| Obama | McCain |
| 100.0% probability of winning | 0.0% probability of winning |
| Mean of 369 electoral votes | Mean of 169 electoral votes |
Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 368 to 170 electoral votes. Obama would have almost certainly won an election held yesterday. With the release of 14 new polls from 12 states today, Obama edges forward in his electoral vote total.
Now, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama still wins them all. Obama takes, on average, 369 of the 538 electoral votes. McCain takes 169. With little doubt, Obama would win an election held now.
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.
Absolutely! Obama will win. It is all over but the coronation. Drink liberally. Drink drink drink. Party on dude. Heck why bother even waking up the next day to vote. There will be so many votes for Obama, one little vote wouldn’t be missed. Go ahead and party hard on Nov 3rd, sleep in on Nov 4th.
Sure, (non)Patriot, why not? My ballot goes in the mail tomorrow.
Roger Rabbit’s Endorsements For Partisan Offices
Absentee ballots are being mailed out now, so it’s time to decide who to vote for.
Before I discuss specific candidates, I want to emphasize that I’m an independent, and I vote for the person not the party! I carefully consider the experience, abilities, character, and positions of each candidate.
Now, getting to the specific races, my endorsements this year are relatively straightforward because it turns out that all of the Democratic candidates are better than any of the Republican (and “GOP Party”) candidates in all respects. I didn’t plan it that way, it just happened. That’s a hell of a coincidence, let me tell you! But really, this should require no explanation, because if you want to know why it worked out that way — just look at the smoking rubble all around you that used to be America. It’s not my fault Republicans are full of crap.
Okay, here we go:
President and Vice President — Obama and Biden
Congressperson — Inslee, McDermott, or Burner, depending on which district you live in
Governor – Gregoire
Lt. Governor – Owen
Secretary of State – Osgood
Treasurer – McIntire
Auditor – Sonntag
Attorney General – Ladenburg
Lands Commissioner – Goldmark
Insurance Commissioner – Kreidler
Did you tards see the news? Every County
in the state will report their votes only
after Martin Luther county reports their fraud.
Roger Rabbit’s Judicial Endorsements
Here, I’m basically going to repost what I said before the primary. Let’s start with the job description. There are two basic types of judges, whose job duties are different.
A trial judge presides over trials, deals with lawyers and witnesses, makes procedural and evidentiary rulings, and instructs the jury. A trial judge often has to interpret and apply statutes and caselaw to the cases they handle, but they generally don’t “make” law. A trial judge should have a good working knowledge of civil and criminal law, proper judicial demeanor, and unswerving commitment to impartiality, due process, and fairness. Litigation experience is essential, and because criminal cases comprise a sizeable proportion of superior court caseloads, criminal law experience is highly desirable.
An appellate judge hears and decides appeals from lower courts. Appellate judges do not preside over trials, and appellate courts generally lack authority to disturb factual findings of juries (or trial judges deciding cases without a jury) as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Appellate courts generally cannot consider new evidence not presented at trial, and do not “retry” the case. Rather, they review disputed rulings of trial courts for legal correctness, and their interpretations of statutes and prior caselaw are binding on lower courts. In addition, they may articulate legal doctrine on new issues not previously addressed by appellate courts, or revisit and modify prior precedents. The state Supreme Court, in addition to having the last word on legal issues, is the ultimate authority for promulgating rules of court procedure, lawyer conduct rules, and licensing and disciplining attorneys. While trial judge experience is helpful, it is not essential; the best candidates for appellate judgeships are lawyers with a wide and sound grasp of law, and who are brilliant legal thinkers and good legal writers. Well-regarded legal scholarship is a useful qualification for judicial work at this level. Like trial judges, appellate judges need to be impartial, willing to listen to and consider arguments on all sides of issues presented to them for decision, and have good judicial demeanor.
Judicial demeanor is not merely an impassive expression on the bench, but a respectful and attentive attitude toward the parties, an absence of bias or favoritism, and an ability to project a sense of authority that commands respect without being overbearing.
