November 3, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged abortion, barack obama, election day, gay rights, john mccain, same-sex marriage, social conservatism, tax plan
When you go to polls this election day, remember this: only the 1.1% of Americans who make above $600,000/year have any defensible reason to vote for McCain. That’s right, I said it. Wanting to ban gay marriage? Not a legitimate reason to vote for McCain. Wanting to ban abortion? Also not acceptable. Want a flat tax? Are you stupid?
If you make below $225,000/year, your taxes will go down significantly. If you make above $600,000/year, your taxes will go up. Don't expect me to cry for you.
October 28, 2008 · Filed under Commentariat, Election 2008 · Tagged barack obama, columbia, education, election, financial crisis, john mccain
This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.
My family is awkward. Not necessarily socially — though that too — but economically. I, like millions of other Americans, fall into the gap between qualifying for financial aid and actually being able to afford a college education without going into massive debt.
One of Barack Obama’s most cherished proposals is the $4,000 tax credit to students. The effect of this proposal on Columbia students, as well as students at most other private institutions, would be minimal. In fact, even if I had attended Rutgers University — a New Jersey state school — I would still be paying $17,000 in tuition each year. If this proposal were to go through, the effect on Columbia University students would be almost inconsequential (we’ll still be paying $39,470).
It is curious, then, why so many college students are so excited about him or why we cheered so loudly when he mentioned his $4,000 tax-credit when he and McCain came to campus.
This is not to say that McCain’s proposals are anything less than pathetic. In fact, where the McCain campaign isn’t ominously silent on the issue of education, it offers platitudes and, ironically, is terribly vague (a complaint made by many about Obama’s proposals). To illustrate my point, allow me to digress, momentarily, into a discussion about a few of McCain’s ideas on education.
Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain doesn’t propose any federal subsidies for higher education. In fact, judging by McCain’s proposal (i.e that the tax benefits are just too darn hard to figure out), the ability of many students to be able to pay for college is impeded by their inability to understand our tax code rather than such silly things as, you know, not having the money. He also calls for “effective reforms” for lending programs and “improving information for parents”. The general take-away from this seems to be that students can’t pay for college not because we do not have the means but rather because we do not have the brainpower.
While some minor party candidates might support free universal higher education, the most likely outcome is that neither free nor cheap education is coming any time soon. It seems that the message from the major party candidates to America’s students is this: just keep hoping your bank doesn’t WaMu.
October 22, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008 · Tagged daily show, douchebaggery, election, Election 2008, God, GOP, john mccain, real america, real american, religion, republican party, wtf
Ever since Sarah Palin’s comments about the “real America” and the “pro-America” parts of America, I started paying more attention to these sorts of utterings from the GOP. I had been hoping that it would be limited to Sarah Palin, or perhaps even a few on the fringes of the party, but, of course, I was disappointed.
On Monday I went to see the Daily Show live. That show was glorious, both because it was hilarious and because it was filled with with righteous fury about Palin’s recent comments. What really surprised me, however, was a comment from one of McCain’s staff members which referred to the “real Virginia”, as opposed to the fake, Democratic, part of Virginia.
Then one of my friends pointed me towards an apology that had to be made by a North Carolina Republican congressman. At a McCain rally he said to the crowd:
…liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.
Of course, this is even more offensive than the remarks made by Sarah Palin. I suppose he was at least more upfront about what he meant, however. In his apology remarks he said this:
there is no doubt that it came out completely the wrong way.
Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter how it “came out”. What matters is the sentiment behind the words, and his sentiments were this:
1. Liberals are not “real Americans”
2. Liberals do not believe in God
3. Liberals do not work or accomplish things
4. Liberals hate people who believe in God
I don’t really consider myself a liberal, but I have no doubt that I fit into his ignorant definition of one, and, quite frankly, none of these implied or explicit statements apply to me. I believe in God and attend religious services weekly, I work hard and have accomplished any number of things of meaning to myself and those around men, I have a great apprecation for people who believe in God (as well as for those who don’t believe in God), and I am a real American.
The fact that this theme has crept up in the past few days is, quite frankly, terrifying.
I have a lot more to say about this, but I have a midterm tomorrow/later today for which I haven’t finished studying quite yet.
October 21, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, LGBT Issues, Poll Analysis · Tagged barack obama, bob barr, douchebaggery, election, gay rights, john mccain, polling, ralph nader
According to RealClearPolitics, Barack Obama has an 8.7 percent lead over John McCain. However, this is only when Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are included in the polling data. When third party candidates are excluded, however, Obama’s lead shrinks to 6.8%. There are a variety of explanations for this.
