By far the most indispensable website to track the election is Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog at the New York Times. He crunches poll numbers through statistical analysis to predict which candidate (President mostly but he does also track Senator races) will win each state and gives chances of who will win the election. Because of his dogged research and his ability to use math and science, he predicted the right result in all the states except Indiana in 2008.
As I type this, Barack Obama has a greater than 90% chance of being re-elected. Yes! He has not been the transformative figure all of us who believed in his hope and change would be the past four years. In fact, he has at many times disappointed -- failing to jail those who got us into the Great Recession, a timid ignorance of guns, changing his mind about helping NASA in Florida. But really, what president doesn't disappoint us once he becomes president?
I just remember that President George W. Bush didn't just disappoint, he flat-out sucked. Many political figures who worked with him when he was prez says he's not as dumb as he's portrayed. I still take exception to that. At the very least I still think he was an indifferent, even dumb cipher who didn't think there was a whole lot important to do as the leader of the free world, and so allowed people around him to take advantage of him, his office and his willingness to rubber-stamp anything they wanted, and so they (in my opinion) looted the government and taxpayers of money in order to line their pockets.
As shallow as this may sound, because Mitt Romney is a member of the same crazy, backwards, bigoted party as Bush and these right-wingnut teabaggers, I cannot trust him. Compared to others, I kind of give him a greater chance that he really is a moderate at heart. I want to think that, years after this race and after he leaves the political process (and years after he makes millions as a businessman), I could sit down with him, talk about his views, and come away thinking he ain't crazy.
Right now, I'm not so sure. Because if he isn't as crazy, backwards and bigoted as the other Republicans who might bring him into the Oval Office, he at least is a willing pupped for those who are. I really am voting for Obama. But I have to admit that I need to vote for him in order to vote against Romney and the people who gave him money and will demand he dance to their tunes.
---
Anyway, Obama's chances has skyrocketed since its nadir, which, according to Silver, was on Oct. 11, where Obama only had a 61.1% chance of winning.
Eight days before, Obama had his greatest chance (at least until these last few days), at 84.7%. So what happened between? The first debate, one I decided to sleep through, and one where I guess Obama looked like such a passive wet noodle that Americans actually started to think that a guy who lies confidently would make a better President than one who's a wimp, no matter how right he may be.
I was shocked, shocked that one debate could torpedo a guy's chances. Yes, debates are important, but other things are, too -- viewpoints, things you write about, and things you say behind the public eye and only in front of your donors. Mitt Romney is best a blank and at worst a vessel through which the greediest and most reactionary of us will impose their views on the rest of us and take what little wealth the middle class and the poor have left.
So how in the fuck did it look like Barack Obama was going to lose this thing? Over only one goddamn debate, one fucking debate??? I'm sorry, but the only reason I could think of us racism -- namely, that anyone who look unfamiliar in an unfamiliar position has less room for error. If the incumbent were white and he or she had a similarly shitty debate performance, would his or her chances of winning dive that much? Hate to say it, but I don't think so.
But hopefully I won't have to worry about that now. I have to rely on Silver, and science, and math. And not rely on the Redskins Rule. And rely on the Alabama-LSU Rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment