|
|
Six days to go: My predictions |
Also titled: Maverick = erratic, New Hampshire kind of sucks at picking winners, the death of the GOP as we know it, and do I actually miss Bush’s spokespeople? 2008 predictions (96.5% accurate since 2004!!)
The 2008 election season is coming to a close, (sad, because I actually enjoy this stuff immensely) and there are a few things that I’ve noticed after carefully watching my surroundings over the past few months: Politics is not as unpredictable as many would think. I remember when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, not because she was the second woman to be on a major ticket (Is there a prize for second place?) but rather because it was the day that I realized John McCain would never be President of the United States. He’s such a Maverick!!! Aside from the joy that will come from Obama winning the Presidency and the good that will untimely come from such a thing, nothing makes me happier than knowing that I probably won’t hear the term “maverick” for quite some time.
For one, I don’t really understand what a maverick is. I know it was a TV show starring my boy James Gardner, and then a movie starring my enemy Mel Gibson (Jews did what?!). It was Tom Cruise’s lesser talented piloting ability to over-actor Val Kilmer, but Top Gun’s maverick was erratic and unpredictable, which in the end helped him kill people but made him a crappy leader and an undependable wing man…and he killed Goose. Is a maverick someone who hates “earmarks?” Is it Maverick-y to talk at length about earmarks and not really tell people what they do? Sure, they may cost taxpayers from money, but they also create jobs. It’s the governments personal welfare check to help people get re-elected. Earmarks are the reason you can’t go anywhere in West Virginia without seeing something with Senator Byrd’s name on it. But hey, the people of West Virginia got a paycheck for building something, and maybe even a better road too. When I look at the cost of a war and the overall cost of all the earmarks in America, I say end the war and build some better roads. I’m a freedom lover, what can I say?
Is a maverick someone who’s best argument against his opponent, on a political level, that he is more qualified because of his years of service, who then turns around and chooses someone for complete shock value that he doesn’t know that well, obviously didn’t vet, and has less experience than your opponent? Seriously, you didn’t know she was under investigation for abusing power? That’s just poor staff work! That’s not a maverick quality; it’s the quality of an old person, an erratic angry old person, which to anyone who follows this was not the quality that we liked about John McCain.
Moving on.
I was thinking the other day about the breakdown of primaries and states and voting blocks and what not (yes, I think about this stuff when I play video games) and I realized something incredibly interesting about the state of New Hampshire and its primary: It has a history of picking Presidential losers. Here me out:
In 2000, New Hampshire Democrats picked Al Gore and New Hampshire Republicans selected John McCain. In 2004, since Democrats were the only party really having a Primary (since Bush was selected by default, some would say), they selected John Kerry. In this election, New Hampshire Democrats surprised many by selecting Hillary Clinton, and McCain began his “comeback” by winning the Granite State. What is interesting to me is the idea that this primary means so much to not just the people of New Hampshire (96% are White, compared to 86% in Ohio and 81% in Florida or 74% in Virginia) but also to the media, even though it has a history of not being “with the nation.”
New Hampshire either “seals the deal” for a candidate, or is a good rebound state. For example, in 2004 John Kerry put all his eggs in the Iowa basket believing, correctly, that winning in Iowa would change the polls in New Hampshire. In 2008, both McCain and Clinton lost in Iowa but New Hampshire gave them motivation, and money, to move on to other states. I still don’t believe that John McCain was the best the Republican Party had to offer, but Republican voters, much more so than Democratic Voters, like to vote for those they know rather than get to know someone new. (Case in point, the political novice we used to call Gov. George Bush vs. the media darling spry newcomer McCain in 2000.)
Republicans, in order to have any chance in 2012 or future national elections, need to find a bright, shining, preferably young star to compete against Democrats.
No, I’m not thinking Sarah Palin (although it does look like she’s thinking 2012 already…someone already said that, oh yea, it was me a few weeks ago…once again, The Seminal leads the way!) but perhaps a Bobby Jindal of Louisiana or a Charlie Crist of Florida. The country appears to be moving away from the GOP talking points of the past, and in order for the GOP to remain competitive I see greater tensions between moderates and the religious right (although the tensions appear to be pretty obvious with McCain). They’re going to have to choose one way or the other: Either keep getting beat in elections, or make a new argument outside of “values,” which I think is code for guns and religion.
The main problem with the GOP is the lack of message. McCain’s use of tactics week to week is hurting him (what a maverick!) because voters are unable to see what he really stands for when he appears to be standing all over the place based on current information and polling data. Say what you will about President Bush, but his line, “You may not agree with me but you know where I stand,” was pretty damn solid, and you have to give his people credit for it.
Bush 2004, like Obama 2008, was a well-oiled machine of message discipline. So yes, I do miss Bush’s spokespeople. Ed Gillespie, where art thou? Matthew Dowd? Dan Bartlett? Enjoying the private sector? Good for you. I just wanted to see how you are. Who the hell is Tucker Bounds and why is he so dumb? Would you guys have allowed Sarah Palin? Was she the most qualified woman in the Republican Party? What about Susan Collins or even, gasp, Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Nancy Pfotenhauer, McCain’s chief spokesperson, is in way over her head. She should be leading the message for Michelle “McCarthy had some good ideas” Bachmann.
So here’s my prediction for the whole show:
Obama: Max Electoral Vote 390 – Minimum Electoral Vote 302
McCain: Max Electoral Vote 236 – Minimum Electoral Vote 148Senate: Democrats + at least 7, 9 is a stretch in my opinion. (But you never know, state elections are different from national elections. California elected Schwarzenegger twice, people.)
House: Democrats + anywhere from 15-24
I’ll break it down like this: If your campaign, in it’s final week, is moving from one red state to another in order to “hold on” to what you had 4 years ago, you’re in bad shape. The only “blue” state McCain is campaigning in is Pennsylvania, and I feel it’s just to save face. Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico all voted for Bush over Kerry, and Obama is leading or tied in all of them. If your final week is defense, you’re probably going to lose. It’s not a surprise really, Republicans in most of these states either got tossed in ‘06 or are about to get tossed in ‘08. It’s called a trend, it’s called message building, and it started the day after Kerry lost in ‘04. It’s called strategy. (Thank god Bob Shrum retired and let “the kids” take over elections in America.)
I hope you vote. In Washington I voted by mail. It was, well, surreal and made me feel like a maverick (I don’t vote like the rest of y’all, I’m different!). I hope to have a post-election breakdown for you, but chances are, either way it turns out, I’ll be drunk for one reason or another for a few days. I may be wrong, but you know where I stand, and I’m just a guy who’s currently tied for 5th in his fantasy football league. I got’em right where I want ’em!!!






