weak regardless of who won their primary. Demographic shifts particularly in Virginia and Colorado make the electoral map more treacherous for the GOP. And ultimately Obama still is a very strong candidate and his campaign is amazing with the logistics of motivating and turning out voters.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
Monday, September 24, 2012
Selfish
This is kinda of turning into an Emma response blog
I'm also really talented at typing my philosophies in cogent ways so this will be great.
So, I personally find myself thinking about the episode of Friends, "The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS." Joey makes the point that there is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Phoebe tries to prove him wrong, but isn't able to do it. Basically, the point is that you can't do something nice for someone else without getting some satisfaction out of it for yourself. It's funny as ever, but I think it's a apt philosophical point.
I believe that there is no such thing as a selfless action. I believe every action a person makes is in someway self-gratifying. The motivation may not be selfish, but in someway it will benefit yourself.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and the thing that really strikes me is how one can perceive absolutely everything as selfish and be absolutely correct. In fact, I can look at opposite actions and see them both as selfish. The most basic example I can come up with:
If I eat, I am eating food that other people could use to nourish themselves.
If I don't eat and starve, I no longer can be productive in society and others will have to attend to me while I die and in the handling of my corpse.
There is no middle ground there. I can't not be selfish either way.
I really think the value of the line between selfless and selfish is pretty much nothing. How I really judge things is by their motivation. It really isn't that one is being charitable, but why he or she is being charitable to me. Being charitable is selfish either way, if you really thing about, but is one doing it for the acclaim and glory, or for the happiness of helping those less fortunate and seeing their lives improved.
I really think whatever you do or want, the judge of it's morality should be the motivation of it. I really think guilt of 'the self' is really built into western culture. Doing anything to benefit oneself in anyway is frowned upon and I don't think that's the right way. My self is as important as any other selfs out there and I'm allowed to want and do.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
I'm also really talented at typing my philosophies in cogent ways so this will be great.
So, I personally find myself thinking about the episode of Friends, "The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS." Joey makes the point that there is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Phoebe tries to prove him wrong, but isn't able to do it. Basically, the point is that you can't do something nice for someone else without getting some satisfaction out of it for yourself. It's funny as ever, but I think it's a apt philosophical point.
I believe that there is no such thing as a selfless action. I believe every action a person makes is in someway self-gratifying. The motivation may not be selfish, but in someway it will benefit yourself.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and the thing that really strikes me is how one can perceive absolutely everything as selfish and be absolutely correct. In fact, I can look at opposite actions and see them both as selfish. The most basic example I can come up with:
If I eat, I am eating food that other people could use to nourish themselves.
If I don't eat and starve, I no longer can be productive in society and others will have to attend to me while I die and in the handling of my corpse.
There is no middle ground there. I can't not be selfish either way.
I really think the value of the line between selfless and selfish is pretty much nothing. How I really judge things is by their motivation. It really isn't that one is being charitable, but why he or she is being charitable to me. Being charitable is selfish either way, if you really thing about, but is one doing it for the acclaim and glory, or for the happiness of helping those less fortunate and seeing their lives improved.
I really think whatever you do or want, the judge of it's morality should be the motivation of it. I really think guilt of 'the self' is really built into western culture. Doing anything to benefit oneself in anyway is frowned upon and I don't think that's the right way. My self is as important as any other selfs out there and I'm allowed to want and do.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Quick and Hard: Michael's Enamored Tuesday
Yea, I haven't posted in quite a while. No excuses. I just didn't have any real desire or motivation to post. My job isn't exciting and I can't talk about in detail. Maybe I could do a post about Minecraft. I'm nearly finished with my biggest project yet, but meh... that's for another time, if ever.
So, yesterday was a particularly awesome day. A few friends and I went to the U.S. World Cup Qualifier against Jamaica. We were planning on leaving from at about 11;00, but someone was the entirety of 'The Price is Right' late. We ended up getting to Crew Stadium around 12:30. Grilling, drinking, sneaky public and such commenced.
