2008 Election Results Analysis

Finally, it's over!! Let's get right to it.

Results as of right now:



Some important notes first. Missouri still has not yet been decided, but is leaning towards McCain. The vote percentage is 50-49 McCain, and he is up by 4968 votes. Now it may not be all that important for the presidential race, considering Obama won by 364-163 (as of right now) in the Electoral College, but there are other statewide and local races that were probably on the ballot, so waiting for all the votes to be counted and certified is important for those races and issues.

You also probably noticed Nebraska is purple instead of red, blue or tan (for Undecided); I'll get to that later on.

I'll post again my guess as to what I thought the end result would be:



I think I actually did a pretty good job. I put Obama above the 300 mark, but down by (currently) 53 votes. Pleasantly surprised! The only states I got wrong were Florida, North Carolina, Indiana and (partially) Nebraska.

I was very, VERY suprised Indiana was won over. Not so much on North Carolina or Florida, but I figured it would be very close, as it was.

Indiana was won by 25,836 votes; Florida by 204,577; and North Carolina by 13,692. So Indiana and North Carolina much close, but considering there were a total of 8,083,337 votes cast in Florida and it came down to a 51-49 split that's pretty darn close as well.

On to Nebraska. Like Maine, the only other state to do so, Nebraska awards two of its Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the most votes in the state. The individual congressional districts also each award one Electoral College vote. So with Maine having 2 US House seats, and Nebraska having 3 US House seats, even if one candidate won the majority of votes in the entire state, it is possible to pick up one or two (depending on the state in question) Electoral College vote for the other candidate.

Now Maine went entirely for Obama (58-41), awarding him at least two votes, though the last district to certify its results leans more conservative than the other district. The same is true of Nebraska. Though McCain won the state over all (57-42) the heavily Democratic district that includes Douglas County (Omaha, NE) went for Obama 51-48. Word is Republican lawmakers in Nebraska will change for future elections and base all 5 of their votes on the overall state winner. Republicans hold control of the officially non-partisan unicameral legislative body, this will most likely go through.

So in the end the country has elected its first black president. A very exciting time indeed. I can be quite honest and admit there have been more than a few times where tears of joy have crept up on me. Even after Election Day, it still kind of waved over me. I'm sure this will happen at least one more time on Inauguration Day (1/20/2009), but most likely will be more than just then.

On to what I feel is other important Election Day news!

I'll just go in order of the list of issues up for decision by CNN. You can find out more about those issues at this page. I could write plenty of blog postings about each of these issues and measures, so I will not say more about each of them, other than whether or not I would vote for or against the ballot issue.

Abortion.

Colorado did not pass a measure defining the term "person" to include "any human being from the moment of fertilization," effectively banning abortion. South Dakota also failed to ban an anti-abortion measure, which would outlaw all abortions except in the case of rape or incest, or where the birth would endanger the mother's life.

I would recommend a NO vote on both measures.

Interesting note on the South Dakota measure. The proponents of this had already admitted they wanted it to pass so it could be challenged legally by those who support a mother's choice on abortion. That way it would have gone to the US Supreme Court, where conservatives have a one justice edge over traditional liberals. Would have been interesting, for sure.

The only abortion related measure still not yet decided was in California and dealt with parental notification. If it passes it would require physicians to notify a minor's parents or legal guardians at least 48 hours before performing an abortion.

I would recommend a NO vote on this issue as well.

Affirmative Action.

Nebraska passed a measure prohibiting the state government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment for people based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. This would effectively make illegal any and all affirmative action programs. Colorado has a similar issue that is still being decided.

I would recommend a NO vote on these issues. Had there been the inclusion of sexual orientation in the class of citizens not allowed to be discriminated against, then possibly would support it.

Drugs.

Michigan has legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. Massachusetts has reduced the penalties for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from criminal to civil penalties, such as fines and forfeiture of the drugs. Those less than 18 would receive drug counseling.

I would recommend a YES vote on both issues.

Marriage equality.

Arizona, California and Florida have all passed gay marriage bans. California's was the closest, but it has been determined to have passed. The result in California has the most impact, as the California Supreme Court has legalized marriage between adults of the same sex earlier this year. The vote in Florida must have been at least 60% to have passed.

I would recommend a NO vote on all three issues.

Other issues (in other states).

Figured I would put these together as they don't fit well in other categories. San Francisco is still deciding on decriminalizing prostitution. This would not legalize it, but rather would prohibit local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting those who sell sex.

Washington State has passed a measure that allows terminally ill patients to request lethal medication prescribed by a physician. Said patients must be competent adults with six months or less to live. A physician would not be prosecuted for providing such medication.

I would recommend a YES vote on both issues.

Issues in the State of Ohio.

There were 5 issues sent to the voters of Ohio this election year.

Issue 1: moving the deadline for statewide issues to appear on a ballot from 90 to 125 dates before the election at which time the voters would approve or deny future issues.

Issue 2: authorized the State to issue bonds to pay for environmental revitalization and conversation.

Issue 3: protecting property rights in regards to "reasonable use" of water on or running under the property.

Issue 5: making changes to check cashing lending (pay day lenders).

Issue 6: creating a casino near Wilmington, OH.

I recommend a YES vote on Issues 1, 2, and 5.
I recommend a NO vote on Issues 3 and 6.

All passed except for Issue 6; Ohio voters have rejected issues allowing increased gambling in the state 3 times since 1990.

I will speak more to those issues in a later posting. Stay tuned!

9:45 pm Election Update

Ohio called for Obama, by all majour news outlets. No Republican has won the White House without it. Very bad news for McCain. 194 to 69 in Electoral College.

8 pm Election Update

Keep in mind the East cost, especially the New England areas, heavily favour the Democratic candidate. Maine is one of two states that splits its Electoral College vote; the winner of the state popular vote gets 2 EC votes, then each of the US House districts awards its vote according to the popular vote in the respective districts.

CNN's prediction

As you can see, they've highlighted already which states will fall to which candidate, but leave 98 Electoral College votes as currently undecided. To be honest, though, even if all went to McCain, it wouldn't matter. CNN called the election (in a predictive sense of course) for Obama a few days ago, based on polling and other analysis.

I think they're right. Obviously, my previous post shows where I think those swing states they put as undecided would end up going.

Stay tuned on the hour for any new updates! I'll also post a new note to my Facebook profile, if this is where you can came from.