One of these explanations is simply that Bob Barr simply siphons off voters who would otherwise be voting for McCain. However, this, at least by itself, is entirely inadequate. In fact, in a partial restoration of my faith in the American people, only 1% of Americans are projected to vote for him. Nader, meanwhile, is polling at 3%. If we accept political science orthodoxy that a third-party candidate will only draw votes away from the candidate closest in ideology to them, then Obama should be ahead by around 10.7%.
I got this number by adding the 3% of Nader, which would theoretically go to Obama, and subtracting the Barr’s 1%, which would theoretically go to McCain. Whille the Libertarian Party shares views with both major parties (it is socially liberal and [very] economically conservative), this year’s candidate is ultraconservative Bob Barr of Georgia, known for his both his economically and socially conservative douchebaggery during his time in the House of Representatives (for example, he both authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act. He also proposed to ban the practice of Wicca in the military and wants to repeal the 16th amendment [which instituted the income tax]).
An alternative explanation is that there are simply fewer polls, which leads to less accurate overall statistics. The problem with this, however, is that a sheer number of polls will not ensure statistical integrity. In fact, the sample sizes of most of these polls have been around 1000 likely voters. With sample sizes like this, it is rather unlikely that the margin of error will be particularly large.
On the other hand, the accuracy provided by the sample sizes might be offset by the varying definitions used for “likely voter”. Gallup has experimented with using two different designs for its “likely voter” polls. The results of one experimental poll were as follows. Among “registered voters”, Obama led McCain by 11 points. Among the traditional definition of likely voters (that is, it takes into consideration “voting intention and self-reported past voting behavior”), Obama was in the lead by 7 points. Among the expanded definition of likely voters (people who claim they will vote on election day), Obama was in the lead by 10 points. There is a problem with the assertion that the “likely voters” model is less accurate. For the registered voters in this poll, the MoE is ±2%; for the traditional LV model the MoE is ±3%; for the expanded LV model, the MoE is ±2%. In other words, the margin of error is essentially the same, but the likely voter interview is more likely to predict the outcome of the election.
Another reason to believe that the inclusive polling (i.e. with Obama, McCain, Nader, and Barr) is accurate is that it has followed the same pattern as the McCain v. Obama polling, yet only slightly delayed (because there are simply fewer inclusive polls).
The explanation that I find most credible is that Nader voters are simply people who might not otherwise vote this year. Obama’s numbers are essentially the same across the two polling methods (49.0% average in the inclusive polling versus 50.1% in non-inclusive). In fact, if you add up Obama’s and McCain’s numbers in the non-inclusive polling, there’s a missing 6.7% (presumably, “undecideds”). Given that Obama’s numbers stay the same across the polling data, yet his lead only grows when Nader and Barr are included, my hypothesis is this: while some McCain voters are willing to bite and vote for Bob Barr (either because they don’t like McCain’s social conservativism are are, in fact, libertarians, or because they don’t think he’s socially conservative enough and are simply fans of Bob Barr), Obama voters are committed to their candidate. This argument is justified by polling data which indicates that Democrats are far more excited about Obama than Republicans are about McCain. At the same time, the 6.7% of unlikely voters will split between Nader and Obama for two reasons. First, because CBS polling indicates that undecideds and independents favor Obama by wide margins. Second, because many Nader supporters have said that they simply wouldn’t vote if he weren’t on the ticket.
October 20, 2008 · Filed under Election 2008 · Tagged barack obama, colin powell, douchebaggery, election, Election 2008, endorsements, fundraising, john mccain
So in the past week Obama’s lead has fallen by 3.4 points (8.2% to 4.8%). I’ve found this both extremely disturbing (McCain’s attack ads have been both despicable and nonsensical) and baffling. At first I thought that the boost as a result of Obama’s above-average performance in the last debate, combined with the spin from his nailing all three debates, would land him some extra points in the polls. Unfortunate, the requisate number of days have passed and there has been no such boost.
Then, two nights ago, Obama receieved an endorsement from Colin Powell. But not only was this an endorsement — it was an unequivocal endorsement. An unequivocal endorsement from a former member of the Bush administration, a highly regarded former military official, and someone with 80+% approval ratings. According to polling data, around 12% said that they would be more likely to vote for whomever he endorses.