The game didn't kick 'til 8:00 for a bit of perspective. Tailgating all day is pretty damn balla. Plus, I used a vacation day, so it wasn't a total loss financially.
The game was fucking amazing. Pretty much the entire stadium was cheering and Jamaica supporters were few and far between. Last year in Philly, the stadium was basically all Mexico supporter, so it was nice to be in a stadium full of U.S. supporters.
Okay, on to what the title implies. I fell in love with two strangers yesterday. In fact, two strangers that I didn't even speak.Very shallow, or to put it more kindly, very ancient Greek* of me. This isn't uncommon for me, but two in one day is special.
Anyway, I very briefly say girl #1 at Target. I ran into Target to pick up rations. I had filled up my cart with snacks and booze and was headed to check out. I always look around. I cannot do things that require much focus in public, because I am way too much of people watcher. Anyway, at the near end of an aisle aroudn the Pharmacy, I spotted this girl. She had blonde hair and glasses and was wearing a longish red skirt and red wedges.
I'm was immediately all aflutter(shy), but I know my social obligations well enough to not stop and stare with my mouth open. That's all really, but she may have scored higher than anyone on the "First Sight' Test.
I was checked out by a chatty old lady cashier who commented on my booze and snacks. Damn right, I'm having a party and you can't come home with me.
Hours and drink later, in comes girl #2. She was standing behind me in the stands. Brunette, U.S. soccer shirt, jeans. Also, importantly a wedding ring on her left hand. So, aside from the fact that I'm constantly too nervous to approach any strange woman, she wasn't eligible. She was cute, nice to the people around her, cheered loudly, and was wearing a U.S. soccer shirt, so I was still infatuated.
This blog hasn't been so exciting since Hipster Girl xD
tl;dr: If I ever have a girlfriend, I will be dumped for my wandering eye.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
*Outer beauty= Inner Beauty. Think Odyssey
So, yesterday was a particularly awesome day. A few friends and I went to the U.S. World Cup Qualifier against Jamaica. We were planning on leaving from at about 11;00, but someone was the entirety of 'The Price is Right' late. We ended up getting to Crew Stadium around 12:30. Grilling, drinking, sneaky public and such commenced.
The game didn't kick 'til 8:00 for a bit of perspective. Tailgating all day is pretty damn balla. Plus, I used a vacation day, so it wasn't a total loss financially.
The game was fucking amazing. Pretty much the entire stadium was cheering and Jamaica supporters were few and far between. Last year in Philly, the stadium was basically all Mexico supporter, so it was nice to be in a stadium full of U.S. supporters.
Okay, on to what the title implies. I fell in love with two strangers yesterday. In fact, two strangers that I didn't even speak.Very shallow, or to put it more kindly, very ancient Greek* of me. This isn't uncommon for me, but two in one day is special.
Anyway, I very briefly say girl #1 at Target. I ran into Target to pick up rations. I had filled up my cart with snacks and booze and was headed to check out. I always look around. I cannot do things that require much focus in public, because I am way too much of people watcher. Anyway, at the near end of an aisle aroudn the Pharmacy, I spotted this girl. She had blonde hair and glasses and was wearing a longish red skirt and red wedges.
I'm was immediately all aflutter(shy), but I know my social obligations well enough to not stop and stare with my mouth open. That's all really, but she may have scored higher than anyone on the "First Sight' Test.
I was checked out by a chatty old lady cashier who commented on my booze and snacks. Damn right, I'm having a party and you can't come home with me.
Hours and drink later, in comes girl #2. She was standing behind me in the stands. Brunette, U.S. soccer shirt, jeans. Also, importantly a wedding ring on her left hand. So, aside from the fact that I'm constantly too nervous to approach any strange woman, she wasn't eligible. She was cute, nice to the people around her, cheered loudly, and was wearing a U.S. soccer shirt, so I was still infatuated.