Regardless of what happens, or how you will vote, be sure you do indeed go out and vote. You can't complain if you don't make a choice!

My prediction for the 2008 Presidential election

Here's my prediction!!

As you can see, I put Obama as the winner. Some important notes...

Late polls put Indiana, Montana, North Dakota and Missouri as swing states. Since my prediction cannot include undecided, toss-up or "not sure" states, I moved all of those to McCain. They are historically reliable Republican states, though way too close for comfort.

Nevada will be Obama's; not only because of the high early voter turn outs, but also because of the burgeoning younger vote and Latino population, both of which are Obama's by a significant margin. Las Vegas will be the decider in future elections for Nevada, and it is quite reliably Democratic.

Ohio will be Obama's; this one will be tough to pull off, but I think he'll do it. We have too many rural voters who are finally voting their pocketbook rather than on social issues. His populist message will pay off, especially in this economy. Also have to keep in mind, the Democrats swept the statewide elections in 2006, starting with Governor and Senator on down. This will be the new Michigan, since McCain left there weeks ago.

I gave McCain both Florida and North Carolina. Both will be close, with North Carolina closer than Florida, but Obama will not pick them up. The truly impressive situation is that North Carolina can now be considered a swing state. The important thing is to do away with Red vs. Blue, and make traditionally Republican strongholds more competitive. Difficult to do, but I think Obama is the person to do it.

Virginia will be Obama, this was an easier call than Ohio. Way too many Washington, DC workers reside in northern Virginia, and that, along with the recent statewide victories for former Governor Mark Warner, current Governor Tim Kaine and current Senator Jim Webb will make Virginia a lean Democrat state for years to come.

All others that are no longer truly swing states will fall as is. All the 2004 Bush states (except those already mentioned, plus Colorado and New Mexico) will stay with McCain, and Obama will hold all of Kerry's states, as well as picking up the new battleground states.

All in all a very exciting proposition. Let's see how we far in the end.

Up next, CNN's prediction, but after that will be a clean slate.

Update to Electoral College: 11/3/08

Last posting before Election Day!! No matter who you end up voting for, please get out and vote for your candidate(s). If you don't vote, you can't complain or be upset when things don't go your way.

Now, since we are closer to Election Day the Presidential race has tightened.



This is to be expected. We are seeing states that were pretty close, than shouldn't have been.

The problem is, McCain is not up as much as he should be in the following states: Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida. Those are all states Bush won in 2004; I can understand Ohio and Florida, but North Carolina? Virginia?

Indiana and Missouri flipped back to McCain, but Indiana never should have even been in play this whole time. Indiana is only McCain's by 2 percentage points, it was Bush's by 20 points in 2004.

The states where there is a greater spread than 10 points between the candidates, favour Obama over McCain by about 2 to 1.

This won't be a blowout, like in 1996 or 1984, but it won't be at all close like in 2000 or 2004. My educated guess is it will be like 1992, where Obama will win, by large enough margins to outvote the fraud Republicans will attempt to pull on Election Day, but not enough for a full landslide. At slight odds are a narrow win by Obama. McCain cannot win. Period.

Tomorrow I will post hourly updates as the states are called for the candidates, so stay tuned for those!

Update to Electoral College: 10/27/08

I'm pretty sure only one other person actually read this, so I'm probably going to cut down on what I actually say in this. I'll keep doing it, but feel free to write me if you'd like to know more about my thoughts on this.



We are now even further into landslide territory. Keep in mind these numbers are a running poll of that states in question. They are not a snapshot, which only tells what it is at that specific time when the voter was asked who they would vote for if the election were held at that time. The reason why I feel a historical average, as these numbers are such, is better, is because it doesn't go up and down all willy-nilly, but is a better statistical view on the issue at hand.

In states with a less than 10 point difference between the candidate, Obama has the advantage almost 2 to 1 over McCain. That means of the states that are most likely to switch candidates, Obama is the one benefiting from their swing, meaning he would be most affected in a negative way by the swing to the other candidate.

Obama has a healthy lead in such swing states as Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Iowa. He also has an 18 point advantage over McCain in Michigan, who has pulled out of the state. This is reminiscent of Gore pulling out of Ohio 2 weeks left in the 2000 election.

McCain is bleeding money so fast he has to funnel it into states that are powerful in the Electoral College. The only way he can eke out a win is in the Electoral College. But as it currently stands, Obama leads McCain there as well, 375-157 with 6 undecided.

As we come down to the wire, this will become even closer. I plan to have updates as the Electoral College map is filled out, as called by the majour networks, on Election Day.

Something I find interesting. McCain has 5 states where he is leading Obama by 20 points or more. In contrast, Obama has 7 states where he is leading McCain by 20 or more. This doesn't count the District of Columbia, which is reliably Democratic (Obama is winning 82 to 13), or the states that are pretty close to 20 (Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey are his by 19, with Michigan by 18).

It is amazing to see that places like North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, North Dakota, Georgia and West Virginia are the "new" swing states.

As always, let me know what you think.

Update to Electoral College: 10/20/08

The landslide continues.



Changes.

Missouri has swung from dead-even to barely Democratic. North Dakota swung from barely Democratic to dead-even, a net gain of +8 for Obama. West Virginia swung back to the Republicans, but North Carolina swung to the Democrats; a net gain of +10 for Obama.

All else remains the same.

Swing states.

Down to 12 states with less than 10 points between the candidates. 9 close swing states (less than 5 points): Florida, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio are all slightly for Obama; Indiana, Montana and West Virginia slightly for McCain.

Interesting highlights.

Still have 29 states for Obama and 21 for McCain.

So far no majour October surprise. The closest is that Colin Powell has just come out for Obama. This was actually a surprise for me, and pretty unexpected. McCain says that's nice, but he's got four other Secretaries of State that have endorsed him, plus over 200 generals and whatnot. And pretty expected, right-wing nut jobs like Rush Limbaugh have said it's because he's black.

With a nice comeback Powell said, if it were because he was black, he could have endorsed him months ago. He said the tipping point was the way each of the candidates handled the economic crisis; Obama was cool, calm and steady, and McCain has come across as erratic and not knowing what to do.

Another important note: Powell had given McCain's campaign the maximum amount for contributions, $2300, months ago. He also said he doesn't care for the amount of negativity the campaign has turned to for help in the polls, and that also he's concerned about the increasingly rightward tilt of the modern Republican Party.

