Archives for November 2008

I always vote at the polls around 9AM, so I have a sense of relative turnout, and this was the busiest I have ever seen my polling place.

In 1969, when I was in fifth grade, my parents moved from the West Coast to Columbia, South Carolina. In their infinite wisdom, my parents decided that Columbia’s freshly desegregated public schools were no place for a nice white boy. Instead, they put me in one of the new white-only “Christian” private schools that had sprung up to cater to alarmed white parents.

My first week in class, I made an offhand remark to one of my new classmates that I didn’t understand what the difference was supposed to be between white people and black people — they were all just people. He immediately went to the teacher, who promptly had me stand before the entire class and repeat the comment – not to educate them, but to publicly humiliate me for my profound ignorance concerning the inferiority of n****rs.

We’re about to elect an African-American to become President of the United States.

In 1982, my new wife and I moved to Houston, Texas, where she wanted to go to graduate school. I was white, and she was not, a marital arrangement that until fairly recently had not been legal in Texas (or most other Southern states). In Houston, fourth largest city in the country, there were (and probably still are) places that would not serve us.

We’re about to elect an African-American to become President of the United States.

Seattle is different. But not very. In the late ’90s there was a rash of killings of unarmed black men by SPD, and the African-American community was in an uproar. The NAACP, Urban League, and other black moderates joined in the call for meaningful civilian review of police actions. I wrote columns for Seattle Weekly echoing that call. The explicitly racist letters that came in response should not have been surprising.

We’re about to elect an African-American to become President of the United States.

My memories are not remarkable; they’re snapshots of a reality tens of millions of people continue to experience in America each day. A colorblind society would be great. We’re not there yet. Like most of my African-American friends, I have a hard time believing this is happening; but I’m sure glad it is. Whatever one thinks of Obama’s policies — and as I noted yesterday, I’m not thrilled by them — this election will go a long way toward reestablishing America’s moral credibility in the eyes of the world. Race does matter, here and elsewhere. So does class. And Obama is correct to note that his inspiring, improbable story is only possible in America.

Unlike 2000 or 2004, this year I’m proud of the American electorate — and it has nothing to do with ideology.

Tonight, regardless of what’s going on in the other races you care about, take a moment to witness history. This is an election that will be taught in civics textbooks for a long, long time.

Remember early on in the campaign, when white pundits were fretting that Obama might not be “black enough” to attract the black vote? Non-white pundits knew better. Beyond being secure in the knowledge that Obama’s white opponents would make damned sure everyone was aware that Obama was The Other (as John McCain and Sarah Palin have predictably done), they also knew that if he got this far, his African-American support would be near-universal. Not because of his policies or the tactics of the McCains of the world, or even solidarity with Obama’s skin color, so much as the future possibilities for those voters’ children, and their skin color.

In the comment thread of another blog a couple of weeks ago, a commenter offered what I think captures the phenomenon of Obama’s (probable) triumph nicely:

Rosa sat, so Martin could march.
Martin marched, so Barack could run.
Barack ran, so our children could fly.

Vote.  Vote, dammit. Vote.

Election winners like to talk about something called “the will of the people,” but what we’re really talking about here is “the will of the people who actually showed up to vote that day.”  And since there are more of us than there are of them, it should be our will that is expressed today… that is, if we all actually bother to vote.

Let’s be clear: study after study shows that Democrats almost always benefit from high turnout while Republicans benefit from low turnout.  They don’t want you to vote; that has always been their strategy.  Don’t let it be a winning strategy.

If Democrats turn out in equal or greater strength than Republicans today, Gov. Gregoire and Darcy Burner will cruise to victory.  If we stay home, the Republicans will win.  It’s as simple as that.

And at the presidential level, don’t be fooled into complacency by Barack Obama’s imminent victory, for the battle to discredit his administration has already begun.  Obama is going to need a huge electoral mandate if he’s to have a hope of turning our nation around, and so every vote counts… even those here in a West Coast state he will surely win, and hours after the East Coast declares him the presumptive president-elect.

So vote, dammit, vote.  Or shut up and deal with the consequences.

FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE:  KING | PIERCE

WA STATE PROGRESSIVE VOTERS GUIDE

NOTE:
The Pierce County polling place finder has been down intermittently.  You can find a list of polling places here.

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 363 electoral votes	Mean of 175 electoral votes

The first analysis of today, based on 34 newly released polls in 15 states showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by a mean of 362 electoral to 176 electoral votes.

