Extremely Late and Mean-Spirited Entry

Back in September 2007 I found an interesting map of ancestry survey results, showing that a large swath of braindead Appalachians considered their ethnic background to be "American." Since it's 7% of people overall, but actually the most common response in those areas, it seems likely that most of those 7% are localized to that part of the country.

As you can see, it's very pronounced-- prompting me to disdainfully write:

This is a convenient map of stupidity, provided by the U.S. Census. The "Americans" live in the off-white counties, which trace a predictable outline. Predictable if you are a contemptuous New England elitist. Apparently knowing what the word "ancestry" means is enough to make you an elitist.

Evidently, calling a large fraction of the U.S. stupid wasn't such an overstatement. The NYTimes made this handy map of the way the voting changed from 4 years ago, county-by-county and it shows basically what you would expect: since President-Elect Obama (I've been saying that way more than necessary) won by a solid margin, you'd expect to see a large gains by him everywhere on the map, as indeed there are...everywhere except among people who don't understand the meaning of the word 'ancestry'. These are the places where either (a) the last 4 years have somehow improved their opinion of the Republican party, (b) people were blown away by John McCain's ideas and campaigning abilities, (c) people noticed there was something a little...how shall I put this-- "black" about this Barack Obama character. Whichever it is, I don't feel too bad calling them morons.


Hmm, Maybe it isn't that dramatic...

Oh wait. Yes it is.

Conclusion: In this election -- Contemptuous New England Elitists 1, People Lacking Basic Vocabulary 0.

Well Done America

Drink up!

Barackyogenesis

Slate has a series of Obamisms that is about as good a lexiconographical study of our next president's neologisms as you will find anywhere on the internet. The widget here is quite a thing to behold. And this may be the best one yet -- combining cosmology, linguistic humor, and Change We Can Believe In™:

Barackyogenesis (buh-RAK-ee-oh-JEN-uh-sis) n. An attempt to explain why there were more Barackyons than anti-Barackyons in the Democratic Party, a condition necessary for the formation of heavier election matters.

Example: There must be some initial perturbation to explain the Barackyogenesis problem. Many political scientists have suggested that an imbalanced density of subatomic particles known as "charm quarks" in the candidates led to the dominance of Barackyons over anti-Barackyons.

Terrible Job, RI

I thought Clinton would win here, but 58-40? Awful, just awful. At least my East Bay was the closest. I blame Warwick...not to mention the voters who live in Swan Point for this one.

I'm also going to blame the media for coming up with the idea that a net loss of 5 delegates in Texas equals a win for Clinton. Or the idea that gaining ~6 delegates when trailing by roughly 160 is some kind of dramatic, race-altering victory. This was probably the worst possible outcome for Democrats, the primary is simply going grind on forever with Hillary getting more and more desperate and vengeful. As many have pointed out there is absolutely no chance that Obama will be overtaken in delegates, meaning that if Sen. Clinton wants to contest the nomination she'll have to go against the will of actual voters with some type of tortured logic about how even if she got less votes she won all the votes that "mattered" in retard states like Ohio. (In her speech Tuesday night she said that Ohio knows how to "pick a president." Definitely. Thanks for re-electing Bush, morons!) In any case, the only way she can become the nominee is by overriding the will of actual voters, a concept that does not seem to bother anyone in her campaign. Instead of admitting that the only way to win is a party-rending reversal of popular intension, it seems that she'll soldier on, using Republican-style arguments against her opponent, trying to get the delegates from Florida and Michigan (where she coasted through on name-recognition, and being the only candidate on the ballot, respectively) added to her total, and generally dividing the 'crats.

After Super Tuesday when it seemed likely that the primary would stretch on forever I contemplated the idea that Puerto Rico would end up being relevant. I was sort of kidding to myself, but now I am actually annoyed. Territories that are barely part of the US should not get to have twice as much clout as certain states that, though small, belonged the original 13 colonies. Speak American, Puerto Rico! Or else get back in line with the other soon-to-be-but-not-yet-states like Quebec and Lithuania.

Alright, enough of this politics stuff. I'll get back to being irreverent shortly. It's just that this is the first time I've bothered to vote and I think I've learned an important lesson: one vote never makes a difference.

Battle of Rhode Island

Despite our near total lack of delegates, Presidential-types have been campaigning in our little state. Last week, it was here that Clinton gave her sarcastic "the skies will open" remarks. Saturday Obama came here to mock her mocking him. McCain and Huckabee even came to visit both of the Republicans who live here. There have been radio and TV ads on non-stop. It is quite a thing to see anyone campaigning for president here. I certainly can't remember the last time anyone actually cared how we voted. So starved for attention are we that when Kennedy gave a speech downtown in 1960, we named the plaza after him.