Judges at all levels are expected to set aside their personal views and political or ideological leanings, and follow the law even when they disagree with it. A competent trial judge never knowingly disregards binding precedent, and a good appellate judge will follow precedent unless there are sound reasons to modify it. The primary role of precedent in law is to ensure predictability and consistency; without these, it is very difficult to draft contracts, wills, or legal agreements with confidence that the courts will carry out the intent of the drafters.
Supreme Court Position 3
Roger Rabbit endorses Mary Fairhurst, the incumbent. A former president of the Washington State Bar Association, she served as a judicial clerk after graduation from law school, then as an assistant attorney general before being elected to the Supreme Court 6 years ago. She is endorsed by King County Democrats, a long list of unions, environmental organizations, attorneys, and judges; and received the King County Bar Association’s highest rating of “exceptionally well qualified.
Supreme Court Position 4
Roger Rabbit endorses Charles W. Johnson, the incumbent. He was an unknown small-town lawyer who came from nowhere to win a seat on the Court 18 years ago, and since then has compiled a respectable record as a competent journeyman justice who, while not a high-profile judicial “star,” has done a workmanlike job that earned him the King County Bar Association’s highest rating of “exceptionally well qualified,” as well as endorsements by King County Democrats and both Seattle daily newspapers. In addition, as the Court’s longest-serving justice, he is a repository of institutional knowledge and tradition that are valuable in any court.
Supreme Court Position 7
Roger Rabbit endorses Debra L. Stephens, a Spokane lawyer with broad trial and appellate advocacy experience, and also law school and legal seminar teaching experience. She was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Gregoire last year, and then to the Supreme Court in December to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Bobbe Bridge. One of the most promising young judicial prospects to come along in years, she has bipartisan endorsements from Democrats and Republicans, and from numerous judges.
Court of Appeals, Division I
The 2 candidates on my ballots, Linda Lau and Ann Schindler, are running for separate positions and neither is opposed. Both are incumbents. Prior to being appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Gregoire in 2007 to replace retiring Judge H. Joseph Coleman, Lau was a King County Superior Court judge for 12 years, and before that served as a King County District Court judge, so she is essentially a career judge.
King County Superior Court Position 1
Both candidates in this race are endorsed by King County Democrats and have lined up big-name endorsements. However, they are not rated equally by the King County Bar Association, and they have significantly different experience profiles. Tim Bradshaw received the highest rating of “exceptionally well qualified,” whereas Suzanne Parisien only got a “qualified” ranking. Bradshaw is a career prosecutor; Parisien is an assistant attorney general. Of the two, Bradshaw has the most impressive credentials and his experience in trying major criminal cases would be a useful addition to the superior court bench. Parisien’s legal experience, although solid, is less relevant to day-to-day superior court work. Roger Rabbit endorsed Tim Bradshaw in the primary and does so again for the general election.
King County Superior Court Position 22
Julia Garrett is a juvenile court commissioner; Holly Hill is a litigator and law teacher. Hill is endorsed by King County Democrats, King County Labor Council, and a long list of prominent (mostly Democratic) politicians. Hill’s extensive trial experience earns her Roger Rabbit’s nod, wink, and ear twitch.
King County Superior Court Position 37
King County Democrats endorsed all 3 primary candidates; personal injury lawyer Nic Corning was eliminated in the primary, leaving Jean Reitschel and Barbara Mack. The King County Bar Association rated Reitschel, a Seattle Municipal Court judge, as “exceptionally well qualified” and Mack, a King County senior deputy prosecuting attorney, as “well qualified.” Roger Rabbit has nothing against career judges, if they’re good, and gives the nod to judicial experience in this case by endorsing Jean Reitschel, who was also the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s choice in the primary. Mack’s background, while solid, is not compelling enough to prefer her to someone with years of judicial experience who gets top ratings from lawyer groups.