There’s also this evidence that Powell’s endorsement should matter:
In a survey in February, Powell’s endorsement was the only one out of a list of 15 different public figures, publications, national associations and politicians that would have a significant net positive impact on voters. Twenty-eight percent (28%) said a Powell endorsement would make voters more likely to vote for a candidate versus 19% who would be less likely to vote for that candidate.
(Taken from Rasmussen Reports)
My guess is that the 19% who would be less likely to vote for Powell’s endorsee are liberal Democrats who were still upset about his lies to the UN which enabled the Bush administration to make war on Iraq (oopsies) and who were expecting him to endorse McCain. This would make the actual number who would be turned off by his endorsement far lower.
Lastly, there was Obama’s $150 million of fundraising in September. This should have provided him with enough cash to stave of a McCain comeback, even though campaigns are supposed to tighten in the last few weeks.
Essentially, the point of this post was to express my dismay that Americans are so easily duped into voting for someone: 1. so creepy; 2. who looks like a naked molerat; 3. with such horribly misguided policies; 4. with terrible anger control problems; and 5. who makes rape jokes involving gorillas (as if he weren’t anti-woman enough already)
October 20, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008 · Tagged barack obama, douchebaggery, election, Election 2008, hypocrisy, john mccain, sarah palin, secessionism
“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe” — here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers — “We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”
- from the Washington Post, on Sarah Palin’s comments about “Pro-America” areas of America.
These comments are, quite frankly, offensive. The notion that, just because I don’t own a gun (or five), because I don’t hate gay people (or because I am gay), that because I live in a city — or because I live above the Mason-Dixon line, because I don’t plan on voting Republican or for the Constitution Party, the thought that these things make me “Anti-American” or even simply not “Pro-American” is quite frankly disgusting and disturbing on a fundamental level.
I’m sure these sentiments have been echoed by many, many other people (at least, I hope so), but I feel compelled to respond to these comments as well. The problem is that these sentiments echo the feelings of many parts of the mid-west and South as well many in the Republican Party. I find all of this interesting because, apparently, being married to someone who is a member of and affiliated with a secessionist movement (Sarah Palin) is more pro-American than living in New York City. Apparently, flying the flag of a secessionist movement that made war on United States, causing the deaths of over 600,000 people, is more pro-American than my possible vote for Ralph Nader.
I’m sorry, Sarah Palin, but, fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. I don’t care about your “explanation” — your true intentions were pretty obvious. It was clear to me — and every other conscious person in this country — that you meant that the “pro-American” areas of this country were the areas that vote Republican and the implied “anti-American” areas of this country are the Democratic ones.
The fact of the matter is that Palin’s statements expose a fundamental contempt for the liberal areas of this country held by the vast majority of Republicans. Here’s a newsflash, guys. The year is 2008, not 1863. The Civil War is over. Oh, also, someone should tell the Nebraskans and folks in Kansas that, actually, in 1863, they hated the South with a passion because they were filthy, slave-owning secessionists who, get this, hated America (though now they drive around with Confederate flags painted onto their pick-up trucks). But, yeah, that’s right. The Confederates hated America, even more, than, say, Michael Moore and his fat, liberal ass. You know why? Because, unlike Michael Moore’s ass, the Confederates killed around 300,000 of their countrymen.
It’s really a tragedy that someone as anti-American as Colin Powell endorsed the vast I-Hate-America conspiracy a couple of nights ago. Not only was this an endorsement — it was an unequivocal endorsement. It seems that just everyone is anti-America these days.
But in all seriousness, how dare she? Who is she to declare me anti-American and the vast swathes of ex-Confederates to whom she panders “pro-America”?
I am, quite frankly, sick of hearing how “un-American” I am and how much I “hate my country” because I support my own fundamental right to get married, the right of Americans not to starve on the streets, and the right of Americans to decent healthcare.
October 16, 2008 · Filed under Election 2008 · Tagged barack obama, condescending, dazed and confused, debate, election, Election 2008, joe the plumber, john mccain, polling, precious autistic children, senate
Last night’s debate was, quite frankly, the most interesting of the presidential debates thusfar.
This was not because Obama was particularly passionate, not was it because he excelled in any particular area. Rather, the reason was that, quite frankly, John McCain came pretty close to a meltdown.
Throughout the debate, Obama remained calm and relaxed — to use the words of someone else (I can’t remember who at the moment), “cool and professional”. Though Obama has consistently kept his cool during the debates, McCain seemed to get angrier not only from debate to debate, but, last night, moment to moment. At times, his panting and sighing was audible. Even his attempts at smiling seemed mean-spirited (a friend said he “looked like a shark” when he smiled).