Judging by that, I wouldn't be so surprised if we renamed Rhode Island College "Obama Island College." I went to see him there last weekend and I must say, it lived up to the hype surrounding his rallies in every way. There were so many people that it took at least 2 hours to get inside. The line coiled through 2 parking lots when we arrived and was soon snaking down a hill and out of sight. It is estimated 10,000 people showed up, but only half were able to get in. Because of the high-number of umbrella-related assaults every year, people were forced to abandon them outside the doors. When we finally did, it was packed shoulder to shoulder and despite the fact that everyone there had been on their feet for about 3 hours already, the crowd was so enraptured that they would have strangled every Clinton voter in the state, with their bare hands, if asked. At least I would have. It is predicted that Sen. Clinton will carry RI tomorrow, and if I had to, I would probably bet on it, but after seeing the excitement surrounding Barack's only visit I would be surprised if it isn't close. With such a small electorate, the movement of a few thousand voters translates into a fairly large percentage.

The RI Attorney General gave a good speech in which he referred to Barack as "President Obama" at least twice, probably not by accident, and implored the crowd to "suck it up and get it done" like a tough-but-fair JV hockey coach. Then, in what was probably the most comical moment of the day, Rep. Patrick "Patches" Kennedy came out and delivered 5 minutes of screechy, overheated oratory by way of introduction. It was funny because of how incongruous it was -- instead of working his way up to a frenzied pitch, he just strode out, turned his volume all the way up, and hit us like a wall. He sounded a lot like an exasperated Gene Wilder, come to think of it. Since he and Obama addressed the people stranded outside beforehand, he may have already been worked up, but it still just sounded as though he had spent the morning shouting at the top of his lungs for practice. Ironically, he was talking about the importance of inspirational verbal skills in the political process.

Rhetoric-wise it was pretty much the standard stump speech of the past few months, for those familiar with it. Probably my favorite moment was his shout-out to our former-Republican, former-Senator, permanent-bad-ass Lincoln Chafee (who was about 20 people in front of me in the line to get in).

Real change isn't voting for George Bush's war in Iraq and then telling the American people it was actually a vote for more diplomacy when you start running for president. The title of the bill was `A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.' I knew what it was, Lincoln Chafee knew what it was! [Crowd erupts] It was a vote for war. Linc Chafee knew the score!

The only thing missing was some actual references to Rhode Island. In fact, he mentioned Texas twice, presumably due to exhaustion (which it is hard to blame him for). I was disappointed though that in his 10 minute soliloquy about "hope" he didn't make the connection to our state's motto. The crowd, at least the native RI-fraction of it, was waiting for this, and it just never happened. It was actually possible to hear individual people shouting "Hope is our state motto!" and "Look at the flag!" during quiet moments, so frustrated were they by the absence of this obvious observation.

Still though, it was a barnburner. If he is elected, people will surely remember events like these for many years.



Projo, RIFuture, ProvidenceDailyDose

This Primary is Killing Me

So I have been paying a bit too much attention to the presidential primary lately. I ought to know that I get nothing in return for this attentiveness other than anxiety and the ability to make shallow and occasionally witty observations about politics to my friends. And yet, I can't help myself. I like reading about history, and trying to understand human events.

So hopefully, by dumping out the contents of my brain in this blog entry I can get it out of my system and get back to worrying about things I have some control over.

First of all, I like Obama. This would not be a problem for most people, but I like being contrary, and instead everything about me is right in middle of his demographic. I'm 23, male, well-educated, from a liberal state. I am in academia and going into science. I use facebook. I am not religious. I have a gmail account. This is his wheelhouse.

And pretty much everyone I know is supporting Barack. It makes me feel silly to be part of this mob, but it just can't be helped. I wish I wasn't so predictable, but I actually like Obama, and can't begin to imagine how cool it would be to actually like the president, rather than to simply prefer them to the alternative. There is though, a certain "empty vessel" quality to him that causes supporters to believe that he reflects their own attitudes more closely than he probably does. Fortunately for me, I'm not obsessed with the minutae of anyone's views. Presidents do not get to determine the exact details of any policy, those are decided in Congress. I just want the president to be a smart Democrat who doesn't annoy or anger me, so that I can ignore the news more easily. It is the broad outlines that are important. I think he would help build a solid majority in the House and Senate, inspire the public to embrace more progressive views and take advantage of the fact that the country is listing leftward right now. Unlike most Democrats in recent memory he actually appears to have a spine, and doesn't simply water-down rhetoric to appeal to the mushy middle that doesn't actually prefer to vote for candidates who seem to be apologizing for their views. Electing someone like that would really help me get back to ignoring the news.

There is a thing George W. Bush did when he was running in 2000 and 2004 where he would drop cloaked biblical references into his speeches to signal religious votes that he was one of them. Obama seems to be doing the same thing. The best example I can think of off the top of my head: every speech I have heard him give uses the word "science" or "scientists" at least once, whereas this is not something other candidates make a point of doing. This seems like code for bevy of issues that are important to the left like global warming, evolution, stem cells, and religion in politics. Well, not to mention the fact that he has actually expressed opinions about these things too...

