Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/003406.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/003406.php on line 106
June 11, 2008
Electoral Maps (and math)!

CNN has put together one of those cool, interactive maps. This one's speculation about the electoral vote in November. Right now, the map shows 190 electoral votes "safe" or "leaning toward" Obama and 194 "safe" or "leaning toward" McCain. 154 are up for grabs. (That's 538 total, so someone needs 270 to win.)

I really like it when they use colors because I like to see the patterns. (There's what I always think of as "the N", the block of western states that would vote for a tree frog, as long as it was running under a Republican label.*)

The country looked pretty blue in 1996. (Of course, the thing about those maps is that they don't tell you how close some of those state contests were.)

These maps show you the electoral votes for each state, as well as which way their votes swung:



By 2004, The Porkie Boys, I mean BushBaby and his evil sidekick, had taken a chunk out of the country, thanks to voter stupidity. (Or was it something else? We'll never know for sure. What happened in Ohio?)



And now we're seeing projections for 2008. Here's this month's speculation from CNN:


It's going to be an interesting race to watch, with some formerly "safe" states on both sides now up for grabs and already being contested.

My calculations give it to Obama by a small margin, but that's without factoring in race. As much I hate to say it aloud, I've been forced to listen to (or watch) too many 'news stories' quoting people who just won't be able to bring themselves to vote for a candidate whose skin isn't white to ignore them. Someone tell me--is this a significant demographic or just the press, searching desperately for some kind of drama to hang a broadcast on?

And what about all of those so-called Democrats who'd rather vote for Bush-lite than Obama? What's that all about? I heard an NPR story last night that said if McCain chooses a pro-choice VP, he could pull a lot of Clinton supporters. How much is race a factor in their preferences and how much of a factor is it that Clinton is very much a centrist (so that many of her supporters are just as happy to swing the other way for a candidate who also pretends to be a centrist)?

Side note:

In the arena of "too stupid to be interviewed," one woman they talked to bitched because Obama "came out of nowhere 2 or 3 years ago." Like Bill Clinton, hitchhiking his way out of Arkansas, was some kind of major figure before he started running?

End side note

Anyhow. Even if I weren't a liberal, I wouldn't vote for McClain. I've seen numerous television ads of his and the only thing they ever talk about is how his grandfather was in the military and his father was in the military and McClain was in the military and he was a POW.

I have yet to see a single ad that talks about positions, policies, or plans. He's running on something ghastly that happened to him 40 years ago and, as much as I regret it happened, it's not really a reason to hand him the White House.


* A tree frog, but not just any tree frog. In '96, given the choice between Clinton and Dole, Arizona took their 8 votes and sidled to the Left.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:44 PM


I give Obama a 45% chance...unless Oprah runs with him, in which case 70%.

Posted by: hydralisk at June 11, 2008 06:38 PM

Bill Clinton spoke at the 1986 DNC convention, the same way Barack Obama spoke at the 2004 convention. Does sexism ever get you "peevish" because I've waited and waited for you to weigh in and now am thinking, "Oh, she doesn't give a damn because she thinks Hillary can be slammed in any way and it's fair."

Posted by: Heather at June 12, 2008 12:12 PM

1988 convention.

Posted by: Heather at June 12, 2008 12:13 PM

hydralisk -


Posted by: Anne at June 12, 2008 05:03 PM

Thanks for the info, Heather. I think that pretty much makes my point for me--Obama is as well known as Clinton was.

I'm sorry, you think I don't care about sexism. I guess I've talked more about Obama because he was my candidate of choice, once Edwards was out of the running.

I'm sure if I'd had anything to add to the talk about the grotesque way 'pundits' and others on the Right have talked about Hillary Clinton, I'd have posted it. It did seem to me that the world o'blog had that pretty much covered.

Unless, of course, you just find it amusing to read what I write when I'm foaming at the mouth and on the verge of hunting someone down and screaming at them until they stop being stupid?

Posted by: Anne at June 12, 2008 05:05 PM