Update to Electoral College: 10/13/08

Wow... Talk about a slippery slope. McCain has slid majourly in lots of state polls, the ones that affect my maps. Sad thing is, some national polls have Obama ahead by 10 points or more. Not that the popular vote means much, evidenced by the 2000 election and my focus on the 270 electoral votes needed to win. But still... not as close as folks thought it'd be at this point.



Changes.

North Carolina fell back to the Republicans (not too surprising there) but McCain's only by 2 points. But Missouri is now deadlocked 48-48 like NC was on my last update.

North Dakota swung to Obama by 2 points, which is really surprising, considering who we're talking about here.

West Virginia has finally gone blue, like it should be been. Obama is up by 8 points there; the state has a lot of Democratic state office holders, but Obama is black, and myself coming from an area that is inwardly, if not also outwardly, racist, this is nice to see.

The rest of the map is unchanged, with the West Coast, Great Lakes and Northeast states Obama's.

Swing states.

Moved down to 17 states with less than 10 points between the candidates. 8 states are close swing states (less than 5 points spread) - Obama: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and North Dakota; McCain: Indiana and North Carolina; Missouri as the dead-even state.

Interesting highlights.

Up to 29 states for Obama and down to 21 states for McCain.

I'm guessing the October surprise is just around the corner. I'm hoping it isn't terrorist related but you never know, especially considering all those terror alerts issued by Republican Tom Ridge that helped Bush maintain and increase his lead over Kerry.

Visit the following sites:
270toWin.com, to generate maps like I do.
Electoral-Vote.com, to get your own state poll data.

Update to Electoral College: 10/2/08

Just finished up the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate between Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Very exciting stuff. I thought it was more a draw, but the polls are showing Biden a clear winner. Some examples:

"A CBS News instant poll of uncommitted voters who watched the debate also showed Biden to be the winner by a margin of 46-21 percent. About one-third thought the debate to be a draw.

But Palin's debate performance boosted her standing with these voters. Fifty-five percent said they now thought better of Palin. Fifty-three percent now think better of Biden.

Eighteen percent of the uncommitted voters say they now back Obama. Ten percent say they now support McCain. Seventy-one percent remain uncommitted." (taken from CBSNews.com)

Can't find it now, but there is also a poll out how folks think the two did compared to their expectations. Palin's was something like 84% better than expected. Sad. She had such a low hurdle to get over and she managed it.

On to the Electoral College map!



Changes.

Virginia is still Obama's, and Nevada has swung over as well. He now also holds Ohio and Florida. We are back to pre-convention numbers, with Obama holding 338 Electoral College votes compared to 185 for McCain. 15 is a toss up, as North Carolina is 48-48 even. Still pretty reassuring, considering that is big Republican country.

Swing states.

Currently 19 swing states with less than 10 percentage points between the candidates. Ten states are close swing states (less than 5 points): Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and New Hampshire for Obama; Indiana and Missouri for McCain; North Carolina being perfectly in balance, with neither currently having a leg up.

Interesting highlights.

Top 3 states for Obama: District of Columbia, Hawaii, Delware. Top 3 states for McCain: Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho.

Obama now holds 27 states compared to 23 for McCain. Heck of a lot less Republican Red this cycle, especially compared to 2004 and 2000.

Let me know what you think? Email me!

Visit the following sites:
270toWin.com, to generate maps like I do.
Electoral-Vote.com, to get your own state poll data.

Update to Electoral College: 9/24/08

Wow I can't believe it's almost been 3 months since I've updated this last. The main reason I have not is because I doubt anyone actually reads theses posts. Hopefully I'm wrong, and the random searcher or nice friend will read them!

There have been tons of changes to the EC map over the last 2 1/2 months, and it's been kind of a crazy ride. So much has changed since early July. The majour highlights are as follows: Joe Biden, senator from Delaware, was chosen as Barack Obama's vice presidential nominee; Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, was chosen as John McCain's vice presidential nominee; both parties had their conventions, the Democrats in Denver, the Republicans in St. Paul, Minnesota; we've had a few majour hurricanes, and even us up here in Ohio felt the fury of Ike - I was without power for about 48 hours, and as I write there are still a few households in Central Ohio without power.

Politically, the Democrats received a post-convention bump... then Palin was announced out of left field and the Republicans received their bump as well. Their bump lasted longer due to the energy and excitement Palin brought to the Republican campaign. That, however, has started to run out and the effects will not be long-lasting. I think the main reason for this is the so-called swing voters (middle class, Independents, Catholics, moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats, women, Latinos, etc) have quit their love affair with Sarah Palin and understand there is more than just simple, partisan rhetoric.

I think, at first, the choice of Palin as the GOP VP slot was ingenious; I also believe, in the end, it will backfire and not help in the slightest. She was meant to fire up the right-wing base, and she has done her job, but she will not help McCain move to the center, indeed will have the opposite effect of moving the campaign, and by association McCain, to the right. They are supposed to be mavericks. They are not. He used to be, but has played up his closeness with Bush and his conservative ideals, and embraced Religious Right ideologues to his detriment. She has gone back and forth on lobbying and federal earmarks so much as to cause whiplash. They claim to be change, and it worked at first, but now that folks research their actual positions and policies, rather than what they say, more and more realize they are more of the same.

Is Joe Biden more of the same? Yes, I think so for the most part, but he's the #2 spot, not the top spot. Palin kinda is a maverick and political outsider, but she IS the #2 spot and that does not influence the president. The only time this has not been the case was with Cheney influencing President Bush; there are many reasons for this. Bush is not political savvy, he is not intelligent, Cheney is a big reason he was elected in the first place, Cheney has the connections needed to survive in the political world Bush pretends to dislike.

That said here are the highlights of the current Electoral College votes! Everyone else likes to focus on national polls; those are counting Popular Votes, and as we all remember from 2000 that does not matter in the slightest. Where I get my statistics from are state-by-state polls that DO matter, because they count the Electoral College Votes.

On with the show.

Electoral College map, as of July 6, 2008:



Now for some boring analysis...

Changes.