Here are some thoughts in no particular order about the candidates:

The night we bombed Iraq I tossed and turned for hours before puking and falling to sleep in a cold sweat. And not because I am some hyper-sensitive humanitarian, I just knew it was going to set off a cascading, long-term disaster in about 50 different ways. Anyone who knew less than I did, as a (then) 18 year old college freshman, about Iraq in 2003 should not be president. They probably shouldn't be anything.

I have heard a lot of people say "We all know that both candidates have an equal chance of winning the general election..." Back up there, hypothetical person, "we" don't know anything. This statement is untrue for several reasons. Firstly, Clinton sets up a lousy contrast with McCain. Her primary campaign is based on the notion that she is experienced by virtue of (in the minds of most people) being famous for longer than her opponents. 7 years in the Senate, wherein she regurgitated Bush's talking points, caved on practically everything of importance, and supported the war, shouldn't count for much. McCain spent roughly the same amount of time being tortured in Vietnam, and then another 30 years in the Senate. Equating the years she spent attending the funerals of minor world leaders with those he spent being an actual Senator is going to seem pretty flimsy. When she tries to take advantage of public sentiment favoring withdrawing from Iraq he'll simply remind us that she voted for it. Obama on the other hand will draw much cleaner distinctions. He can hammer McCain non-stop for his bellicosity. He isn't pretending to be experienced, and can sell his candidacy convincingly as a break from the past. He is a probably the best political orator in a generation and he is much, much younger. McCain will seem tired, old, and cranky in contrast to Obama.

Secondly, there is no elasticity in public opinion about Clinton, everyone knows her already. Anyone who already dislikes her is not going to be won over. And those who do dislike her do so vehemently. With McCain the Republican nominee, conservative voters are going to feel a lack of enthusiasm in the election...unless the Dems nominate the person they already hate more than anyone else. Obama is not well known, on the other hand, and the more people see of him, the more they like him.

Most people are predicting a Democratic win in the general election either way, but I don't see it. It seems to me that Obama would win by a significant margin and H-bomb, barring something unforeseen would lose, but probably narrowly. I'm sort of invested in the Dem race so I can't predict it with any accuracy, but unfortunately for us, the cool, inspiring candidate who the young clever people like never wins the nomination. This is what gives me a sense of dread about the rest of the campaign, but who knows.

On that same note, here is a nightmare scenario I would like you to contemplate: Sen. McCain taps Huckabee for VP to shore up religious voters. The Democrats nominate Clinton and lose. After 15 minutes in office, McCain dies, since he is about 150 years old, leaving Huckleberry in charge. Jesus replaces Washington on the $1 bill. The End.

It is so stuck-up and wrong to say this, but for lack of a better understanding of Hillary voters, I think they just don't follow the news very closely. Polls well in advance of elections essentially show name recognition. No one is really paying attention, and when asked, they simply go for the one they have heard of. When pundits are surprised about shifting trends shortly before the election day, that is really just voters waking up and looking at candidates for the (usually) the first time. My fear about this front-loaded primary was that following Iowa and NH there would just not be enough time for Barack to overcome his opponent's superior fame. He was on an upwards trajectory, and given another week or so, he likely would have won more delegates than he did. As a cynic, I was fairly blasé about his candidacy until I heard him speak, and then I was floored. The more time there is for people to hear him speak the better.

It is a minor miracle that Edwards dropped out when he did, though it was still late enough to do some damage. Edwards and Obama were splitting the liberal, thoughtful, anti-war, anti-Hillary vote. If he had not run at all, Obama would have won all 4 of the initial contests and would be far closer to capturing the nomination. Though he does indeed try promoting important issues, John Edwards seems quite opportunistic. I think he hasn't endorsed either remaining because he can't figure out which will win, and he would like something in return.

I think some of the subconscious appeal of Barack Obama is based on his name. It is so utterly ridiculous, that it triggers a rebellious impulse to support someone whose moniker conventional wisdom would deem an automatic loser. It is kind of a fuck-you to the establishment who pours over this kind of nonsense.



The next day that there will be a large number of delegates up for grabs is March 4th when RI votes along with Ohio, Texas, and Vermont. There are a few Obama-favoring contests between now and then, but there is an entire 2 weeks preceding March 4th with nothing on the calendar. We are much smaller than OH and TX, but I have no doubt that both candidates will show up and certainly both will advertise here. It is sort of cool, considering that everyone here had been disappointed that with the front-loaded schedule we would have no impact at all. Considering the paucity of contests around the same time though, it seems that we will get much more attention than we would have if we were part of Super Tuesday. And having split up Connecticut and Massachusetts, both campaigns may think they have a good shot at our precious 32 delegates. Probably by leveraging our state motto, pictured below.

Well, I feel a little better now...