Tonight I went to the No On Prop. 8 campaign campaign office. To say it was crowded is an understatement. We called volunteers who'd agreed to work all kinds of hours on election day. From 6:30 am to 8:30pm on Nov. 4th we'll be working the polls, informing voters and dispelling the myths perpetrated by the hate-filled Yes On 8 campaign.
We had so many volunteers that we contacted all the volunteers in our list in the course of 20 minutes. With 2 hours to go iin our volunteer shifts we gathered up all the signs in the office. We didn't have quite enough, so we made our own too. We marched out into the streets, and staked out a 4-way intersection. We screamed and hollered, and I learned enough No On 8 slogans to last a lifetime. My theater years paid off: I lead many chants and was always the loudest voice at the rally. It was truly empowering. Here's a small sampling of the slogans:
"Vote no!/ Vote no!/ Vote no, Prop. 8 has got to go!"
"No on 8!/ no on hate!/ we do not discriminate!"
CALL: "What do we want?!"
RESPONSE: "Equal rights!"
CALL: "How do we get it?!"
RESPONSE: "No on 8!"
I had an amazing personal experience too. I was reminded about why I wanted to do politics. We were out tonight fighting for our civil rights. We have the power to shape a generation. We shouted at every car that passed, and asked every pedestrian to vote no. With a few exceptions, almost everybody said they would and smiled at us. One man though said nothing. He just smiled and showed us his ring. For me this will be the image that sticks with me as I go to the polls to fight for equality. I know what I'm fighting for. And I know what we stand to lose.
The time to take a stand is now! Visit www.noonprop8.com for more info on fighting for equal rights for all. And most of all, VOTE!!!
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Friday, October 31, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Buckeye Bellwether?
With the polarization of the electorate, one of the most significant ramifications has been a shift in presidential campaigns to focusing on a few select swing states. The days when Reagan and FDR had landslide electoral college victories appear to be behind us. Even Obama, who's doing very well in the swing states (www.pollster.com) and is currently projected to pick up at least 320 electoral votes in November, has no real shot at winning "red" states like Arkansas, Tennessee or Louisiana.(all of which were won by Bill Clinton in 1992). As such, states such as Ohio are getting a disproportionate of campaign attention.
With states like Missouri, Pennsylvania, Florida and of course Ohio liable to be won by either party in a given election, we've seen the advent of bellwether states. The basic idea behind a bellwether state is that the candidate that wins that state will go on to win the election. From a more scientific viewpoint, bellwether states are indicative of which way the other swing states are likely to vote. Ohio is viewed as one of the top bellwether states: it has only voted for a non-winning candidate twice since 1896 (once in 1944, and 1960). Since 1964, Ohio has always voted for the winning candidate. Following this logic, many pundits and strategists assume that if a candidate can win a bellwether state, they'll win the election. As such, most candidates have focused an inordinate amount of energy in the "bellwethers".
There are two glaring problems with this "bellwether" strategy though. 1st, the list of "true" bellwether states shrinks each election. One good example is that Kentucky and Tennessee are classic swing states, and yet are likely to vote against Obama in what looks to be a landslide electoral victory. Ultimately this bellwether obsession turns into media and campaign super-hype. With Kentucky not considered a swing state this year, the campaigns are both pouring absurd amounts of resources into Ohio and ignoring the neighboring state. With fewer and fewer states that "matter", the electoral process is diluted for the vast majority of opinions. If you don't live in a swing state your vote won't make a huge difference in the Presidential Vote. Kentucky citizens drive to Ohio to caucus, even when scores of undecided voters are present at home.
The second major fallacy of the bellwether states is that their designation is really reverse engineering. The view is that somehow these states' results will predict the election. In reality, it is not that these states are somehow special- it is a quirk of our antiquated electoral college that causes an undue focus on large states with divided demographics. In the case of Ohio too, 8 native sons have been elected to the presidency. This no doubt affected the vote in Ohio. Ohio's power as one of the most powerful swing states often allows it to make a huge difference in who is ultimately chosen as president, not vice versa. In short, the view of cause-and-effect is inherently flawed. Sure only 2 presidents have won without Ohio, but its hard without 20 swing votes.
With states like Missouri, Pennsylvania, Florida and of course Ohio liable to be won by either party in a given election, we've seen the advent of bellwether states. The basic idea behind a bellwether state is that the candidate that wins that state will go on to win the election. From a more scientific viewpoint, bellwether states are indicative of which way the other swing states are likely to vote. Ohio is viewed as one of the top bellwether states: it has only voted for a non-winning candidate twice since 1896 (once in 1944, and 1960). Since 1964, Ohio has always voted for the winning candidate. Following this logic, many pundits and strategists assume that if a candidate can win a bellwether state, they'll win the election. As such, most candidates have focused an inordinate amount of energy in the "bellwethers".
