We are now just 4 days out from the 2008 United States National Elections and the consensus appears to be a sweeping win for the Democrats in the Senate, House and Presidential elections. The lingering question is; just how big will they win in each of the elections?
My predictions are as follows:
The Presidential Election
Obama will win: Oregon, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington DC, Washington State and Wisconsin. This will give him 364 Electoral College Votes.
McCain will win: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. This will give him 174 Electoral College Votes.
The Senatorial Elections
The Democrats will win: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia. This will give them 58 Senate seats.
The Republicans will win: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming. This will give them 42 Senate seats.
The House Elections:
The Democrats will win 252 House seats.
The Republicans will win 183 House seats.
Friday, 31 October 2008
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Why Britain Needs the Tories
Coming in to their annual conference, New Labour had much work to do. Since the departure of the party golden boy Tony Blair, they have been in freefall: they are currently more than 20 points behind the Tories in the polls and leader Gordon Brown is even more unpopular than his party.
Thankfully for Brown, the party decided to rally around him at the conference, presumably aware that any further chaos would further harm their already depressing chances at the next election. Brown, for his part, tried to sow seeds of doubt about his counterpart David Cameron with the notion that "this is no time for a novice." Clearly, there is never a time for a novice to be running a country, let alone one with nuclear warheads and many international enemies, but a few fresh ideas might be exactly what Britain needs right now.
New Labour is a classic victim of being in power too long, just as the Tories were during the Major era. Many of its MPs not knowing what its like to be in opposition, they start to see other factions of their party as the enemy, rather than other parties. They have also become disastrously out of touch with the electorate, the 10p tax being clear evidence of that. It is hard to see why the party that aims to "bridge the gap between rich and poor" would suggest a tax aimed at the poor.
A Tory government would hopefully move us beyond stagnation and would be able to rebuild our ailing economy. Further than this, I'm fairly sure that they will do so without succumbing to the populist policies of protectionism. We need further regulations in our banking system since in this day and age the entire nation has a vested interest in it thriving. This does not, however, mean that we should abandon the idea of free trade, success will come in treading that fine line. Some fresh ideas might just be the best medicine right now.
Washington
Thankfully for Brown, the party decided to rally around him at the conference, presumably aware that any further chaos would further harm their already depressing chances at the next election. Brown, for his part, tried to sow seeds of doubt about his counterpart David Cameron with the notion that "this is no time for a novice." Clearly, there is never a time for a novice to be running a country, let alone one with nuclear warheads and many international enemies, but a few fresh ideas might be exactly what Britain needs right now.
New Labour is a classic victim of being in power too long, just as the Tories were during the Major era. Many of its MPs not knowing what its like to be in opposition, they start to see other factions of their party as the enemy, rather than other parties. They have also become disastrously out of touch with the electorate, the 10p tax being clear evidence of that. It is hard to see why the party that aims to "bridge the gap between rich and poor" would suggest a tax aimed at the poor.
A Tory government would hopefully move us beyond stagnation and would be able to rebuild our ailing economy. Further than this, I'm fairly sure that they will do so without succumbing to the populist policies of protectionism. We need further regulations in our banking system since in this day and age the entire nation has a vested interest in it thriving. This does not, however, mean that we should abandon the idea of free trade, success will come in treading that fine line. Some fresh ideas might just be the best medicine right now.
Washington
Monday, 22 September 2008
Gun Laws in America - Safeguarding the Right to Kill
On January 29th, 1979, 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer opened fire at Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California, killing the Principal and Head Custodian of the school, as well as wounding 9 others. When asked why she had done this, Spencer replied, "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day." The rifle that she used was a Christmas present from her father, legally bought and given to her. Until the moment she pulled the trigger, Brenda was yet to commit a crime.
Just as shocking, however, is the fact that this kind of incident is commonplace in a country which endeavours to be the world's conscience. It is sad that such barbaric incidents should continue to occur, unabated, for fear of inciting the wrath of the gun lobby, but they do. When Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded many more at Virginia Tech in April 2007, in what was the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S history, the idea of banning guns was not even mentioned, let alone pursued.
