|
|
Demographics, Statistics, and Signs of Hope The first point, is that although the democrats are already trying to spin this as a huge numeric victory, it is not. Though the electoral college totals are approximately 2 to 1 Obama, that is because of the math of the swing states in the electoral college. There are 8 states where Obamas margin of victory is 3% or under. A 1.5% swing one way or the other, and the results would be quite different. I reported earlier this week that I believed the 10% support advantage polls showed for Obama was drastically inflated, and that any state within six percent would break for McCain. It turns out I was half right. The real number was 3% not 10%. truth about enzyte I thought that those six point states would swing all six points when it came down to actual voting. Instead they swung 3 or 4 points. The polls however were very clearly wrong. The exit polls over indicated Obamas support by as much as 10% in some states. This is I think a long term problem that we need to address. Now as to demographics, they interest me (of course they are also based on the flawed polling data, but the numbers are so large as to be at least indicitive). McCain won about 60% of whites overall. This is a larger margin than expected. He won both white men, and white women, by a significant margin. It was expected that he would lose white women (and when race is taken out of the equation, McCain lost all women 45-55). I don't want to speculate as to why here; I'll leave that to others. I'm sure they will do so, with great vitriol. Obama won 95% of blacks, and this election featured the largest turnout of blacks in history. I think that's a great thing. I hope that a non-black candidate would have the same result. Obama won 60% of hispanics, a suprising achievement; and more hispanics voted in this election than any other election in american history. Again I think this is great. Obama won 70% of people under 30 and 70% of first time voters. More people under 30 voted in this election than ever before in American history. First time voters made up a larger percentage of the electorate than any other election in American history. Collectively the four groups I mentioned, usually make up less than 10% of actual voters. This election they made up about 30% of voters, and that is absolutely INCREDIBLE. Although all the votes have not yet been counted, if the polls are even close to right, more Americans voted in our election than have ever voted before. That is even more incredible. We have recently been a country where 40% participation has been considered "good"; and yesterday, we had perhaps 60% of the eligible voting populace do so. I won't be happy until we get to over 80%, but I'm heartened. In fact, I am heartened by all of this. I am given hope. 143 years ago, a black man in this country could not vote. 43 years ago, a black man in Mississippi may have even been killed for trying to. Next January, a black man is going to be president. The cynic in me says that a fair portion of the reason his is president is because he IS black... but the idealist in me hopes this truly says that race is no longer relevant... or that at least we are walking down that road. I hope these amazing changes continue, and grow. I hope that those people become fully engaged, and educate themselves, and perhaps commit themselves to liberty as they do. I fear they will not, but I hope. Labels: Politics Chris Byrne at 11/05/2008 12:01:00 AM Comments | Trackback The momentum had shifted. Obamas support had peaked; and it was even looking like the democrats lead in the house and senate could be curtailed. But the credulous fools have won. The immature, petulant cretins; who neither knew nor understood the causes of their own outrage; directed that outrage improperly against the minority party, and their unpopular president; at the prompting of the outrageously biased media. The media who were not only complicit in this fraud; but in fact initiated it, perpetuated it, accentuated it, and highlighted it at every opportunity. They defrauded the people as to the cause of their problems. They defrauded the people on the polls (I was right on the polls, Obamas support levels were dramatically inflated; just not as much as I surmised). They defrauded the people as to who and what they were voting for. Perhaps this is the inevitable consequence, when the party of the president abandons all principles; and abuses the public trust, as the republicans have done. Now, we the people, will suffer. We will suffer under the one party rule of fanatics, zealots, and economic idiots; who believe that freedom and liberty are granted at the pleasure of government. I fear for us all. Labels: Politics Chris Byrne at 11/04/2008 09:05:00 PM Comments | Trackback Many will also be voting for judges, sheriffs, corporate commissioners, school board members, and the other elected offices of state. Let's not forget that they have as much ore more of a direct impact on your life, as the president does. These are choices that should not be ignored. Not only that, but remember, the school board member today, could be the VP candidate 12 years from now. Obviously, I can't vote in your races, only mine; and I've decided to talk about who I'm voting for (or sadly, more often, who I'm voting against), and why: President: As I've made clear, I'm voting against Obama, with the only realistic choice, McCain. If I need to explain that any further here, you haven't been paying attention Congress: I'm a resident of the Arizona 5th congressional district, and I'm voting against Harry Mitchell, for the only realistic choice, David Schweikert. My