There are two glaring problems with this "bellwether" strategy though. 1st, the list of "true" bellwether states shrinks each election. One good example is that Kentucky and Tennessee are classic swing states, and yet are likely to vote against Obama in what looks to be a landslide electoral victory. Ultimately this bellwether obsession turns into media and campaign super-hype. With Kentucky not considered a swing state this year, the campaigns are both pouring absurd amounts of resources into Ohio and ignoring the neighboring state. With fewer and fewer states that "matter", the electoral process is diluted for the vast majority of opinions. If you don't live in a swing state your vote won't make a huge difference in the Presidential Vote. Kentucky citizens drive to Ohio to caucus, even when scores of undecided voters are present at home.
The second major fallacy of the bellwether states is that their designation is really reverse engineering. The view is that somehow these states' results will predict the election. In reality, it is not that these states are somehow special- it is a quirk of our antiquated electoral college that causes an undue focus on large states with divided demographics. In the case of Ohio too, 8 native sons have been elected to the presidency. This no doubt affected the vote in Ohio. Ohio's power as one of the most powerful swing states often allows it to make a huge difference in who is ultimately chosen as president, not vice versa. In short, the view of cause-and-effect is inherently flawed. Sure only 2 presidents have won without Ohio, but its hard without 20 swing votes.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Sarah Palin: Leader of the Free World
Even typing that post title makes me shudder. It's a horrifying thought, isn't it? And part of the horror is the unique plausibility of it all. Despite the trends going against him right now, McCain could still feasibly win the election. Statistically, McCain has a 1 in 4 chance of dying in office. Sure he has "good genes", but those are not great odds. If you include the chances of serious disability that would inhibit ability to function as president, the odds get closer to 1-in-3 for McCain.
What does all this mean? Well, all things considered, the odds aren't all that bad for McCain. A 25% chance of death isn't too bad. But what it does mean is that Sarah Palin is under increased scrutiny as a candidate for the Vice Presidency. McCain is the oldest major party candidate in history, and the voters know it. If McCain were to die in office, the woefully unprepared Sarah Palin would take his place. Voters know this, and as such Palin is campaigning really for a position in limbo between the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. This makes her shortcomings even more apparent. If Palin screws up the Thursday debate royally, it could seriously endanger the ticket.
For a political junkie this universal lack of confidence in the readiness of Sarah Palin opens the door for crazy possibilities. What about a 269-269 electoral vote (e.g. Obama gets Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado minus New Hampshire)?
<p><strong>><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/">Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>
In this case, the election gets tossed to congress. Some say that an election tie would favor Obama. I would tend to agree largely because the 12th amendment gives each state delegation one vote (i.e. one for Wyoming, one for California), and the in the incoming House Democrats will in all likelihood have a majority in a plurality of the delegations. Imagine though that McCain won the popular vote by a large margin (i.e. had strong 2nd place showings in the pacific and northeast and great GOTV in safe red states). In this case, House delegations from strong McCain states w/ a majority Democrat delegation (i.e. Arkansas, Tennessee, South Dakota, North Dakota, West Virginia, etc.) might be "forced" by public opinion to support McCain.
If the House does pick McCain in such a scenario, who's to say the majority Democrat senate has to pick Palin? Considering her plummeting favorability ratings, terrible interviews and glaring unreadiness, the Senate could easily select the obviously ready, willing and able Joe Biden. Imagine living in a pre-12th amendment world where the President and Vice President are voted for independently on the November ballot. Now imagine a McCain-Biden administration. Now imagine the also theoretically possible reverse: an Obama-Palin administration. No, stop laughing. Think about it. It's the longest of long shots, but hell if it isn't a fascinating possibility.
To see what kind of monkey wrench Biden or Palin could possibly throw into their own campaigns, tune in on Thursday to the Vice Presidential debates. Trust me, it's going to be fun. That much I guarantee.
What does all this mean? Well, all things considered, the odds aren't all that bad for McCain. A 25% chance of death isn't too bad. But what it does mean is that Sarah Palin is under increased scrutiny as a candidate for the Vice Presidency. McCain is the oldest major party candidate in history, and the voters know it. If McCain were to die in office, the woefully unprepared Sarah Palin would take his place. Voters know this, and as such Palin is campaigning really for a position in limbo between the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. This makes her shortcomings even more apparent. If Palin screws up the Thursday debate royally, it could seriously endanger the ticket.