@4 Go fuck your goat, but if you’re unwilling to do that, bend over and let the goat fuck you. It’s his turn anyway.
Roger Rabbit’s Recommendations On Initiatives And Measures
1. Initiative 985 – HELL NO! This contorted Tim Eyman concoction claims to speed up traffic flow by tinkering with traffic lights and opening HOV lanes to all traffic during non-rush hours. Like everything else Eyman promises, that’s bullshit. Worse, he wants to pay for it by sucking money from the General Fund at a time when General Fund programs are already facing recession-induced cuts.
2. Initiative 1000 – YES. This is the assisted suicide measure. Frankly, I think it’s largely superfluous, at least for any terminally ill patient with the guts to stick a gun muzzle in his mouth and pull the trigger, because that’ll certainly get the job done. But for sissies who would rather go from a shot in the arm, why not? I don’t see how voting against this will stop people from terminating their wretched pain-filled lives, so I don’t see any point in voting against it.
3. Initiative 1029 – YES. This requires certification of in-home health care workers, requires training and criminal background checks, and establishes disciplinary standards and procedures. Seems like a no-brainer.
4. King County Charter Amendment No. 1 — HELL NO! Republicans want the county elections director to be elected so they can fuck with elections. I want a career professional in this job.
5. King County Charter Amendment No. 2 — YES. This adds “disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds for discriminating in county hiring and contracting.
6. King County Charter Amendments No. 3, 5, and 6 — YES. These are unopposed housekeeping and “good government” measures you should vote for.
7. King County Charter Amendment No. 4 — YES. This will allow the county council to require additional qualifications for certain elected executive positions required specialized knowledge, such as the sheriff and assessor (and elections director if that becomes an elected position). It makes perfect sense, and it must be a good idea because Republicans are against it.
8. King County Charter Amendment No. 7 — YES. This streamlines the process and raises the signature requirement for amending the county charter. In other words, it makes it harder for Tim Eyman to fuck with the structure of county government, which is why he opposes it.
9. King County Charter Amendment No. 8 — HELL NO! The Republicans want to turn the county executive, county council, and assessor into nonpartisan elective positions because their candidates can’t win if voters know who they are. That’s bullshit! If this passes, they’ll still be Republicans, the only difference is voters won’t know they’re Republicans so some voters might vote for them by mistake. Which is exactly what the Republicans hope will happen.
10. Sound Transit Proposition 1 — NO. This is the same hyper-expensive light rail project that was voted down last year. The only thing that’s changed is they’ve split Phase 2 into two phases to make it look cheaper. Otherwise it’s the same flawed project, and if it passes, they’ll hit you up again for the rest of it (which is now called Phase 3). The average cost of light rail in the U.S. is $35 million a mile. Seattle’s Phase 1 cost $179 million a mile, and the 5-mile tunnel from U District to Northgate will cost $500 million a mile. Proponents claim in the Voters Pamphlet that “For $69 a year, we get a regional mass transit system that can move more than one million people a day.” That’s bullshit. The maximum capacity of a light rail line is 20,000 people per hour, and if you divide the $11 billion cost of Phase (2)(i) by 1.2 million households by 20 years the cost is $458.33 per household per year, not $69. Sure, a small portion of the funding will come from the federal government, but guess who pays the federal taxes that comes from? You, not Santa Claus or Snow White. What’s more, once you nail down tracks or dig tunnels they ain’t going anywhere, whereas bus routes can be changed to accomodate shifting population and employment patterns. This thing won’t be up and running for years — you can’t ride on it while it’s under construction — and if voters approve this, it’ll soak up all the mass transit money for years to come leaving nothing for buses and other modes. It’s a damned bad idea no matter which angle you look at it from. And there’ll be damned little parking at the stations; they expect people from miles around to walk, bike, or ride feeder buses to the stations. That’s horseshit; most people ain’t gonna do that. There’s a big risk of this thing turning out to be a white elephant that carries few riders and does absolutely nothing to expand our commuter-transporting capacity.