Most of the material of the debate was old hat — in fact, some of the exact same lines were used in the last debate — but there was some new material. McCain brought in Ayers and the ACORN scandal, something he avoided last time (perhaps in a failed attempt not to seem like a dick?), but it wasn’t a major theme of the debate, and Obama dealt with both issues deftly and calmly. Overall, there wasn’t really any new, interesting material to be uncovered. So that brings us to style and rhetoric.
Here is where it gets interesting. John McCain was trying to capitalize on Sarah Palin’s folksiness, apparently, but failed miserably. Where he tried to be folsky, he was condescending. An undecided voter interviewed by CNN afterwards said that she found McCain’s storytime — a power so well-used by Reagan (too bad he used it for evil) — while touching the first time around, to be “gimmicky” by the third or fourth time. When McCain brought out “Joe the Plumber” my friends, with whom I was watching the debate, all started yelling at the TV.
One friend mentioned something that I hadn’t thought of, however: McCain was being male-normative. “What the fuck, John?! I’m not Joe!” she shouted. This, of course, was true. The Mac, who — according to CNN live-ratings — was pretty much despised by undecided women throughout the debate, most likely did not benefit from this. This is an age in which Americans need to feel “connected” to their president, and McCain failed horribly at this.
Working-class people, as well, I’m sure, didn’t appreciate John McCain’s discussion of Joe the Quarter-Million-Dollar-Plumber, either.
And speaking of condescension, let’s talk about the “precious autistic children”. Actually…that wasn’t really condescending, that was just creepy. Am I right, or am I right?
In fact, to prove my point, here’s a quote from an article about a CBS poll:
Debate watchers who thought Obama won the debate thought he was a better communicator and has a better grasp of the problems the country has to face. Some used words like “eloquent” and “confident” to describe him. In contrast, some said McCain was defensive and spent too much time attacking Obama – using words like “rude,” “mean,” and “caustic” to describe McCain’s performance in the debate.
By contrast, it seems that most people who thought that McCain won did not have problems with Obama’s character but were either “impressed by [McCain's] experience” or “concerned that Obama’s solutions all required spending money”. This indicates — to me at least — a less fundamental problem for Obama.
Sorry if this post is a little less than coherent at the moment, I just got back from (yet another) midterm, and I’m a little dazed.
Anyway, overall I’d call the debate a tie, if not a marginal win for Obama. But really, all Obama had to do in this debate was tie it, given the lead he’s already established. On the other hand, I’m beginning to be a little concerned with his dipping poll numbers: two days ago, RealClearPolitics had him with an 8.2% lead, yesterday it was 7-something, and today it’s down to 6.9%. If the Democrats want a Senate that can actually do something, they need to reach 60, and the only feasible way for them to do that is to get new senators coming in on Obama’s coattails. It’s now or never, really, because — if he wins — I doubt he’ll have the same power come re-election.
EDIT: Just some quick polls regarding the debate: CBS has a poll of uncommitted voters which has Obama winning the debate with 53% to McCain’s 22%. (25% said it was a draw.) According to this poll, both candidates gained favor among voters, but Obama simply gained by larger margins (overall, that is). Another website has already gathered the polling data for me. A CNN poll has Obama winning with 58%, John McCain winning at 31%. It also has McCain’s favorability rating dropping from 51% to 49%. However, Politic/Insider Advantage gives a much narrower lead to Obama with a 49%-46% split, so there’s clearly some wiggle-room here. We’ll see what happens, I suppose.
October 16, 2008 · Filed under Announcements, Election 2008 · Tagged barack obama, debate, election, Election 2008, john mccain, sarah palin
Just to let everyone know, I started liveblogging the debate a few minutes ago. One of my friends tells me that he can’t see it, if it’s not working, press RSS, which should be up.
October 15, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, Poll Analysis · Tagged barack obama, election, Election 2008, john mccain, polling, race
So I was reading another blog and came across this comment (by the way, the guy who writes it is pretty incredible. I know I have like negative readers, but I’m going to plug him anyway.) The comment brought to mind a Gallup Poll which says,
6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters’ self-reported attitudes are taken into account.