preferred candidate (Anderson) was not chosen in the primary; but I don't object to Schweikert. On the other hand I object to more democrats in congress in general, and Harry Mitchell specifically. The man is a liar and a lickspittly for Nancy Pelosi. State Senate: I'm a resident of Arizona State District 17, and I'll be voting against Democrat Meg Burton-Cahill, for the only other choice (there are no third party candidates) Jesse Hernandez. In this case, I am voting this way because Burton-Cahill is an educational and healthcare socialist, and mildly negative on gun rights. She doesn't really do much, which I approve of, but what she does do is generally lefty in nature. State Representative: I'm a resident of Arizona State District 17, and I'll be voting against Democrat Ed Ableser, because he is about two steps further to the left than Burton-Cahill, and is strongly anti-gun rights. He is a very strong eductaion and healthcare socialist, and supports illegal immigration. I will also be voting against Democrat David Schapira; though I have far less of an issue with him politically than Ableser. He is more to the center on most issues, and I even agree with him (and disagree with the republicans) on many issues. Unfortunately, Schapira is against gun rights as well. On our ballots we can make two choices, and there are two republicans and no third party choices. I will be casting my ballot for Republicans Mark Thompson, and Wes Waddle. Sheriff: I especially want to note the race for Sherrif. Joe Arpaio is wrong about almost everything, excepting that he believes in strongly enforcing criminal penalties, and opposes illegal immigration... Now. He didn't used to, because he wanted the feds to take care of it (a position I think is technically correct, but unrealistic for a Sherriff in Arizona). He is a self serving media hound, and places his own well being above that of his deputies; and of service to law and justice. Unfortunately, his primary opponent the last three elections has been Dan Saban; who I once respected, but who has been shown to be just as opportunistic and dishonest as Arpaio. I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Chris Will; in a futile gesture. I know that Arpaio will be re-elected until he decides to stop running, or until he is convicted of a crime and/or forced to resign in disgrace... both of which have a better than even chance of happening. Other Notable Offices: I'm voting to give control of the Arizona Coporate Comission to the republicans, because I prefer the AZ Republican parties official positions on business regulation. I would vote for Libertarians here, but none are running. I'll be voting for Libertatarian Rachel Kielsky for county assessor, and her husband Libertarian Michael Kielsky for county attorney; because I believe in their governmental and legal philosophies. I'll also be voing of Libertarian Ernest Hancock for County Recorder, and David Hodges for Superintendant; simply becayse I want to see more libertarians in local elected office. You'll note that whenever I didn't rank defeating the democrat a priority, I've chosen a Libertarian. In general, I beleieve the Libertarian party in Arizona best represents what we should do with government. Unfortunately, they have rarely produced viable candidates, in fact often running conspiracy theorist types. Also they in general support open borders and a weak national defense. This makes them ideal for local offices in my mind, but unsuited to national offices. I do have one problem with the AZ Libertarian party in general, and that is they support altering Arizona elections to a "reanked preference" votign system, which I believe is a bad idea (it's too long to go into why now). It WOULD result in more Libertarians being elected, at the expense of creating weak coalitions, and various negative incentives common to such systems (I've lived under one in Ireland, and it's a disaster). Ballot Initiatives: Also tomorrow most of us will be voting on a number of ballot propositions, which will generally have a greater impact on your life than the choice of president. I'm going to go through the Arizona list here, and talk about how I've chosen to vote and why: Proposition 100: "Protect Our Homes" - Constitutional amendment Postion: Yes Reasoning: Although in general, I do not support amendment of the constitution for what should be legislative matters; the state legislature has proven several times that they are willing to go around rules and prior legislation to increase revenue collection. This amendment would make it impossible for the state to add any new taxes to the sale or transfer of homes. In general I support restricting the authority of government to tax; and specifically in this instance, I believe that transfer taxes are regressive, and detrimental to the market. Proposition 101: "Medical Choice for Arizona" - Constitutional amendment Postion: Yes Reasoning: This amendment would permanently prevent any form of socialized medicine from being made mandatory in Arizona, by preventing the legislature from passing any law denying someone the right to chose their own healthcare or health insurance provider. In case you needed any more incentive; the only major group opposing this legislation, is the group that is pushing to establish nationalized or state sponsored socialized medicine in Arizona. Proposition 102: "Marriage Protection Amendment" - Constitutional amendment Postion: No Reasoning: I believe the government should not legislate marriage at all. I specifically believe that even if the government does have a legitimate interest in legslating on marriage, that it is a