Nothing too surprising at this point. Looking more and more like 2004 though, isn't it? Ohio and Florida is currently Republican, though that doesn't matter due to Colorado and New Mexico, both states that had gone R last time around. Also important to note is that Virginia has swung to the Democrats in this map. The combination of those facts puts Obama in the EC vote lead by 282 to 256, more than enough. Not as great a lead as before, but again Sarah Palin and the Republican post-convention bump (which was greater than the Democrats due to most folks already knew so much about Obama-Biden before their convention) has pushed it more into a race than before, when it was more of a landslide by Obama.

There were many more changes, but we're going to start fresh due to not having posted for a while.

Swing states.

There are 21 states where the difference is less than 10 percentage points. Like before, we'll consider states with differences less than 5 points to be close swing states: Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virgina - Obama. Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Indiana, New Hampshire, West Virginia - McCain.

There is also Missouri and North Carolina, which currently favour McCain by exactly 5 points.

Now these are, for the most part, more accurate "swing states." Maine has some Republican statewide representation, but has so often voted Democratic in the Presidential race; same for West Virginia. Virginia is the opposite, this time it has a lot of Democratic representation, but has voted Republican in the past. That will be an exciting state to follow.

Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania have all been considered true swing states. No surprises there. New Hampshire too, as it has swung back and forth last few cycles.

Colorado, Nevada and Indiana are newcomers to the swing state indicator. Indiana should be McCain's by so much more, but currently only by 3 points. Colorado and Nevada have also been Republican mainstays, but the race is very close in both states.

Interesting highlights.

This will be a new section for my comments. The top 3 states for Obama (highest difference) are District of Columbia, Hawaii and Rhode Island. The top 3 McCain states are Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. Neither lists are that surprising, really. Obama's home state of Illinois, a Democratic stronghold, is his by 14 points; Arizona, kind of a toss up before McCain was selected, is McCain's by 17 points.

Something else I find interesting is the number of states held by each. While this does not actually impact anything, we were so used to in the past of seeing the Democratic candidate focus and strategize purely on Electoral Votes. Intelligent, yes, but always makes the map so very, very red. Currently we have 23 states for Obama and 28 for McCain (yes counting D.C. as a state). A lot close this cycle!

As always be sure to visit the following sites:

For maps you want to make for your friends/enemies!
For all your up-to-date Electoral Vote news!

I've updated my template... what do you think?

Update to Electoral College: 7/6/08

First a shout-out to my sources for all the information on the Electoral College you need to know! Go to Electoral-Vote.com for all your poll-of-polls needs, as well as analysis of the polls and what it means for November '08. Also generate your own map at 270toWin.com, and show off to your friends what you think will happen in 4 months time.

Electoral College map, as of July 6, 2008:



As you can see, Obama is still out front by quite a bit; I'm pretty sure one could call this a landslide.

Changes.

Florida has swung from even to the Republican column. Not much surprise there. It will probably go Republican in November; problem for McCain is, Obama doesn't need it.

Just check out the states that swung Democratic: Montana and Indiana. Montana I can see because it has recently elected Democrats to state-wide office. Also, Democrats are more excited everywhere for their candidate. It is also a known fact that a lot of Republicans are lukewarm for McCain.

Now, Indiana is a bit of a surprise. According to Wikipedia, Indiana has only supported the Democratic nominee for President 4 times. However, since that time 1/2 of Indiana governors have been Democrats. While Evan Bayh, the junior Senator from Indiana, is a Democrat, he is a moderate one, and endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

I don't doubt he will do all he can to help Obama win the White House, but I didn't have all that much faith in the residents of Indiana to follow his lead. Currently, Obama is only ahead by 1, 48-47, but every little bit counts, and as we found out in 2000 and 2004, some elections can come down to very slim vote margins.

Missouri has also changed, swinging back to Republican after being Democratic on my last post.

Swing states.

The exciting part is that there are 24 states that have a difference of opinion of less than 10 points; there are 9 that have a difference of less than 5 points. The bad news for the Obama campaign is 6 of those states currently favour him.

Here is the current list of what I'll call close swing states (less than 5 points lead): Alaska, Nevada, North Carolina - McCain; Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Oregon and Pennsylvania - Obama.

The interesting ones in there are Alaska and North Carolina. Those are supposed to be very safe Republican states. The others seem about right.

Let me know what you think? And be sure to check out Electoral-Vote.com and 270toWin.com!

Is a liberal Christian an oxymoron?

Recently James Dobson, head of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family, and Barack Obama, presumed Democratic nominee for President in the November 2008 general election, have been trading barbs regarding religion and politics.

This started when Barack Obama had spoken in 2006 to a liberal Christian group called Call to Renewal, saying, among other things, that Biblical scripture passages shouldn't necessarily guide public policy and government programs. He asks if should we follow Leviticus, where slavery is permitted and shellfish is prohibited, and labeled an abomination. Obama instead says Christians should help those that may not believe as they do by explaining their points of view from a universal stand point. This way public policy can be truly for the public, rather than for a specific group.

Dobson has said this is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," and Obama is wrongly quoting Old Testament passages, thus "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology." Dobson also says that by explaining Christian views in universal terms that we would be governing by the "lowest common denominator of morality." He also claims this is "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

This is a double-edged sword for Dobson. Many of the passages that cover the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible are located in the Old Testament. The New Testament covers the time line of human history from around the time of Jesus Christ and later on. The reason I bring this up is because Dobson is one of the leading anti-gay Christian fundamentalists; most of the passages they use to promote their flagrant bigotry is taken from the Old Testament. This is also where slavery is promoted and women are labeled chattel and certain eating behaviours are banned.

Also, a lot of conservative Christian fundamentalists tend to forget that, were Jesus alive today, he would be considered a dirty liberal hippie by those that supposedly follow his teachings. He preached kindness and virtue and turning the other cheek and helping your fellow man and giving to the poor and healing the sick. Now I wouldn't presume that the whole of Christian faith and the Bible teaches only liberal tenets. By all means, it teaches many different aspects of the religion, but those teachings are not relegated to conservative or liberal. They are simply Christian.

I also do not intend, with this posting, mean to offend those who may disagree with me. I enjoy discussion and believe intelligent debate and differences help bring us together and understand each other better. But what I get frustrated with is the Christian Right who too often focus on being anti-abortion, anti-gay and pro-death penalty. They too often forget about also being anti-war, anti-all death (abortion or death penalty alike), pro-tolerance, pro-helping the poor and defenseless (read: some form of welfare, whether government is involved or not) and pro-environment.