An afternoon update, based on 12 new polls in 10 states gave Obama an expected 363 electoral votes to McCain’s 175. Finally, this evening I added six new polls in five states that were released late.

This evening, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 100.000 times (including the 0 ties), and McCain wins 0 times. Obama receives (on average) 363 to McCain’s 175 electoral votes. If the election had been held this evening, Obama would have had a near-100.0% probability of winning.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ. The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

Graphic says Jimmy Smits wins Hartsfield’s Landing by a 15-6 margin. First Democratic win since the Hump in ’68.

Toby still working hard. Donna and Josh stuck at maple syrup farm.

UPDATE–Apparently Jimmy Smits is an actor and there is no Hartsfield’s Landing. But TPM was watching CNN as well.

Joan is spending the final few days of the campaign with Darcy, and apparently, she has a camera.

Finally, we are getting some clarity in the Washington state gubernatorial race. The last four consecuitve polls have had Gregoire up by +2%—all within the margin of error.

A new SurveyUSA poll shows Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) leading Dino Rossi (“G.O.P. Party”) by a modest +6% (52% to 46%). The poll of 663 likely voters was taken from 30-Oct to 02-Nov and has a margin of error of ±3.9%.

The same poll also found Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain in the state by a +16% margin (56% to 40%).

The race between Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) and Dino Rossi (“G.O.P. Party”) remains only slightly clearer than mud today with the release of a new Strategic Vision poll. The poll shows Gregoire leading Rossi by +2% (50% to 48%).

That makes four +2% leads in a row, as Gregoire’s led by +2% in the three previous polls as well: a Washington Poll poll (50% to 48%), a SurveyUSA poll (50% to 48%), and a Strategic Vision poll (49% to 47%).

Before that, Gregoire held a +6.4% (51.4% to 45.0%) lead in the previous Washington Poll poll taken from 18-Oct to 26-Oct.

The recent polling shows Gregoire with a small, but consistent, lead in the weeks leading up to the election:

In fact, Gregoire has led in all eight polls taken since mid-October. The last time Rossi held the lead was in mid-September.

The new Strategic Vision poll also shows Obama leading by +15% (55% to 40%) in the state. (The poll of 800 likely voters was taken between 31-Oct and 02-Nov, and has a margin of error of ±3%.)

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 362 electoral votes	Mean of 176 electoral votes

There are lots and lots of new polls today, so this analysis is the first of two or three I’ll offer today. There were 34 new polls in 15 states released this morning. The polls show a little more tightening up of the race, but Obama maintains a strong lead.

Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 366 to 172 electoral votes (on average). Today, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins all 100,000. Obama receives (on average) 362 to McCain’s 176 electoral votes—McCain makes a net gain of four electoral votes. If the election had been held today, instead of tomorrow, Obama would have a 100.0% probability of winning.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ. The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

In their headlong race to the bottom, which will the Seattle Times shed faster?

It’s a tough competition among Seattle’s daily papers, what with the Times’s Harvard hit piece on Darcy Burner and the P-I’s laughable front-page analysis today of early voting for governor (which is entirely pegged on extrapolating King County’s lower mail voting rate thus far than other counties without accounting for the fact that we’re also one of only two counties with polling place voting on Tuesday).

But the “honor” of worst smear jobs of this dismal campaign season in our local papers has to go to the P-I’s Joel Connelly for his relentless series of factually challenged hit pieces on I-1000, reprised today. (And no, it doesn’t deserve to be linked to. Find it yourself, if you have the stomach.)

Connelly has a right to his faith-based opinion on I-1000, and to express it. I would respect that. (Goodness knows, I’ve had enough public opinions that friends of mine have disagreed with over the years.)

However, he does not have a right to use his public soapbox for a seemingly endless litany of dishonest smear jobs. His jihad on this initiative (religious imagery intentional) has dramatically lowered my opinion of his integrity.

I’ve been terminally ill; I spent two long years sliding toward my death, including three separate comas, over two dozen surgeries, and untold nausea and pain. I was fortunate enough to survive it, but I sure remember the experience. With all the ameliorative care in the world, it was still awful, and now that I’m a couple decades older and more brittle, it will be worse next time. Maybe I’ll endure it again, maybe I won’t. That’s my choice. As someone personally affected by this initiative, I don’t simply disagree with Connelly; I find his work on this, his assumptions about the motivations and decision-making capacity of the terminally ill, his eagerness to impose his own religious and moral code on my body, and his willingness to put me and my family through a living end-of-life hell so that he can feel a little better to be personally offensive – and it takes a lot to offend me.

