Insight the numbers

If you haven't read the last entry, you probably need to go back and read it, as I am going to explore the numbers in the George Will column and throw out there what I agree and disagree with.

48.3 - The first number that came up in the column, it was the popular vote percentage that John Kerry received in 2004. Will seems to think this shows strength for the Democrats in 2008. I disagree, it shows that even with an unpopular President, John Kerry could unseat him. Consider less than one month before the 2004 election, Pew Reseach had Bush's disapproval rating at 48% (44% favorable), Fox had him just slightly ahead on favorables (47%-46%) a week before the election, Newsweek at the same time had the numbers reversed (46% approval, 47% disapproval), but none of the numbers leading up to an election show overwhelming support for a war time President.

Plus there is the added factor that popular vote is not the way we elect Presidents to begin with and the idea that we should use this as some sort of Rosetta stone to show strength in the Democrats chances in 2008 is problematic at best. Since most states allot their electors as winner take all, who cares if you lose a state by a single vote, you will lose all of that states votes in the Electoral college. California is a prime example, even if you lose the state by one vote, all 55 members of the Electoral College go to the state's winner, and none to the guy who kinda came a little bit close.

251 - John Kerry's vote total in the Electoral College. What this means is Barack Obama has to get votes somewhere, he has to carry a state or two that the Democrats lost in 2004. A simple Kerry strategy is a losing strategy. While it can be argued that Obama has more appeal to an independent voter than John McCain does, Obama's weaknesses demographically are the same ones that John Kerry had in 2004.

41, 21 Obama lost West Virginia by 41 points to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary there, the question is how many of those voters are loyal Deomcrats that will support the party nominee, versus how many will either stay home on election day or cross party lines and vote John McCain. While it would be easy to pretend that racism doesn't exist, the simple fact of the matter is some people will not vote for a black man. Ed Rendell, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania (the 21 of our equation) when speaking to the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, guessed that in his last race for governor, he picked up 5 points simply because his opponent was black. Consider that Republican turnout was subdued in that race (only 38 percent of the voters were registered Republican) and of the registered Republicans in that race, 21% crossed party lines and voted Ed Rendell, who will never be mistaken for a Republican as he was the former head of the Democratic National Committee, and the 5 points Governor Rendell said he got because of skin color may be a lowballed number.

While I make that point, I understand that some people don't like Barack Obama for any of a number of reasons that have nothing to do with race, but for some, skin color will be the primary issue.

7.2%, - 1.2% I will grant that McCain has a chance in Michigan, albeit a slight one. Putting Romney on the ticket will mean little, people by and large don't vote based on VP, just ask Kerry how picking Edwards helped in North and South Carolina in 2004 (Kerry lost both). VPs and First Ladies have one thing in common, they can't win you votes, but they certainly can lose them for you.

55 - Will and I agree here, Obama's fundraising has been vastly superior and McCain chasing votes in California, a state that consistently votes Democrat would be a waste of resources. When playing from behind in money, you have to run a smarter campaign, chasing votes in a state you have no chance of winning isn't that smart, let alone the cost of even campaigning in California. McCain would be better served to spend that cash in say, Colorado, than where it will surely be wasted.

15 - The idea that Barack Obama can compete for North Carolina's delegates based on his assumed cash advantage. True he can, but he had problems with having a cash advantage against Hillary. Despite spending upwards of 14 million dollars in Ohio and Texas, Obama lost both primaries. He outspent Clinton in Pennsylvania and lost by 10 points in the primary. One of his campaigns problems was a tendency to use money to make up shortfalls rather than connecting with voters, it will not be enough simply to throw money at North Carolina and assume he will be competitive, he will have to actually campaign there.

56 - Nothing to add to this, or for the matter......

4 - as these are just simple computations with no real need to be argued.

2016 - Assuming Barack Obama wins, this would assume he would be a two term President, which is not a given. A bad first term would open him up to a challenge from either someone in his own party or a Republican in 2012. Lest we forget, one party rule has a recent history of not being all that effective and Barack Obama most likely enter with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Reagan was effective in part because he had a Democratically controlled legislative branch to contend with, and Bill Clinton's effectiveness was vastly changed from his first two years to his last six when Republicans took over the legislative affairs of state. Likewise one party rule, whether in be Bill Clinton's first two years, or George Bush's first 6 years have shown that one party rule isn't necessarily a panacea for all that ails us.

Okay, enough of my analysis for one evening, I have food waiting to be digested. Glad I could bore you all to tears.