legislative matter not a constitutional one, and should not be addressed as an amendment. Proposition 105: "Majority Rules" - Constitutional amendment Postion: Yes Reasoning: This amendment would require any ballot initiative which would require raising taxes, or which would raise taxes, to pass with a majority of registered voters, instead of just a majority of those who chose to vote on the initiative. Importantly, it helps protect against the tyranny of the vocal minority in passing initiatives. As many voters are uneducated and unmotivated to vote for or against any particular initiative, this amendment would require that supporters of an initiative educate and motivate enough voters to actively support that initiative, rather than simply passively not vote. This would make raising taxes and passing frivolous, wasteful, or confiscatory measures MUCH more difficult. A principle I always support. Proposition 200: "Payday Loan Reform Act" Postion: No Reasoning: Well, first, I don't think the payday loan industry needs to be reformed. I think market forces will do a fine job as it is; or would if they were allowed to do so. However, even if that were not the case, this initiative is a fraud. Although written and described to seem as if the law would improve the terms of payday loans, and those that take them; in fact this legislation would result in WORSE conditions and standards. It was written by the industry themselves as a trojan horse. Proposition 201: "Homeowners Bill of Rights" Postion: No Reasoning: Again, the title of this initiative is misleading. They want to sell it as a "homeowners bill of rights", but what it really should be called is the "Trial lawyers association and construction unions wishlist against home builders and developers". This initiative would for all intents and purposes put every independent home builder or general contractor in Arizona out of business. The only way a builder or contractor could conduct business is with far more expensive and far higher limit liability insurance, and the backing of either a national union, or a large development corporation. The immediate effect will also be to increase the cost of every new home in Arizona by $25,000 to $50,000. This is one of the worst cases of rentseeking by attorneys that I have ever seen. The bill is opposed by the national taxpayers union, the Arizona Citizens against Lawsuit Abuse, and the Arizona Builders Association. That should be enough for anyone really. Proposition 202: "Stop Illegal Hiring" Postion: No Reasoning: While other ballot initiative names might be misleading; this name could best be described as outright fraud. Although the supporters of this initiative are trying to sell it as strengthening penalties for illegal hiring, this is in fact entirely false. The only element that would be strengthened would be the penalties for deliberate fraud, and identity theft. Meanwhile, this legislation would exempt 2/3 of Arizona businesses, including almost all Arizona farms, and small businesses; from the existing (and very tough) employer sanctions laws. Additionally, for those few businesses not exempted by this initiative, it would raise the burden of proof to apply those sanctions; requiring the state to prove deliberate fraud on the part of business owners to apply sanctions. This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen; and I believe that the people proposing it, and advertising it, should be prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud voters. Proposition 300: "State Legislator Salaries" Postion: Yes Reasoning: Although we have a part time legislature, and we want to keep it that way, I have no problem with our legislators being compensated better for their time. It will merely encourage those who do not want to be professional politicians, to consider running for our legislature, because they would not have to give up as much of their other potential income to do so. Labels: Law, Politics Chris Byrne at 11/03/2008 11:30:00 AM Comments | Trackback I think the worst case scenario looks like this:
and the best case looks like this:
That's a pretty wide point spread there, at 68 points; though not as wide as some of the liberal nutbars out there are thinking. They actually believe that half the south and midwest are going Obama... because they are deluded, and believe their own BS. Significantly though, we're only talking about a 5 state spread here: Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Also significantly, all are within six points on polling; and if you believe DJ Drummond over at Wizbang (and I do. His analysis is spot on), all are actually within the margin of error on the most trustworthy polling data available... which is clearly not very trustworthy. The polling companies have been making some arbitrary, and very unusual and ahistoric decisions on weighting factors; weighting democrats likely proportion of voters as 12% to 16% higher than republicans. Historically speaking this is completely incorrect. Typically the actual spread is 3-4% and in the last 50 years has never been more than 7%. So what it comes down to is, I think that anything in the 6 point range is currently a tossup, and anything 3 points or less for Obama is likely to break for McCain. I made this prediction six weeks ago, and I'm sticking to it: Labels: Politics Chris Byrne at 11/03/2008 10:34:00 AM Comments | Trackback Labels: Comics Chris Byrne at 11/03/2008 08:59:00 AM Comments | Trackback
After the first few minutes, just shut it off though. Like every remotely funny SNL sketch for the past five years, they beat it to death long past the point where funny turns to irritating. |