Perhaps because African-Americans have been traditionally Democratic (as a demographic they trend about 80+% Democratic) the Obama campaign didn’t see a bump similar to that received by John F. Kennedy for being Catholic. Before the 1960 election, the Catholic community was largely split (mostly on the basis of class, with working-class Catholics voting Democratic and wealthier Catholics voting Republican). But when Kennedy ran, he brought millions of Catholic voters to the Democratic side, at least for that election. In the years since then, of course, Catholics have become decreasingly Democratic as a whole (largely, it is likely, because of the new salience of social issues in American politics). Obviously, Kennedy’s religion was a big factor, with many Americans worried that the United States would be controlled by the Pope if he won. As history has shown, this was not the case. So, of course, there were many Americans who voted for Nixon on that basis. But then, there were millions of Americans who voted for him on that basis as well.
In the same way, millions of non-white (the Gallup Organization polled on the basis of white/non-white, because apparently Latino/as and African-Americans must have the same opinion of an African-American candidate.) voters have flocked to Obama (polling show that around 13% percent are more likely to vote for Obama) where as around 7% of white voters say they will be less likely to vote for him because of his race. Taken as is, this would approximately equalize (“non-whites” make up about one in three people in the United States, I believe, so the ratio would be 2 white: 1 non-white). However, there are also the 6% of white people who are more likely to vote for Obama based on his race, perhaps as a means by which to parade their tolerance. This, of course, is not offset by the 4% of non-whites who are less likely to vote for Obama because of his race (my guess is this is the produce of African-American-Latino racial/ethnic tensions, since I can’t really imagine all that many African-Americans being turned off by an African-American candidate simply because of his race).
In the end, it seems, polling would indicate Barack Obama may actuall benefit from being an African-American in this presidential race. However, given how unacceptable racism is in today’s society (though those disinclined to vote for him because of his race might claim they aren’t racist, they, quite frankly, are) it is possible that fewer people intend to vote for Obama than say they will. Of course, the Bradley Effect was first observed 26 years ago, during the Regan administration, and when the subject was only ahead in some polls. All three factors have changed.
First, it is now 2008. and there have been several indications that the effect has diminished, especially in recent years. While the examples I cite can also be found on Wikipedia, I’ll recite them here anyway. In Louisiana, Bobby Jindal (R), an Indian-American, ran and lost in 2003. While early polling had indicated he had a lead, pre-election polling showed that his lead had disappeared prior to the election. In 2006, Harold Ford, Jr., ran for senator of Tennessee and lost in a close race. Polling showed, however, that, despite not exactly being a historical bastion of tolerance, his loss was not the result of massive lying by white people to pollsters. I think, however, that we should all keep an eye out for a similar effect, especially in Southern and Southwestern states, on LGBT candidates in the future, just as soon as people stop shooting them.
I think I’ll skip my second point, largely due to the fact that I am lazy and don’t quite want to wade into the issue of massive Republican implicit racism, though I think anyone who watched the GOP national convention this year, or any year prior, will have noticed by now that there are about four black people in the entire crowd (and how much do you want to bet they’re half-white?).
Third, while the subject of the original Bradley effect was only ahead in some polls, Barack Obama has the lead in every single poll, and a statistically significant lead in all of them as well.
So, given all of this evidence, and given the recent Gallup polling that shows that Obama may, in fact, benefit from being the first African-American major-party candidate for President, I think–and hope–that the Bradley Effect is a thing of the past.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jun | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Greenery by iLemoned.
Yes We Can; But So Could They
November 6, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Commentariat, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged barack obama, depressing, douchebaggery, entirely uncalled for, gay rights, good on-goings-on?, GOP, john mccain, mormon church, proposition 8, race, real america, real american, religion, republican party, same-sex marriage, sarah palin, wtf
This about summarizes how I, as a religious person, feel about the whole gay thing. Click the image for a larger version.
This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.
Last night, when I found out Barack Obama had won, I was ecstatic. I ran out of my dorm with my friends and we, and probably 200 other Columbia students, marched up to Harlem to watch the last few minutes of Obama’s speech.
But when I got back to my computer and television, I was horribly disappointed. The ban on gay marriage in Florida had passed, the ban on gay marriage in Arizona had passed, the ban on gay marriage in California had passed, and the ban on gay adoption in Arkansas had passed. Al Franken looked like he was going to lose to Norm Coleman, and convicted felon Ted Stevens was ahead by three points in Alaska (my friend has vowed to start donating to the Alaskan Independence Party so that incubator of corrupt and incompetant politicians will leave us alone and take their two corrupt Republican senators with them).
I know I should be happy. My friends keep telling me that Barack Obama will be good for gay people. And “at least it’s not McCain”. And yet, for the past eight years — for nearly half of my lifetime — my countrymen have been voting to stop me from having equal rights.
Read the rest of this entry »
Comments (1) »