I agree with almost all that Roger is for EXCEPT Initiative 10 – mass transit. For years I have been told that it is too expensive – so it never gets done.
Portland, in the meantime, has done it and it is working great. The argument against light rail in the late 70’s was that I-5 would never be full and we would never need it and it would cost too much.
All those “forward” thinkers were shortsighted and wrong back then and they have similar arguments now. We need rail and we need it now (gas is not going to get cheaper in 10 years) and the wrong argument for 40 years ago is still wrong now – only rail is even more expensive.
It is time to have some mass transit and busses just foul up the roads and get stuck in the traffic. How many times am I waiting behind a bus or riding a bus that is also stuck in traffic. HOV lanes simply don’t work -and letting more people drive in them and then cross all the way over to get off will cause more accidents and backups.
And where is Ditzy, I mean Darcy again? Working as a barista as she IS qualified for? That’s what I thought. Ooohhhhh….shiney!
Mark1,
“And where is Ditzy, I mean Darcy again? “
Last I saw, she was kicking some Reichert ass in the polls, in fundraising, and in in-district donations. Thanks for asking!
Roger Rabbit said
Mark3001 says HELL YES!
Come Nov 5th, Wingnuts everywhere will be lining up for lethal injections, and I want every tax dollar spent on giving those injections to them!
This must be our top priority!
@8 If you talk to anyone who lives in Portland you’ll discover their light rail is not uncontroversial and not everyone thinks it’s wonderful. Light rail is not going to get large numbers of people out of their cars for the simple reason that it’s a viable transportation alternative only for downtown office workers who live near a light rail station. Anyone whose job is outside the downtown employment core, or who has to travel around the city during the workday, or who has to take materials and tools to job sites — which is a large majority of this city’s workers — will not be able to use light rail. Light rail will not be attractive to people who have to make bus connections at either (or both) ends to get to the stations. Unlike bus stops, light rail stations are far apart, so even many people who live along the route will find it difficult and inconvenient to use. But the main objection to building light rail in Seattle is its outlandish cost. Seattle’s light rail scheme isn’t really light rail at all, it’s a super-expensive subway. And it’s being financed by a profoundly regressive and unfair tax that hits senior citizens especially hard — senior citizens who won’t live long enough to ever ride on it. I’m not against light rail per se, but Sound Transit’s plan is so deeply flawed in so many ways that it’s amazing anyone gives it the time of day. Hopefully, the voters will realize light rail as presently envisioned by ST is the wrong choice for this city.
@11 Now how did I miss that ramification? Yes, I’ll accept your suggestion as a friendly amendment — Initiative 1000 is HELL YES!
From today’s Rasmussen:
Saturday, October 18, 2008
“Obama is viewed favorably by 55%, McCain by 53%. Those figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Obama and 30% with a Very Unfavorable opinion of him. For McCain, the comparable numbers are 23% Very Favorable and 24% Very Unfavorable.
Forty-four percent (44%) of voters are certain they will vote for Obama and not change their mind. Forty percent (40%) say the same about McCain. Thirteen percent (13%) have a preference for once candidate or the other but still say they might change their mind.”
While I still do not believe McCain will pull this out, it is interesting that 70% of voters have a very strong opinion of O-blah-blah one way or the other vs. only 47% have a very strong opinion of McCain.
I think that is because McCain’s negative campaign has pushed folks one way or the other on O-blah-blah. A negative campaign MUST be balanced with a very clear message however….and that is what McCain has failed to do well enough.
I tend to believe these numbers. It’s also amazing how many voters still say they could be swayed…..not that McCain has the campaign to sway them. But they are unconvinced by O-blah-blah.
The tanking of the stock market has really hurt McCain badly. Had all this bad economic news happened post-election, we would be looking at a dead-heat.
McCain has run an amateurish campaign. I’ll still vote for him anyday over Mr. “Government must spread the wealth” O-blah-blah.