This blog hasn't been so exciting since Hipster Girl xD
tl;dr: If I ever have a girlfriend, I will be dumped for my wandering eye.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
*Outer beauty= Inner Beauty. Think Odyssey
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Re: Douchy Comments on Emma's Latest Video
Emma's Video
I've learned that direct engagement with the type of people who would leave douchy comments on comments on my friend's video about feminism is pretty well pointless. These people are entrenched in their ideas, so there's no changing there minds. Also, in all likelihood they're looking for a rise, so, in my logical/Hufflepuff style, I think it's best to just ignore them. Inform those worth informing and leave the rest.
I really think one big problem lots of these anti-feminists have is that they don't understand what equal means. There is a lot of fear in losing one's gender identity in there. The idea, at least I think, that they have is that equality means making the genders the same. This isn't the case obviously. Equal and same are very similar words, but there is a distinction. I think the easiest way to understand what equal means is in Math*. Take a look at this simple equation:
10-7 = 2+1
So, there is equivalency in two unique sides of an equation. Three equals three regardless of how one got there. Of course society is considerably more complex, but the general idea still works. Two unique groups of people can have equal rights and treatment without being identical.
I've think there are two main arguments I've found with these comments. They are actually quite hard to decipher. I don't even know whether to call the logic circular or just non-existent.
The common argument against feminism that these people seem to make is about radical feminism. This is simply an association fallacy. There are extremists in everything. Yes, a few feminists really hate men and ride around with, "Circumcision Doesn't Go Far Enough" bumper stickers. And if you're arguing against feminism you're probably a white conservative male, so obviously you're in the Ku Klux Klan right?
Another argument that I've managed to decipher is the idea of "Female Privilege**" The idea here seems to be that women get certain benefits socially that men don't get. However, that is really just an extension of the problem. Having dinner payed for or a car door opened comes from the falsehood that women are weaker than men. Feminists don't want to have nice things done to them or do nice things just because one is female, but because one person is being nice to another.
There are also a few institutional advantages that women do have. The Mom will win custody battles a lot of the time. It is easier for women to legally change their names. Men aren't allowed to sit next to unattended children on airplanes. Feminism has absolutely nothing to do with these though and really doesn't like it anymore than misogynists do. These benefits come from old notions about the role women play in society.
I think the most important thing to remember that culturally and institutionally the system benefits men more than it does women. I may not get the kids, and if I try to change my name to spite my father they would just assume I was criminally. You know what I do get, better pay for the same work, sexual freedom, greater opportunity for advancement in nearly every field, assumptions of ability, and a whole lot more. I think I win in this trade off and I don't want to, because I've done nothing to deserve it other than having a penis.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
*Sorry Emma.
**I really hate the use of the word privilege in a social sense. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages they are born with and it just seems to be another way to put groups down.
I've learned that direct engagement with the type of people who would leave douchy comments on comments on my friend's video about feminism is pretty well pointless. These people are entrenched in their ideas, so there's no changing there minds. Also, in all likelihood they're looking for a rise, so, in my logical/Hufflepuff style, I think it's best to just ignore them. Inform those worth informing and leave the rest.
I really think one big problem lots of these anti-feminists have is that they don't understand what equal means. There is a lot of fear in losing one's gender identity in there. The idea, at least I think, that they have is that equality means making the genders the same. This isn't the case obviously. Equal and same are very similar words, but there is a distinction. I think the easiest way to understand what equal means is in Math*. Take a look at this simple equation:
10-7 = 2+1
So, there is equivalency in two unique sides of an equation. Three equals three regardless of how one got there. Of course society is considerably more complex, but the general idea still works. Two unique groups of people can have equal rights and treatment without being identical.
I've think there are two main arguments I've found with these comments. They are actually quite hard to decipher. I don't even know whether to call the logic circular or just non-existent.
The common argument against feminism that these people seem to make is about radical feminism. This is simply an association fallacy. There are extremists in everything. Yes, a few feminists really hate men and ride around with, "Circumcision Doesn't Go Far Enough" bumper stickers. And if you're arguing against feminism you're probably a white conservative male, so obviously you're in the Ku Klux Klan right?
Another argument that I've managed to decipher is the idea of "Female Privilege**" The idea here seems to be that women get certain benefits socially that men don't get. However, that is really just an extension of the problem. Having dinner payed for or a car door opened comes from the falsehood that women are weaker than men. Feminists don't want to have nice things done to them or do nice things just because one is female, but because one person is being nice to another.