I like what Obama has to say in this matter, and not just because Obama is my character and Dobson has forever left himself at the bottom of the intelligence ladder. Rather, I enjoy anyone who says, let's focus on the important things, what is truly wrong with the world and try to fix it together, with my fellow man.

Let me know what you think?

Playing with the Electoral College

I found a new favourite political site! You should check it out. It's called 270toWin.com, and it allows you to change the way the Electoral College would play out, based on who wins what.

I've decided to post updates on here what the EC would look like based on polls from reputable polling companies and/or news sites. So not what the national polls is on Obama vs. McCain, but rather, what the polls say for a particular state. I've re-found another site, one that I followed back in 2004; it is another, very good political site, called Electoral Vote. He updates his sites daily, whereas I'll just do weekly. As you may know, the candidate that wins the popular vote of a state, wins that state's votes in the EC. You need 270 EC votes to win the Presidency outright, thus the name of the site.

I'll then post the changes and a picture of said EC, assuming I can figure out how to insert photos on here! :) Hopefully these two sites will not be upset I'm using their information to post updates to the 2008 election on my blog, but we'll find out. In that regard, I will always acknowledge their better-ness on this topic. I certainly could not do that they do. But I'd like to keep updated as much as possible this year, so hopefully this will help! I may get updates more than weekly as we get closer to Election Day, this year November 4, where things can change more quickly.

Also keep in mind that polls this far from the actual vote are not even close to being 100% reliable, but still interesting to think and talk about.

So to kick things off, here is the current Electoral College vote, as of June 22, 2008.

According to the following Electoral Map, Obama would win 317-194. That's not really even close, which is pretty interesting, considering all the players. One important fact to point out is Florida (the state in 2000) is a dead heat, 45-45. But Ohio (the state in 2004) is leaning Obama by 3 percentage points. Yes, this is within the statistical error, but is important to note, considering he is black and a lot of folks in Ohio would not vote for someone like that. I know, because I know a lot of those people, unfortunately. That's how it is here. This will be very interesting in the days and weeks and months ahead. If you'd like to see where I came up with this info, I can send you the spreadsheet I'm saving this to.

Assuming I've done it correctly, you'll also see a picture of said EC after this. Click on it to view it in more detail.



Let me know what you think? Again, for more in depth coverage of the 2008 election, be sure to check out 270toWin.com and Electoral Vote! I couldn't do this without them.

Tackling Five Modern Myths Created by Liberals

I recently wrote in my online simulation about an article that said there were 5 modern myths created by liberals and went about "debunking" them. I looked at what that author wrote, and came across looking at it a different way, and figured I should post that info here as well.

Let me know what you think?

The original article: Tackling 5 Modern Myths Created By Liberals

Just some points I would like to raise:

On Bush lying about WMD's: You are correct in saying that prominent Democrats also pushed for war. I agree. They should not have. But just because someone on my team says something in agreeance with someone on the other team, does not make it OK for the other team to do it. I don't like saying that they lied about WMD's. It's nice for a bumper sticker but not for formulative and intelligent discussion. Mislead? Maybe. Lied, not likely. Mostly they are guilty of being overly optimistic. They put forth all the good reasons for why we should go to war, and quelched all the bad things. Now that means the Bush Administration does not have faith in the American public. Perhaps for good reason. But when you give all the pros and none of the cons about something as serious as war, you can't be surprised when a lot of people agree with you, given they don't know the whole story. Do I think we should have gone to war? No. But we're there, so no reason to re-hash dubious dealings of the Bush Administration, it won't get us out any faster.

On Al Gore in 2000: I've read that as well that most of the MSM outlets concluded that Bush would have won any recount in Florida during the 2000 election. I have no problem with that. Makes him legitimate. Great. What I do have a problem with is the repercussions: the Federal Supreme Court saying the State cannot count its votes? This was unprecedented and they knew it; they even put an asterisk saying well this applies this one time and can never be used in the future. By doing so, they started off the Bush Years by being irrelevant and an obvious rubber stamp for the Administration's positions when brought to court. That is unfortunate. I also find it highly illogical for so-called small government Republicans turning to the Federal government for help in an obvious states' rights issue. Had the Court not stopped the recount, it would have gone forward. But, had it gone forward, the House, per the Constitution, would have voted for who they believed should be President. He would have won anyways. Fine. But the way they went about it was wrong, and I must say ill-advised. I also have a big issue with the un-counted votes, specifically those struck from the voter rolls incorrectly. You can recount all the already counted votes already, but they would never be included, so yes Bush would have won.

On the famed "16 words": I believe they believe it was truth. It was incorrect and made the correct assertion later they were wrong. Or the closest Bush can come to admitting being wrong and say the assertion was incorrect. There is a difference between knowingly lying and saying something that is wrong, but not knowing it is wrong. That is ignorance. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's worse to be a liar or to be ignorant, but it is blatantly obvious that Bush and his Administration were extremely ignorant in their findings leading up to the occupation of Iraq (war has yet to be declared). It is possible they lied in some things, or someone inside the White House lied to those that didn't know any better, and those folks in turn were ignorant in repeating these lies unknowing they were lies. That is laziness, but the Administration has often been intellectually lazy, that is not a point hard to argue.

9/11 was George Bush's fault: There is plenty of fault held by Bush and Clinton and all those leading up to 9/11. I don't know if there was a conspiracy (outside that of the 9/11 hijackers) and I suspect we won't know for sure until at least 50+ years have passed and when it's finally OK to come out of the closet we'll finally know the truth. It's sad but likely this is the case, as is with most things done in the name of national security. 'Nuff said.

Global warming consensus: In science there are little topics that are in consensus with all scientists 100%. In science there is allowed to be doubt. There is not a 100% consensus on global warming; no one said there was. There is a vast majority of scientists, particularly those that specialize in this area of expertise, and they believe it is a serious thing to be concerned about.

So, in conclusion, as a liberal (well, kinda), I've disagreed with these myths that you have brought about. All of them. I don't like going to extremes, and all the statements I've commented above are extremes. We do not live in a black and white world. It is very grey out there. That said, there are those in politics who like writing bumper sticker slogans and riling up their base. It's their job. The right does it. The left does it. Republicans. Democrats. All do it! It's how politics work. To call them myths is denying there are some issues with what has been brought up. But rather than simply discuss why they may have some validity and where they do not, the writer of this article has taken the exact opposite position of the myths he is denying. Both the myths and the exact opposite stance are incorrect.

