Wednesday, October 29, 2008


I read Scott Elliott (aka the Blogging Ceasar) - pretty religiously. He's a conservative, but honest - no, really. I would have guessed, two months ago, that Barack Obama would win in a squeeker, because the nation was in an economic trough - at best. Further, Obama frankly conveys more confidence than McCain, who comes across surley, angry, and without much forethought.

I also told my father about 6 months ago that I thought Obama had a slim chance of a landslide, if the nation felt energized by his candidacy for the kind of shift away from economic feudalism that he talks about, but I suspect strongly doesn't mean.

Unlike some on the right, when things shifted away from Obama briefly after the Republican Convention, I did not think they were likely to stay that way, and I surely (unlike one M. Berg) did not think the outcome was going to be either a McCain victory narrowly, a McCain landslide, or maybe an Obama narrow victory. That kind of pathetic 'cover all bases' prediction is absurd. I felt it was still most likely that Obama would win close.

I am happy to admit mistakes, and Scott Elliott has suggested I am likely in error.

These were Scott's words yesterday:

"Eight days from Election Day, here is this blogger's conclusion: Barack Obama will win this election in a landslide. He will capture at least 350 electoral votes and win the popular vote by 7% or more. McCain may benefit from some measure of the Bradley Effect, but that advantage will be overwhelmed by African-American turnout, Palin-induced defections by moderates, and under-funded, unenthusiastic GOP get-out-the-vote efforts. This week's update shows Obama with a 375-163 electoral vote edge. The actual result may be a tad closer, but I'd be less surprised if his victory surpassed even that landslide tally. "

Obviously, while I respect McCain - other than his rather snotty campaign and penchant for using simpleton rhetoric - I still believe Obama will stand in the way LESS than McCain from fundamental restructuring of our nation's objectives which are necessary to right the ship - and so I hope Scott is correct.

That said, I'm still on the sidelines about the outcome. I think Obama will win, but I don't put much past the likes of Rove, and his numerous clones on the state level around the nation. I also am loathe to see one party rule all. While the neo-cons seemed all fat and happy with that idea when it was THEIR party in charge, I think the nation runs best when there is a check on excessive anything - including governmental plans to correct all ills.

We'll know in 7 days...


  1. I have similar thoughts regarding what might be called the "" scenario. But I think that's what the Obama folks would rather his supporters feel at present. After all, a little edginess in one's supporters can be a big incentive for them to vote in enormous numbers, whereas overconfidence might breed laziness.

  2. The only thing I have read that suggests the race might be a lot closer than people think is one blogger who looked at polling samples. A lot of the people who vote Republican no matter what will not talk to the pollsters. There were news pieces from Fairfax county VA where houses with McCain signs were spray painted and one there was even a molitov cocktail tossed at one large sign. These are isolated cases but people see them and then do not tell people how they are going to vote or lie about it.

  3. What is it exactly that you don't put past Rove and the various "Rovian Clones" (whoever they are)?

    I mean... really? What poisons do you think are in the mud, and how should you hatch them out?

  4. I don't put past them what precisely occured in Florida. Specifically, the unlawful disenfranchisement of 14,000 legal voters. I don't put past them the denial of the right to vote to people who have every right to vote - the actions attempting to intimidate voters in Minnesota, calling voters to warn them "on behalf of the Secretary of State's office" - done by the 'Minnesota Majority' - you know, THOSE kinds of dirty tricks.

    I also don't put past them the kind of legal shenanigans that went on in 2000, where a divided Supreme Court made a ruling that the laws of Florida had to be liberally interpreted, and THEN turned around and claimed equal protection was violated by not having uniform standards (a condition which exists in every state in the country - and which is generally worse in poor areas), and THEN said their ruling only applied to Bush v. Gore, because they were so confident in their jurisprudence they didn't want their activism being construed as anything like real law.

    If you are unaware of Rove's antics, that's a shame. Perhaps you might want to read up on the push-polling he did in South Carolina, if you want to find out about dirty tactics. His immitators (like Mary Kiffmeyer) are not so few that risks of voter interference are non-existent. They cost Gore Florida in 2000 - imho - why you think that couldn't be repeated is beyond me. I'd also encourage you to consider the words of many conservatives in evaluating Nixon, 'I didn't like Nixon until Watergate' - dirty tricks seem to be the calling card of some in the Republican party.

  5. BTW - Badda,

    I don't think it's up to me to hatch anything out - though your wording clearly indicates you feel this is all just so much conspiracy theory.

    Funny how ACORN was going to ruin the election, which of course didn't occur, but any counter claims of even CONCERN about voter disenfranchisement are simply voodoo theory.

    I think you are looking through skewed lenses.