Liberty and Justice for All!

About a month ago I asked why they can’t produce a “meaningful poll”. To me, national polls do not tell the picture since we elect our president based on the electoral college. An example is a poll done by SurveyUSA showing Hillary having a better nationwide result than Obama over McCain.

Well, thanks to oyster, we now have meaningful polls taken in the presidential race. These polls are done on a state by state basis and, while not perfect, show a snapshot of how the country is leaning.

According to the newest SurveyUSA poll, Barack Obama beats John McCain with an electoral vote count of 280-258. Hillary Clinton beats John McCain with an electoral vote count of 276-262. What is even more impressive is that they take into account the way that some states split electoral college votes.

Hillary does what she needs to do in this poll and wins all three “swing states” (OH/PA/FL)  and also wins AK/WV but loses WA/OR/MI. Obama loses PA, FL, and NJ! However, Obama wins by swinging VA/NV/CO/ND/IA into the blue corner. Both candidats pick up NM.

The polls do not reflect the possible theory that Obama would be able to pick up southern states because of a Republican disinterst in McCain and a large minority turnout. Obama loses the deep south and barely wins VA. Of course, Hillary also loses most of the south as well.

But the bottom line is that at the moment, dispite the nationwide poll showing Hillary as having the advantage, Obama is actually polling better in the electoral college and I feel much better about the possibility of an Obama nomination.

Ah yes, it has been reported that good old Ralph Naderis doing his best to hand our nation over to the Republican “Corporatists” that he claims to despise, yet again.

 As reported by Oyster and seen on Meet the Press, Nader says that if Democrats cannot win this in a landslide, it is their own fault and not his. Ralph could not be more wrong, and his ego is blinding him to the truth… or is it?

Seems to me that his taking votes away from Democrats and helping Republicans win helps him to keep his “complain about the Corporatist” title, which only serves to feed his undying ego. If the Corporatists go away, so does the “need” for anti-corporatists like Nader. By keeping them in power, Nader gets to stay in the spotlight, regardless of the harm it does the rest of the country.

Barack Obama made some good statements about Nader. Basically pointing out that Nader is the kind of person (that I have complained about) who cuts of his nose to spite his face because the leading Liberal candidate is not “perfect” in his eyes.

“Mr. Nader is somebody who if [you] don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, [he] thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work,” Obama said. “Historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers, so in many ways, he is a heroic figure and I don’t mean to diminish him, but I do think there’s a sense now that, you know, if somebody’s not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda then you must be lacking in some way.”  

I have been complaining about voters like that for a long time. And to all those “my candidate has to be the perfect liberal” voters on the far left who live in swing states that vote for Nader again and cause our nation to fall into the hands of John “100 years” McCain, we will be blaming you. Your cutting off your collective noses to spite your faces will harm us all. And the excuse that the Democrats have no reason to lose this race is absurd. I will be voting for the Democratic candidate, as will many others like me. So it is not us that are throwing the shoes in the works, it is you. It will be your fault. So just think about the risk of a McCain presidency before you go pulling a lever for Ralph Nader.

I will repeat: Any liberal who votes for Nader in this election, especially in swing states, will be to blame if their quixotic quest for the perfect liberal candidate leads our country to “for more years” of the same old same old in the oval office.

One more time, just so it sinks in to anyone even considering voting for Nader in this election. Any liberal who votes for Nader in this election, especially in swing states, will be to blame if their quixotic quest for the perfect liberal candidate leads our country to “for more years” of the same old same old in the oval office.

Get it?

A) A majority of the active Republican party are not religious right winged evangelicals.

B) Enough of the active Republican part are religious right winged nutjobs that McCain will still need their vote to win.

Just sayin

Rush “pill poppin” Limbaugh stated that McCain should pick Bobby Jindal as his choice for VP.

Jindal’s response?

In a written statement to KSLA News 12, Governor Bobby Jindal’s press secretary Melissa Sellers says, “The Governor is very flattered, but obviously he has a lot of work to do here in Louisiana and that is his only focus. Our state has a great chance to make big changes and that is all he is thinking about.”

I wonder if McCain actually asks him to do it if he will respond with “I’ll pray on it“.

Update: In response to a question by Wolf Blitzer on whether Jindal would accept the nomination if offered by McCain, Jindal said “He’s not going to ask me“. Nice way to fake humility while leaving the possibility for him to say yes wide open.

A recent poll claims that in a head to head matchup that Barack Obama has a better shot at beating John McCain than Hillary Clinton. The poll is a nationwide poll of likely voters. Barack beats McCain 48-41 while Hillary and McCain are tied at 46. I would guess that one reason for this is that while conservatives are undecided on if they could actually come out and support McCain against Obama, they are probably sure that they would vote for anybody against Hillary. This is one of the things that makes me lean towards Obama (though I still have yet to make up my mind).

The problem with the poll is this. It does not actually give meaningful results about what the actual election results would be! We do not choose our President based on who gets the most votes nationwide. The President is chosen via the electoral college. So telling me who gets the popular vote doesn’t give me a meaningful answer with such a close race. Why can’t the polling “experts” take a poll in each state (and in each congressional district in states that award electoral votes for winning congressional districts) and then determine who would get the electoral votes based on those poll numbers.

During the MSNBC coverage of Super Tuesday last night, they discussed the idea that John McCain was winning in states that Republicans don’t tend to win in the General Election. For example, McCain won New York and California but Huckabee won many southern states. This is a very interesting point to make. How well is the Republican Party served if the candidate the person they elect doesn’t win the key southern states? If he cannot rile up the Republican base in strong Republican states, will he really do well in the swing states where they need the Republican base to come out and win?

What surprised me was that they did not discuss the same issue on the Democratic ticket. Obama was unable to win New York, Massachusetts or California. Hillary also won Florida (even though they currently don’t count). However, he did win Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, Utah, South Carolina, Colorodo, Idaho, Alaska, Kansas, North Dakota, etc. I have a feeling that he will win Louisiana as well. These are all states that went for Bush in 2004.

Now, I am not suggesting that Obama would lose California or New York if he was the nominee. However, I do worry about his ability to draw enough Democrats out in swing states (especially those like Ohio, Florida, and Pensylvania) to make the difference in the general election.

We cannot rely on the hatred of Bush to win. We hated Bush in 2004 as well, and that didn’t help us win when he was actually the candidate. Obama’s ability to bring out new voters is impressive and perhaps that would help him overcome his inability to win the Democratic stronghold states in the primary. I just worry about the possibility that a Democrat gets the nomination by winning many states in the primary that wont be won by a Democrat in the general election.

I guess this is one of the reasons why I am reluctant to come out and just choose a candidate to support this saturday (other than myself). I am more concerned with supporting the Democrat who wins and working to change the Democratic Party in Louisiana and start helping the progressives to make actual progress.