What has surprised me most when broaching the subject with Americans (and progressives at that) was their response that "guns make people safer." It seems as if people have been told this for so long that it has come to be accepted as truth. When looking at the figures for gun deaths, however, this notion appears comical. If you combine the populations of the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Spain, Canada and Holland, all of whom have strict gun laws, you get a population which is slightly larger than that of the United States: in 2002 (the most recent year for which I could find data) the aforementioned nations had a combined total of 1,793 gun deaths, whilst the U.S had 30,694. With 17 times the rate of gun deaths it is hard to argue that guns make people safer.
The electorate's lack of education on the issue is a symptom of the problem, though, rather than the cause. It is not apathy and support for the gun lobby that has made them such a powerful force, rather it is the gun lobby systematically stamping out opposition to it in Congress which has led us to this point. In 2004, the NRA had a total income of over $200 million. This money was used to finance attack ads against candidates who favoured greater restrictions on guns and to fund "public education intitiatives" which promote ideas, such as "guns make people safer." The Brady Campaign, the NRA's largest opponent, could only dream of having such resources.
Recently, the U.S Supreme Court overturned the D.C handgun ban by citing it as "unconstitutional", yet another setback in the fight to lower the rate of gun deaths in the U.S. The Supreme Court's decision was predictable, with the current balance of the court lurching so far to the right, but disappointing nonetheless. How either Spencer or Cho represented "well-regulated militia[s]" is beyond my reasoning but the Supreme Court certainly felt that their's was a cause worth protecting. How many more must fall before people take notice?
The end of this battle is nowhere near but I can only hope that politicians will suit up for it some time soon. Debate on this issue can only be a good thing since the facts are on our side. It has certainly been a long time coming.
Washington
Just as shocking, however, is the fact that this kind of incident is commonplace in a country which endeavours to be the world's conscience. It is sad that such barbaric incidents should continue to occur, unabated, for fear of inciting the wrath of the gun lobby, but they do. When Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded many more at Virginia Tech in April 2007, in what was the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S history, the idea of banning guns was not even mentioned, let alone pursued.
What has surprised me most when broaching the subject with Americans (and progressives at that) was their response that "guns make people safer." It seems as if people have been told this for so long that it has come to be accepted as truth. When looking at the figures for gun deaths, however, this notion appears comical. If you combine the populations of the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Spain, Canada and Holland, all of whom have strict gun laws, you get a population which is slightly larger than that of the United States: in 2002 (the most recent year for which I could find data) the aforementioned nations had a combined total of 1,793 gun deaths, whilst the U.S had 30,694. With 17 times the rate of gun deaths it is hard to argue that guns make people safer.
The electorate's lack of education on the issue is a symptom of the problem, though, rather than the cause. It is not apathy and support for the gun lobby that has made them such a powerful force, rather it is the gun lobby systematically stamping out opposition to it in Congress which has led us to this point. In 2004, the NRA had a total income of over $200 million. This money was used to finance attack ads against candidates who favoured greater restrictions on guns and to fund "public education intitiatives" which promote ideas, such as "guns make people safer." The Brady Campaign, the NRA's largest opponent, could only dream of having such resources.
Recently, the U.S Supreme Court overturned the D.C handgun ban by citing it as "unconstitutional", yet another setback in the fight to lower the rate of gun deaths in the U.S. The Supreme Court's decision was predictable, with the current balance of the court lurching so far to the right, but disappointing nonetheless. How either Spencer or Cho represented "well-regulated militia[s]" is beyond my reasoning but the Supreme Court certainly felt that their's was a cause worth protecting. How many more must fall before people take notice?
The end of this battle is nowhere near but I can only hope that politicians will suit up for it some time soon. Debate on this issue can only be a good thing since the facts are on our side. It has certainly been a long time coming.
Washington
Sunday, 7 September 2008
The Republican National Convention - Day 4
On the final day of the Republican convention, John McCain had a lot of work to do in response to the successful closing speech of his Democratic counterpart. Weighing just as heavy on the minds of his strategists, though, would be that he could not afford to be overshadowed by Sarah Palin's speech.
There has been much talk about how the choice of Palin might draw in some women voters but that is reliant on them also liking and trusting the man on the top of the ticket. If women voters prefer Obama to McCain, they may well wait for 4 or 8 years to vote for Palin, when she must be a viable nominee for the Republicans.