For a political junkie this universal lack of confidence in the readiness of Sarah Palin opens the door for crazy possibilities. What about a 269-269 electoral vote (e.g. Obama gets Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado minus New Hampshire)?
In this case, the election gets tossed to congress. Some say that an election tie would favor Obama. I would tend to agree largely because the 12th amendment gives each state delegation one vote (i.e. one for Wyoming, one for California), and the in the incoming House Democrats will in all likelihood have a majority in a plurality of the delegations. Imagine though that McCain won the popular vote by a large margin (i.e. had strong 2nd place showings in the pacific and northeast and great GOTV in safe red states). In this case, House delegations from strong McCain states w/ a majority Democrat delegation (i.e. Arkansas, Tennessee, South Dakota, North Dakota, West Virginia, etc.) might be "forced" by public opinion to support McCain.
If the House does pick McCain in such a scenario, who's to say the majority Democrat senate has to pick Palin? Considering her plummeting favorability ratings, terrible interviews and glaring unreadiness, the Senate could easily select the obviously ready, willing and able Joe Biden. Imagine living in a pre-12th amendment world where the President and Vice President are voted for independently on the November ballot. Now imagine a McCain-Biden administration. Now imagine the also theoretically possible reverse: an Obama-Palin administration. No, stop laughing. Think about it. It's the longest of long shots, but hell if it isn't a fascinating possibility.
To see what kind of monkey wrench Biden or Palin could possibly throw into their own campaigns, tune in on Thursday to the Vice Presidential debates. Trust me, it's going to be fun. That much I guarantee.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Biden quitting? BS alert!
According to "Daily Mail", internet buzz now counts as "news":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1061791/Could-Clinton-come-Internet-buzzes-rumours-Biden-replaced-Hillary-Obamas-running-mate.html
I cannot believe that a month and half before the election that the media could still report on an Obama-Clinton ticket. How desperate are they?! I know that the primaries were more exciting than the general, but drop it! Clinton will NOT be the veep! Get over yourselves. This is really a low point for the media. These Obama-Clinton beating-a-dead-horse stories didn't deserve the sunlight a month ago. They certainly don't now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1061791/Could-Clinton-come-Internet-buzzes-rumours-Biden-replaced-Hillary-Obamas-running-mate.html
I cannot believe that a month and half before the election that the media could still report on an Obama-Clinton ticket. How desperate are they?! I know that the primaries were more exciting than the general, but drop it! Clinton will NOT be the veep! Get over yourselves. This is really a low point for the media. These Obama-Clinton beating-a-dead-horse stories didn't deserve the sunlight a month ago. They certainly don't now.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ohio Students- Register Absentee with ease!
In Ohio, where John Kerry lost by only about 100,000 votes in 2004, every single ballot will make a huge difference come November. Among college students, I've seen a large and somewhat confused number either re-registering in California or lapsing into political apathy. What do these statements have to do with one another? Well, the non-partisan website, http://www.longdistancevoter.org/ , offers an easy way to register absentee from out-of-state. It takes only a few minutes, is exceedingly clear, and most of all is convenient as they come. Give it a shot swing-state residents, and wield the disproportionate clout your home residency grants! Live a little!
For specifically Ohio Students living out-of-state: http://www.longdistancevoter.org/ohio
For any student living out-of-state: http://www.longdistancevoter.org/
Registration for Ohio residents must be postmarked by Oct. 6, one month before the election. Not too much of a rush, but don't forget about it either.
And to round things off with inspirational quote: "if you don't vote the outcome is your fault". Feel verrrrry guilty. Or don't. The point is: vote. There's no excuse.
For specifically Ohio Students living out-of-state: http://www.longdistancevoter.org/ohio
For any student living out-of-state: http://www.longdistancevoter.org/
Registration for Ohio residents must be postmarked by Oct. 6, one month before the election. Not too much of a rush, but don't forget about it either.
And to round things off with inspirational quote: "if you don't vote the outcome is your fault". Feel verrrrry guilty. Or don't. The point is: vote. There's no excuse.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Reality check?
Another amusing high point of the McCain spin machine. Enjoy:
Courtesy of "Balloon Juice", http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=11305
Courtesy of "Balloon Juice", http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=11305
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Electoral College and Us
Having my fate disproportionately in the hands of my relatives just because they live in a "Battleground State" is nothing short of infuriating. But such is the Electoral College. An outdated artifact of the 18th century, the Electoral College has not ever seen the light of day in other democracies. The entire system is based off of an inherent distrust of the voting electorate, and originally allowed an aristocratic check on the will of the people (the land-owning white males that is). Sadly though, it is a system so entrenched that despite repeated attempts, it has failed to get the boot. There is no shortage of viable alternatives, be the instant-runoff voting or direct elections. Sadly, short of a dramatically ridiculous election result, the system is unlikely to see serious reform.