And that folks, is having an intelligent discussion.

Any comments?

Focus on November

Now that Obama has won the Democratic nomination for President in the 2008 election cycle, let's focus on November.

Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee, no matter what happens now (barring the unthinkable). Her supporters (myself included) must follower her lead and get a Democrat elected to the White House, and ensure a Republican is not.

I don't care who is on the ticket as the vice president, whether it's Clinton (not so sure that will happen), or Edwards (highly likely) or someone else not yet overtly being discussed for the slot. The most important thing is to have a Democrat win. So we need to take all the new Democrats that registered to vote in our primary and keep them in the party until November 4; preferably until after then as well so we have a working majority in 2010 and 2012.

The primary season is over and Obama is our nominee. Now is not the time to talk of voting for McCain or threatening to stay home on Election Day. Hillary will not be running as an independent; she knows that would destroy any chance of a Democrat winning the White House. If that happened, she would be in 2008 what Ralph Nader was in 2000; a better example is Ross Perot in 1992. He stole votes from then-President Bush (Sr) and allowed Bill Clinton to win with a less-than-50% popular vote. She would do the same to Obama, and the votes would split between the two and McCain would win easily in the Electoral College.

I would say as well that if she were to run as independent, that 1. it would destroy her career as a politician and 2. I would not vote for her. If that were truly to happen (and it has a less than 0.01% chance of happening) then she would be seen as a very, very sore loser, as well as someone who merely wants power, over the good of her party and America. Many folks think that already, she would just be validating it for them.

Anyways, doesn't matter, not going to happen. We have a really, really good chance this year of undoing the last 7 years of damage by President Bush and the Republican-led Congress. Let's not screw it up.

I'm not sure who is more to blame for the latest Clinton "crisis," the mainstream media or the Obama for President campaign, but it's at best silly and at worst just plain disgusting.

There has been an uproar about a recent comment Hillary Clinton made to the Argus Leader, a newspaper in South Dakota. Clinton has referenced the long Democratic presidential primary during the 1968 election cycle when explaining that this particular cycle is not unusually long. She brought up both her own husband's run in 1992 and the 1968 primary process, both running through June and ending in California. The front runner at the time was Robert Kennedy, who was assassinated the night of the California primaries.

The unfortunate reaction by the Obama campaign, and the subsequent "fake" rage by the media, as perpetuated by the Obama campaign, is they believed she was saying something quite as despicable as likening Obama to Kennedy and that he will surely meet his doom via assassination as well.

What? No, seriously, I mean, WTF?!

First off, she referenced Kennedy and his assassination in response to a question about this "unusually" long primary season; it is a fact that Kennedy was running in 1968, that 1968 was a longer-than-usual primary season, and also that he was assassinated. This is not a simple algebra equation where, because Clinton references Kennedy in 1968, that she thinks Obama will or should be assassinated. Idiots.

Secondly, she also referenced the fact that her husband's run for Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 1992 was also long-ran and drawn out.

It almost sounds to me like Obama doesn't like her still in the race. I have said before, I think on here, that I think she should get out, gracefully, for the good of the Party. But she doesn't need to be forced out on made up charges of her calling for him to be assassinated.

I guess the most amusing part of all this is that both the editor of the SD paper and Bobby Kennedy, Jr (yes, the assassinated presidential contender's son) have released statements supporting Clinton's assertion that she was not calling for Obama's death but merely answering folks who say she is unnecessarily drawing out the primary season. Also, she has already made a similar comment TWO months ago, again referencing the 1968 and 1992 drawn out primaries for Democratic presidential nominee. No loud mouth retorts that she is calling for his death then, were there? Hmmm.

Obama has since then said "I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it," and that "we should put it behind us." Of course this is only after the Obama campaign issued a statement saying the comment "was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign." It's always nice to walk back a statement after the damage has been made.

Now let me make this clear: I understand this is politics, and that Clinton is certainly not innocent of her own politicking against Obama. But Obama, long run in the media as someone who never goes negative, is certainly guilty of taking Clinton's comments out of context in a very unseemly way.

Let me know what you think! Join Facebook and send me an invite!

Marriage Equality in California

Today, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling for "In re Marriage Cases," thereby striking down California laws banning same-sex couples from marriage. The ruling was 4-3, though it is important to note one of the dissenting justices started her opinion with the following note:

“[i]n my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...”

Basically, she believes there should be same-sex marriage, but it should be implemented by way of the Legislature, versus by way of the Judiciary; that the Court has over-stepped its authority in reversing the laws and ballot initiatives of the people of the State of California.

Regardless, the State of California can no longer ban same-sex couples from marrying, and will also have to recognize the marriages from those states where they are legal. This will take effect in 30 days, barring intervention on the part of the Court in postponing this action.

I never cared much about same-sex marriage until those on the right made such a big deal about it. I've said this before, and I'll say it again now: if you need a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, then such marriages are currently legal, and more importantly, Constitutionally sound. That is, laws banning such marriages are unconstitutional. If they weren't, then an amendment would not be needed.

This makes California to be the second state (after Massachusetts) in the Union who will recognize same-sex marriages, both those performed in-state as well as those from out-of-state. Currently the following states recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or some similar form of union other than marriage that confers some or all rights afforded married opposite-sex couples in said state: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

It is also quite important to keep in mind this does not force religious institutions or other entities to perform marriages with which they do not agree. Quite simply, the only persons that would possibly be forced to perform said marriages beyond their will would be civil servants; even that would be unlikely, with the State most likely finding a replacement to perform the ceremony.

It was also interesting to see the following churches, religious institutions and faiths represented by the Respondent lawyers, meaning they sided with those who won in the end:

General Synod of the United Church of Christ
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
The Rabbinical Assembly
The Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association
Metropolitan Community Church

There were also many, many individual churches from such varied sects as Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Mennonite, as well as individual faith leaders (reverends, rabbis, etc).

It's nice to see that because of a belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour does not necessarily mean that you aren't also fair-minded.

As always, let me know what you think!

What do I think?

So I took 5 different political quizzes earlier tonight and below are my results, as well as links to the quiz itself!

The Political Compass
Left Libertarian: -2.12 on a scale of -10 is Left and +10 is Right (economic issues) & -5.44 on a scale of -10 is Libertarian and +10 is Authoritarian (social issues).