The speech itself was good in content. McCain was naturally more specific in his text than Obama, but he utterly and completely failed to inspire me. I am not somebody who feels that a President has to be an inspirational character but when you're on the ticket with somebody who is, and running against somebody who is, it really does show if you are not.
McCain's camp obviously feel that this isn't a negative, they have been taking every opportunity they can to point out Obama's 'celebrity status' as a negative. I am not sure that this tactic will prove to be so wise. In highlighting his celebrity, they are trying to turn his biggest positive into a negative but in this instance it is a very risky strategy as they run the risk of multiplying his celebrity. As The Economist put it, it will become a test of whether America loves celebrities more than it loves to hate them. Who knows how that could turn out?! With a hefty defecit in the electoral college with under 2 months to go (according to www.electoral-vote.com) the McCain campaign can afford to take a risk or 2 but if it this tactic fails, it may well be a factor in a Republican loss.
For all the talk about these being candidates who appeal to independent voters, however, it is very apparent is that most voters have already made up their minds. This must play into the hands of the frontrunner, Obama, so we can expect to see some more interesting tactics from McCain's camp in the coming weeks but for now he seems content to appear the voice of age and wisdom next to rockstar Obama.
Washington
There has been much talk about how the choice of Palin might draw in some women voters but that is reliant on them also liking and trusting the man on the top of the ticket. If women voters prefer Obama to McCain, they may well wait for 4 or 8 years to vote for Palin, when she must be a viable nominee for the Republicans.
The speech itself was good in content. McCain was naturally more specific in his text than Obama, but he utterly and completely failed to inspire me. I am not somebody who feels that a President has to be an inspirational character but when you're on the ticket with somebody who is, and running against somebody who is, it really does show if you are not.
McCain's camp obviously feel that this isn't a negative, they have been taking every opportunity they can to point out Obama's 'celebrity status' as a negative. I am not sure that this tactic will prove to be so wise. In highlighting his celebrity, they are trying to turn his biggest positive into a negative but in this instance it is a very risky strategy as they run the risk of multiplying his celebrity. As The Economist put it, it will become a test of whether America loves celebrities more than it loves to hate them. Who knows how that could turn out?! With a hefty defecit in the electoral college with under 2 months to go (according to www.electoral-vote.com) the McCain campaign can afford to take a risk or 2 but if it this tactic fails, it may well be a factor in a Republican loss.
For all the talk about these being candidates who appeal to independent voters, however, it is very apparent is that most voters have already made up their minds. This must play into the hands of the frontrunner, Obama, so we can expect to see some more interesting tactics from McCain's camp in the coming weeks but for now he seems content to appear the voice of age and wisdom next to rockstar Obama.
Washington
Thursday, 4 September 2008
The Republican National Convention - Day 3
The speech has been the subject of much discussion and it certainly lived up to its billing. It appears that Sarah Palin might just be the star attack-dog of the election.
She was hard-hitting and connected with the people she needed to, one look at the audience told you that much. She attacked Obama as working for himself and not the country, she painted McCain as the voice of reason and humility and she even invoked Obama's mottos of "hope" and "change" as reasons to vote for McCain. If there's a downside from her speech, it's that John McCain has a lot to live up to if he is going to avoid being overshadowed.
Sure, at times she looked forced when making her speech, but that will fade as she gets used to her role and the kind of content she will be giving. Ultimately, she must play on the image as a strong, loving mother who understands what the "average American" wants. She must promote her pro-gun, religious background. She must mirror Obama as a young, Washington outsider who would make history, and she must cancel out Obama's celebrity without overshadowing her running mate. If she can do all of that, you can bet she will be first on the Republican ticket in 4 or 8 years time!
Of course, it is too tall an order to ask for her to achieve all of that alone and John McCain will do much of the leg work himself. She must, however, make inroads of her own if they are to win in November. I have no doubt that in a one-on-one race, Obama would win right now. McCain, however, may have struck Gold with his choice for Vice President.
Washington
She was hard-hitting and connected with the people she needed to, one look at the audience told you that much. She attacked Obama as working for himself and not the country, she painted McCain as the voice of reason and humility and she even invoked Obama's mottos of "hope" and "change" as reasons to vote for McCain. If there's a downside from her speech, it's that John McCain has a lot to live up to if he is going to avoid being overshadowed.