The system has a few saving graces fortunately. It does force candidates to visit voters in small states. Also, for the most part, the Electoral College has merely exaggerated the popular vote. There are four major exceptions however:
-In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral votes, but did not secure a majority against his three rivals. Congress convened and named John Quincy Adams, who got about 45,000 fewer votes, the next president.
- In 1876, southern Democrat Samuel J. Tilden lost the Electoral College to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes after some extremely shady political maneuvers by the Republican Party. Tilden had roughly 300,000 more votes that Hayes.
- In 1880, Republican Benjamin Harrison quashed Democrat Grover Cleveland 233 electoral votes to 168 in the presidential election. Cleveland received over 100,000 more votes that Harrison.
- In 2000, Al Gore lost the Electoral College by 5 points to George W. Bush. Gore had over 500,000 votes more nationwide. According to the Bush administration, this was a "mandate" to lead. Retroactive recounts in Florida asserted that Gore should have taken the state and the presidency.
Despite these 4 major hiccoughs, the Electoral College lives on. Also consider that if Kerry had squeaked ahead in Ohio in 2004, he’d have won the presidency with more than a million votes less than Bush. You'd think that given Bush's current rock-bottom ratings and the 2000 election that put him into office, Americans would be clamoring for an end to the system. Sadly, we have short attention spans.
Working within the Electoral College forces candidates to spend a disproportionate amount of time in "Battleground States", states who could feasibly give their electoral votes to either candidate. As such, areas with large populations do not necessarily get much attention. California, Texas and New York have been all but ignored in the last several election cycles. In 2008, states like Montana, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire and the Dakotas will probably get far more campaign coverage than California, Texas and New York combined. As such, many in the so-called non-swing states have very little incentive to come out and vote on Election Day. Of first world democracies, we have one of the worst vote turnouts.
If your state is sure to go one way or another, does your vote matter? Sadly, the answer is most often no, and my vote means nothing compared to those of my relatives in Columbus, OH. This is not to say I should withdraw and become cynical. Instead, this is a call to action, to not only vote, but to fight for election reform by whatever means necessary. As an American, my voice should be heard just as loud as my cousin's in Columbus, or my retired step-uncle in Florida. Now is the time for change!
The system has a few saving graces fortunately. It does force candidates to visit voters in small states. Also, for the most part, the Electoral College has merely exaggerated the popular vote. There are four major exceptions however:
-In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral votes, but did not secure a majority against his three rivals. Congress convened and named John Quincy Adams, who got about 45,000 fewer votes, the next president.
- In 1876, southern Democrat Samuel J. Tilden lost the Electoral College to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes after some extremely shady political maneuvers by the Republican Party. Tilden had roughly 300,000 more votes that Hayes.
- In 1880, Republican Benjamin Harrison quashed Democrat Grover Cleveland 233 electoral votes to 168 in the presidential election. Cleveland received over 100,000 more votes that Harrison.
- In 2000, Al Gore lost the Electoral College by 5 points to George W. Bush. Gore had over 500,000 votes more nationwide. According to the Bush administration, this was a "mandate" to lead. Retroactive recounts in Florida asserted that Gore should have taken the state and the presidency.
Despite these 4 major hiccoughs, the Electoral College lives on. Also consider that if Kerry had squeaked ahead in Ohio in 2004, he’d have won the presidency with more than a million votes less than Bush. You'd think that given Bush's current rock-bottom ratings and the 2000 election that put him into office, Americans would be clamoring for an end to the system. Sadly, we have short attention spans.
Working within the Electoral College forces candidates to spend a disproportionate amount of time in "Battleground States", states who could feasibly give their electoral votes to either candidate. As such, areas with large populations do not necessarily get much attention. California, Texas and New York have been all but ignored in the last several election cycles. In 2008, states like Montana, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire and the Dakotas will probably get far more campaign coverage than California, Texas and New York combined. As such, many in the so-called non-swing states have very little incentive to come out and vote on Election Day. Of first world democracies, we have one of the worst vote turnouts.
If your state is sure to go one way or another, does your vote matter? Sadly, the answer is most often no, and my vote means nothing compared to those of my relatives in Columbus, OH. This is not to say I should withdraw and become cynical. Instead, this is a call to action, to not only vote, but to fight for election reform by whatever means necessary. As an American, my voice should be heard just as loud as my cousin's in Columbus, or my retired step-uncle in Florida. Now is the time for change!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