Advocates for Self-Government
Liberal Libertarian: 100% Personal Score and 50% Economics Score

Political Survey from Mythic Beasts
Left/right -0.1667 where -1 is Left and +1 is Right
Pragmatism +0.1635 where -1 is Idealistic and +1 is Pragmatic
I'd have to admit these results mean the least to me lol.

Moral Politics Test
Scored -4.5 on Moral Order and -0.5 on Moral Rules
The following categories best match my score:
System - Liberalism
Ideology - Capital Democratism
Party - Democratic Party
Presidents - JFK
'04 Election - Ralph Nader
'08 Election - Barack Obama

Political Survey 2005
This is a British test, so not sure how well this fits me.
On Crime and Punishment & Internationalism: -3.0, slightly internationalist and rehabilitationist. On Economics, etc: 2.0, fairly free-market and pro-war.
60.1% of Britain is more punitive and isolationist than me, which I thought was pretty telling.

Let me know how you do!!

democratIC party...

So I'm in this online simulation for the US government, focusing mainly on the Senate aspect, and this is a conversation that came up recently.

People in the Republican Party (and possibly the Libertarian and Personal Choice parties) have often been referring to those of us in the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. Do a double-take, I'll give you a moment to find the typo.

Now, this has been a problem in US politics for decades, but has more recently reared its head with Bush and his current Republican Party, as well as the mouthpieces on the talk show radio circuit and right wing-controlled mainstream media. Those of us in the center-left party of these United States are called Democrats, yes, but we belong to the Democratic Party and have done so for the more than 200 years we've existed.

This is a slur meant to demean those members of the Democratic Party. Some in the simulation, and I'm sure in real-life as well, don't see what the big deal is. Problem is, those folks are not in the Democratic Party and therefore couldn't care less what the image is, or what we are called.

Another member of the simulation (right-wing I must mention) has pointed out that calling it the Democrat Party versus Democratic Party doesn't change the meaning of the word. Touché. Problem is, it's not meant to change the meaning of the word, but rather to slur those of that particular party. George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like have used this particular non-phrase to piss the Democrats off. The simple fact of the matter is, they say it meaning it as a slur, not to change the meaning.

The big problem I have is that those who say they didn't know it was a slur are idiots for one of two reasons. All in the simulation are quite intelligent, though some may be very misguided. Those that say the slur either mean it as a slur, or have gotten so used to those in the right-wing saying it (and they are definitely are using it as a slur) that they use it interchangeably with the real phrase. One can look at it as Internet vs. Web. Both are different, and the words mean different things, but folks these days use them interchangeably and do so incorrectly.

So it comes down to either they are using the slur intentionally or they are ignorant to the fact it is meant as a slur, not as a substitution, like GOP is the same as Republican Party.

Wake up, idiots.

Stop saying "I'm sorry."

The latest apology comes from Hillary Clinton, apologizing for the words of Geraldine Ferraro, and of Bill Clinton, and for the slow reaction to Hurricane Katrina; she did all of this to black Americans, in Washington last night to the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a group of more than 200 black community newspapers.

I'm getting sick and tired of people having to apologize for actions or words of others. Whether Geraldine Ferraro was correct in saying that Obama has only gotten as far as he has this election cycle because he is black is regardless. I would have to disagree with her; I don't think race had anything to do with hurting or helping his race for the Democratic nomination, in the long run. Yes there are pockets of support, even in the Democratic Party, in some parts of the Midwest or South, where because he was black, they voted for Hillary Clinton. I guess the ironic part is, they either have to come to terms with their racism or sexism, of which both problems are alive and well in America, even in 2008, in order to vote in the Democratic primary. Yes, you could vote for one of the other white men that may have made it on the ballot where they vote (most likely John Edwards, the consummate Southern Democrat), but to truly have mattered, you would vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Back to what I was saying. Obama shouldn't have apologized for whatever it was Louis Farrakhan said that was stupid back a few weeks, and Clinton shouldn't have to apologize for what others have said in support of her campaign. For that matter, McCain shouldn't have to apologize for what that idiot conservative talk show host said about Obama in Cincinnati during the Ohio primary.

People need to stop being so freaking sensitive about everything! It's not even a matter of being politically correct. Ms. Ferraro and Mr. Clinton have said things about race and Obama; if Ms. Clinton doesn't agree, she should say so. But no reason to apologize for the words or thoughts of others. If Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain disagrees with what their supporters say, by all means, clarify yourself! Be up front, proud and say out loud why you disagree with them.

But for the grace of God, stop apologizing for them. They are adults, they can live up to their own words on their own; they do not need to have Mom or Dad stand up for them and take their punches for them.

When will someone apologize to me for this idiocy?

My views on the issues

I have found THE best quiz to determine your political ideology or philosophy. I'm always interested in finding out what others score, especially those close to me. You can find the quiz here. You can even register to save your responses for later.

The reason I like this quiz so much are for a few reasons. The main reason is it's not just about gays, abortion or gun control. Those issues are listed, yes, but among other questions as well. Another reason is because it tells you what your answer means. When you click on the question it's asking, it says what it means if you support or oppose a particular stance. The side the question asks from also goes back and forth between the typically liberal and typically conservative view, so as to not show bias towards a particular side of an issue. Also, in case you need more information about the issue in question, it provides more detailed information in a quite non-partisan way. Very cool.

Then it will show you where you lie on the political spectrum. Most folks think it's left or right. Very wrong. Here's where I am currently:

I would be considered a moderate liberal, as I've discussed previously. That being said, however, I have some stands that don't particularly jive with the common position liberal Democrats hold, especially when it comes to free trade.