Sad.  I can only imagine how much it would have meant to her and Obama for her to have lived to see her grandson elected president.

It is with great sadness that we announce that our grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died peacefully after a battle with cancer. She was the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength, and humility. She was the person who encouraged and allowed us to take chances. She was proud of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren and left this world with the knowledge that her impact on all of us was meaningful and enduring. Our debt to her is beyond measure.

No doubt the hard core righties will call it a pre-election day stunt.

Obama wins, Stefan does not stop by DL to share a pitcher with me.

This is a weird story in the P-I. If everything turns out pretty much like 2004, and not as many people vote in the Puget Sound region as elsewhere, Rossi will indeed win. Or whatever the point was.

I’m not saying the story should not have been written, it’s just kind of odd to speculate and then use the word “analysis” about what might happen based on how many ballots have already come back in vote by mail counties. It would have been more straightforward to just discuss the likely turnout in different counties while noting briefly who won those counties in 2004.

If you go to say, Pollster.com and gaze at polls in the Washington gubernatorial race long enough, you might conclude that the race is a statistical dead heat.

Another factor to speculate about would be the effect of cell phones on polling data. I honestly don’t know how to gauge that, and I especially don’t know how to gauge that in the governor’s race. That could break either way.

Both campaigns seem to have large turnout operations, according to the traditional media. My crystal ball is down at the music shop having “God Bless the USA” installed to replace “The Internationale,” but the race for governor really does seem to close to call.

Since I’m down here in Clark County, I’ll leave the speculating about the Puget Sound region to those who know that area better. Since Clark County is often mentioned as a key part of any Rossi victory scenario, I’d just point out that Rossi only received 52.75% of the vote here in 2004, hardly a huge margin and very similar to the amount George W. Bush received.

It’s hard for me to imagine how Rossi could do much better this year with an incredibly unpopular national Republican ticket. A narrow Gregoire victory in Clark County, as normal people realize she is a steady and qualified governor in tough times, wouldn’t surprise me either. Remember, we don’t live in your Puget Sound media universe. People here call the elections office asking why Gordon Smith isn’t on their ballot. I kid you not.

Sure, the Rossi forces attacked Gregoire relentlessly for a thought crime about an income tax, but that factually flimsy if politically effective charge should be offset by Democratic enthusiasm. But I’m just speculating.

And if you believe what you read here, we’re not going to know the outcome tomorrow night anyhow.

Gregoire wins statewide 53-46-1! Or not!

A couple weeks ago it appeared Darcy Burner might be cruising to victory.  A number of polls showed her with a small but substantive lead amongst all voters, and a comfortable lead with those who had already cast their ballots.  And then the Seattle Times decided to step in and play kingmaker.

No doubt Dave Reichert’s bullshit “Harvard Hoax” ad, propped up by hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal loans from his media buyer, is having an effect—Darcy’s campaign has received a number of calls from confused voters asking if Darcy actually graduated from Harvard, or even has a college degree at all.  The Times and their collaborators on talk radio took confusion over the unusual wording of Harvard degrees—essentially a niggling complaint over a lack of specificity—and knowingly gave Reichert the ammunition to lie to voters about Darcy’s extraordinary education.  And it may be working.

Essentially, if Dave Reichert wins this election, it will be a huge victory for the Seattle Times and the power of the corporate media to manipulate public opinion, and a devastating loss for those of us in the netroots who have put so much time, energy and passion into electing a qualified and competent representative in WA-08.

Please don’t let that happen.

Darcy needs our help now more than ever, and it’s time for us to leave everything on the table.  The campaign is launching a new ad today, refuting Reichert’s lies, and she needs to put every cent she can behind it to set the record straight with confused voters.  But unlike Reichert, Darcy has to pay as she goes, so if you haven’t already given everything you can, please go to Darcy’s website and contribute now.

And if you have more time than money, you can still contribute to Darcy’s campaign by volunteering today and tomorrow, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and helping with her Get Out The Vote efforts.

For the third election in a row, and with the tacit cooperation of the press, Dave Reichert is closing out his campaign by smearing his opponent.  It is time to show that people power can trump the entrenched interests of our state’s media-political complex.