Sure, at times she looked forced when making her speech, but that will fade as she gets used to her role and the kind of content she will be giving. Ultimately, she must play on the image as a strong, loving mother who understands what the "average American" wants. She must promote her pro-gun, religious background. She must mirror Obama as a young, Washington outsider who would make history, and she must cancel out Obama's celebrity without overshadowing her running mate. If she can do all of that, you can bet she will be first on the Republican ticket in 4 or 8 years time!
Of course, it is too tall an order to ask for her to achieve all of that alone and John McCain will do much of the leg work himself. She must, however, make inroads of her own if they are to win in November. I have no doubt that in a one-on-one race, Obama would win right now. McCain, however, may have struck Gold with his choice for Vice President.
Washington
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
The Republican National Convention - Day 2
I'm not sure that an endorsement from George W. Bush as being "ready to lead" is a good thing when trying to shore up votes in America right now, but I'm quite sure that John McCain doesn't think it is. Republicans seem desperate to distance the two of them and Bush dutifully spoke of how McCain is happy to "go his own way" and regularly has done in the past 8 years.
The distance is necessary if McCain wants to be in the White House next January. Obama is trying to push the idea of "Bush-McCain" policies just as desperately as McCain is trying to fight it. That is telling as it shows that the Obama camp might again been controlling the issues.
For a couple of weeks now it had seemed that the McCain camp was gaining ground on Obama. The choice of Biden as VP was a sure sign that the Obama campaign was protecting his lack of foreign policy experience and was on the defensive. If you are't controlling the issues that are being talked about, you won't win the election.
If Obama can make the need for change the biggest issue for voters and push the idea that a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of Bush policies, as he is so desperately trying to, then he will win in November. McCain, on the other hand, needs to highlight Obama's inexperience and sow fear in the minds of the electorate. Both candidates will fight to show themselves as bi-partisan, a popular notion amongst independents. This is where elections are won and lost.
Fred Thompson's speech tried to 'fearmonger' when he said that, "Obama is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President." Joe Lieberman went on to question Obama's bi-partisan record in the Senate, causing much uproar from the Obama campaign. All predictable moves, but certainly necessary ones.
Tomorrow will see Sarah Palin give her first major speech since gaining her party's nomination for Vice President, in the wake of the revelations about her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy. General feeling seems to be that the media has gone too far in involving Palin's family (and a minor at that), an opinion echoed by Obama himself. Nonetheless, Palin's speech is now being billed as 'the most watched Vice Presidential speech in history'. She really needs to knock this one out of the park . . .
Washington
The distance is necessary if McCain wants to be in the White House next January. Obama is trying to push the idea of "Bush-McCain" policies just as desperately as McCain is trying to fight it. That is telling as it shows that the Obama camp might again been controlling the issues.
For a couple of weeks now it had seemed that the McCain camp was gaining ground on Obama. The choice of Biden as VP was a sure sign that the Obama campaign was protecting his lack of foreign policy experience and was on the defensive. If you are't controlling the issues that are being talked about, you won't win the election.
If Obama can make the need for change the biggest issue for voters and push the idea that a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of Bush policies, as he is so desperately trying to, then he will win in November. McCain, on the other hand, needs to highlight Obama's inexperience and sow fear in the minds of the electorate. Both candidates will fight to show themselves as bi-partisan, a popular notion amongst independents. This is where elections are won and lost.
Fred Thompson's speech tried to 'fearmonger' when he said that, "Obama is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President." Joe Lieberman went on to question Obama's bi-partisan record in the Senate, causing much uproar from the Obama campaign. All predictable moves, but certainly necessary ones.
Tomorrow will see Sarah Palin give her first major speech since gaining her party's nomination for Vice President, in the wake of the revelations about her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy. General feeling seems to be that the media has gone too far in involving Palin's family (and a minor at that), an opinion echoed by Obama himself. Nonetheless, Palin's speech is now being billed as 'the most watched Vice Presidential speech in history'. She really needs to knock this one out of the park . . .
Washington
The Republican National Convention - Day 1
The Convention speeches have been delayed due to another hurricane moving towards New Orleans. By the looks of things Orleans is missing the worst of it, though. Good news!
Washington
Washington
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