There are also a few institutional advantages that women do have. The Mom will win custody battles a lot of the time. It is easier for women to legally change their names. Men aren't allowed to sit next to unattended children on airplanes. Feminism has absolutely nothing to do with these though and really doesn't like it anymore than misogynists do. These benefits come from old notions about the role women play in society.
I think the most important thing to remember that culturally and institutionally the system benefits men more than it does women. I may not get the kids, and if I try to change my name to spite my father they would just assume I was criminally. You know what I do get, better pay for the same work, sexual freedom, greater opportunity for advancement in nearly every field, assumptions of ability, and a whole lot more. I think I win in this trade off and I don't want to, because I've done nothing to deserve it other than having a penis.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
*Sorry Emma.
**I really hate the use of the word privilege in a social sense. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages they are born with and it just seems to be another way to put groups down.
Friday, August 10, 2012
BEDA Fail
I had every intention to do BEDA this month. That didn't happen. Why didn't it happen?
Stop asking questions
I was just curious
Shut up
Okay, sorry
That's better, asshole
So, yea. I felt like doing it at the beginning of the month, but then after a few days I didn't want to anymore and I'm one to deny myself the pleasure of giving up without consequence. More importantly, my mood has been funky and I don't like putting things up that I don't feel good about. I'm usually willing to do it, because it's something that I like about BEDA. Compulsory daily posting is a cool thing just not when it hurts my mood.
Anyway, I got my Prozac adjusted back down and it helped. I'm still not feeling great though. I'm still having tension headaches. Still am having annoying nervous symptoms, but it is calming down and hopefully it'll settle back down once the dosage stabilizes.
I think I didn't get the job I interviewed for last week. I mean, I haven't heard anything, so I assume that's a "no." More looking for jobs now. I've made a resume and hopefully that'll get me into some interviews at some jobs (the types of jobs that don't usually involve resumes) and hopefully I'll mange to not muck one up.
Basically, I'm really just a malcontent right now. My mind isn't allowing me to be content with things. I've not been content with where I'm living in ages. However, I have been content with other things, but that just isn't happening for me right now. I feel like other people aren't happy with me. I'm hyper-bored at work. I sort of feel like my mind is broken. I don't know how to describe it exactly... maybe hyper-depression or sad mania. Fucking anxiety.
I'm not actually going crazy though. At least I don't think so. I just think things are out of whack and I want them to not be that way anymore.
Thanks for reading,
-Michael
Stop asking questions
I was just curious
Shut up
Okay, sorry
That's better, asshole
So, yea. I felt like doing it at the beginning of the month, but then after a few days I didn't want to anymore and I'm one to deny myself the pleasure of giving up without consequence. More importantly, my mood has been funky and I don't like putting things up that I don't feel good about. I'm usually willing to do it, because it's something that I like about BEDA. Compulsory daily posting is a cool thing just not when it hurts my mood.
Anyway, I got my Prozac adjusted back down and it helped. I'm still not feeling great though. I'm still having tension headaches. Still am having annoying nervous symptoms, but it is calming down and hopefully it'll settle back down once the dosage stabilizes.
I think I didn't get the job I interviewed for last week. I mean, I haven't heard anything, so I assume that's a "no." More looking for jobs now. I've made a resume and hopefully that'll get me into some interviews at some jobs (the types of jobs that don't usually involve resumes) and hopefully I'll mange to not muck one up.
Basically, I'm really just a malcontent right now. My mind isn't allowing me to be content with things. I've not been content with where I'm living in ages. However, I have been content with other things, but that just isn't happening for me right now. I feel like other people aren't happy with me. I'm hyper-bored at work. I sort of feel like my mind is broken. I don't know how to describe it exactly... maybe hyper-depression or sad mania. Fucking anxiety.
I'm not actually going crazy though. At least I don't think so. I just think things are out of whack and I want them to not be that way anymore.
Thanks for reading,
-Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)