The quiz asks if you support or oppose a series if issues ranging from abortion to national defense. You also rank whether you strongly support or just regular support the issue, and an option for No Opinion/Neutral if need be. Here are my answers:

Individual Rights

Support - Abortion is a Woman's Right
Oppose - Require Companies to Hire More Women/Minorities
Strongly Support - Sexual Orientation Protected by Civil Rights Laws
Oppose - Permit Prayer In Public Schools

Domestic Issues

Oppose - Death Penalty
Strongly Oppose - Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws
Oppose - Absolute Right to Gun Ownership
Support - More Federal Funding For Health Coverage
Oppose - Privatize Social Security
Oppose - Parents Choose Schools Via Vouchers
Strongly Support - Reduce use of coal, oil, & nuclear energy
Strongly Oppose - Drugs Damage Society: Enforce Laws Against Use
Support - Allow Churches to Provide Welfare Services

Economic Issues

Oppose - Decrease overall taxation of the wealthy
Support - Immigration Helps Our Economy - Encourage It
Support - Support and Expand Free Trade

Defense & International Issues

Oppose - More Spending on Armed Forces
Strongly Support - Reduce Spending on Missile Defense ("Star Wars")
Support - Link Human Rights to Trade With China
Support - Seek UN approval for military action

I scored 78% for my personal score and 30% for my economic score. The higher personal score one has, the more social freedoms you would support (pro-choice, no Drug War, etc). The higher economic score, the more economic freedoms you would support (free trade, less taxes, etc). A hardcore liberal, then, would be 100% and 0%. A hardcore conservative would be 0% and 100%, libertarians 100% for both and authoritarians are 0% for both.

What are you? Let me know!

Who am I?

Well I looked back since when I first started taking this quiz to gauge where I fall in the political spectrum. Things certainly have changed.

Politically, I grew up a Republican. That's what happens when you live in the middle of nowhere, a.k.a. North Central Ohio. I grew up in the country just south of Mansfield, OH, went to a "small town" high school. We had, I think maybe 3 black people? And that's our entire school, not just the high school. I graduated from a class of 121, just to give some perspective. So living in that sort of area, and in that sort of lifestyle, one tends to have a more conservative view. That being said, I would probably have been considered a moderate Republican.

I come from a huge family of Republicans; my mom is a moderate Republican, my dad a more traditionally conservative Republican. In our immediate family (parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles) there are only 3 actively non-Republicans. My one aunt is quite liberal (she went to school in a Big City and joined the Peace Corps when she was younger), and the other is pretty independent. It's nice to have at least a couple people I can talk to about stuff, when at family gatherings. It always seems to be a little harrowing, when attempting to discuss politics with some of my family members.

Don't get me wrong, I love them to death, but most of my family are hardcore Republicans. Anyways, that's the environment I grew up in. Towards the end of high school, however I became a Libertarian. Yes the big L because I actually joined the party and paid my dues. Have the card around here somewhere... I imagine at some point I was always a libertarian (yes small L, there is a difference!) at least a little bit, but one of my best friends Andy is the one that showed me the light. Too bad for him, 6 years later I became a registered Democrat.

If I had to label myself I would refer to myself as a moderate liberal with libertarian tendencies... but still a registered Democrat. I joined the Party because of Howard Dean, in 2002. My reason was because he was the best chance of getting a libertarian in the White House in 2004. I still contend if we had run Dean instead of Kerry, we would have won. But I digress. The Iraq War is an important topic to me, and quite sensitive to those that follow partisan politics. Whenever we had a discussion about the War at family functions, I always never spoke out. Keep in mind, at that time, it was very unpopular to not support the War or our president. Lucky for folks like me, time has changed for us in that regards.

So currently I am a moderate liberal Democrat (with some libertarian-leaning tendencies on issues). I currently support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nominee for the 2008 presidential election. This is mainly because of a book called The Case for Hillary Clinton, by Susan Estrich. Please be careful, as there is (of course) a book called The Case Against Hillary Clinton; I will not dignify it with a link of it's own :)

Prior to that, I had no idea who I would support in the primary election. At that point, John Edwards had thrown in his hat again, and of course Dennis Kucinich was back. Now I will support whomever the Democratic nominee is in the end, and would probably vote for them as well, but there are only a few candidates out there I would actively campaign for. Once I read Ms. Estrich's book, well I knew Clinton was the candidate for me to support in the primary, let alone the general election.

I just took a quiz here, and it shows Clinton as my number one choice, which I'm glad. There are a few reasons why I support her, and not just because of nostalgia for the Clinton Years, nor simply because she is a woman. I like her positions. Not every position, but I'm not going to agree with my candidate 100% on everything; Dean is the only one that's come close, but I think there were even a few issues where we disagreed. Now it looks like it's going to be Obama or Clinton; either I will campaign for in the end.

Some are asking for a Dream Ticket, with both Clinton and Obama. The only way that would work is Clinton-Obama, and I'm not just saying that because I support her. The reasons are two-fold: 1. Clinton is no spring chicken. She can't be a vice president now and wait for 8 years to run again. It's now or never. And 2. Obama would not be able to stand her as his Number 2; she likes the spotlight, and no one wants the second place spot to outshine the first. Obama is still quite young, and after 8 years of Clintonian bliss (one can hope right?) he can run again, and win quite easily.

When it comes down to who can win against John McCain (at this moment he is THE Republican nominee), either can, and either would. The question is how close would it be? Well, that remains to be seen. But there will be a Democrat in the White House, come January 21, 2009; we just have to see which it will be. Unless Obama wins Pennsylvania (which is looking less and less a likely event), it will come down to the super delegates at the Convention in August.

My next post will talk about my views on the big issues of the day.

Starting out... again...

It's been a long time since I've been regularly writing, and every once in a while I get the urge to start writing again. Hopefully this time, since I've found Blogger once more, and attached it to my regular website address through Yahoo, I'll be a tad more active. We'll see. To view updated posts in the future, be sure to bookmark www.liberalohio.com!

For those of you who don't know me, a bit of an introduction. Like my profile says, I work for a majour cell phone company. I know quite a bit about the cell phone industry, and in particular information about the cell phone company for which I work. I won't say on here, but feel free to write me and I'll let you know. No, I cannot give you discounts on monthly access, or on phones, but I'll sure be glad to answer any questions you have.

I used to go to Ohio State - Columbus, but haven't been there in a while. Taking a sabbatical of sorts... just wore me down. Perhaps I'll go back to school some day, but not anytime soon. As the profile states, I live in Columbus, Ohio, right in the heart of it all.

I'll be writing most likely about politics of the day, current events, pretty much anything that interests me. But I'm a big political dork, so it will most likely be politically-related. So if that's what you like, then that's what it'll be :)

That's it for my introduction... feel free to let others know about this site, comment on here (no approval needed), as well as emailing me at brett@liberalohio.com.

The next post will entail more politics-stuff.

Later!

Welcome back!

I will be posting something here very soon... Just re-configured everything, so will be up and running in no time. Come back soon for my newest awesome thoughts :)