The Ashford Zone Blog

Hated the original, but this is nice…

Yeah, it's the same guys as in the original….

Embarrassing for McCain, that is.

You haven't heard of the guy, but his endorsement of Obama is particularly embarrassing. 

His name Charles Fried.  He's "a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States".

He was also, until very recently, a McCain 2008 campaign advisor.

But he has not only endorsed Obama, he's already voted for Obama (by absentee ballot).

What made him stop drinking the McCain KoolAid?  "The choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

(To be scrupulously fair, McCain choice Palin before the economic crisis.  But still….)

Ouch.

Q.  Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain's presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

A.  Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain's chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staff member.

It was Amy Strozzi, who was identified by the Washington Post this week as Gov. Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

Source: NYT

Ms. Strozzi, who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance?”, was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone.

Is McCain the guy you want running in the economy?

This is fun.

The Economist has an interactive map of the world, which provides data (based on a very unscientific reader online reader poll) of who people in other countries would prefer as U.S. President.

Sadly for McCain, the entire Western Hemisphere (that's North America and South America), save Cuba, is strongly pro-Obama.  So is all of Europe. 

But don't cry to hard for McCain.  He has some support in Macedonia and Moldovia and Georgia (the Russian satellite, not the southern state).  They love McCain in Iraq (although I suspect that is because people who are responding to the survey are actually soldiers stationed in Iraq).  But apart from Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, including Israel, hearts Obama.

China and India, and all of Asia is strongly pro-Obama (China favors Obama 83-17; India favors him 87-13)

McCain does best in Africa.  While most of the polled countries strongly favor Obama, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Algeria are leaning McCain.  And, for some reason, McCain kicks Obama' ass in the country of Namibia.

But the world is overwhelming pro-Obama.  As the chart points out, if there was a global electoral college, Obama beats McCain 8,969 to 228.  That's a landslide.

Oh.  This isn't really related, but here's George W. Bush (played by Will Farrell) endorsing McCain-Palin (Tina Fey, again) from last nights SNL special:

The title of this post has the potential to make me look like a total ass, should McCain win.

And of course, it is theoretically possible that McCain can win.  Think of this election as a boxing match.  In boxing, there are two ways to win — on points, or by knockout.  I'm about to explain how, now that we are in Round 15, Obama is going to win on points.  McCain is "against the ropes" and continues to get the shit beaten out of him.

Now, it's possible that McCain might land a knockout blow, or that Obama might simply trip over his shoelaces and bang his head against the mat.  But that only works in my boxing metaphor — when translated to the real world of politics, I don't know what the knockout blow or embarassing gaffe would look like.  It would have to be the most dramatic thing in the history of politics, whatever it is.  Frankly, even the revelation that Obama had an extramarital affair (usually, a candidate killer) probably wouldn't be enough to reverse his victory, with only 12 days to go.

Maybe Obama would have to have gay sex on Ground Zero with bin Laden, after which the two of them perform a late-term abortion on an small-town soccer mom.

Okay, but this is supposed to be a primer on why you can say "It's over" to your friends.  So let's begin.

Forget the national polls that show Obama leading McCain by 10 or 11 percent (according to some).  As we all know (and were reminded in 2000), it's all about the electoral votes, not the popular vote.  Each state has a certain number of electoral votes.  If a candidate wins that state, even by one vote, the candidate wins ALL that state's EVs (Nebraska and Maine work differently — their EVs are proportional, but as a practical matter, the EVs in those states tend to go the same way anyway, as if the state was "winner take all")

So, if Obama wins North Carolina, he gets all of North Carolina's 15 electoral votes.

And to win the election, a candidate needs 270 EVs.  That's the magic number.

At this point in time, both candidates have what we can call "safe states".  For example, California and Massachusetts, two extremely liberal states, are OF COURSE going to go to Obama.  The polls in those states back this up (Obama leads by 24% in both CA and MA), but instinctively, we just KNOW Obama would have won those states anyway.  By the same token, we know Alaska, always a conservative state and home state of Palin, is a "safe state" for McCain (and indeed, polls there show McCain up by 19).

So let's lay the foundation and our starting point for the analysis….

Obama has 190 EVs in his "safe states".  McCain has 131 EVs in his "safe states".

I won't list what those states are, but you can go to Pollster.com or electoral-vote.com and see for yourself.

Again, the magic number is 270 EVs.  That means that for Obama to win, he needs only 80 more EVs from the remaining states (which I will call "battleground states").   McCain, on the other hand, needs 139 more EVs from the battleground states.

Here are the battleground states and the electoral votes for each of those states:

The total electoral votes of all these battleground states is 217.

To see why Obama has this virtually locked up, it helps to think in terms of "paths to victory". 

Specifically, one should ask, how many ways can Obama get his needed 80 EVs using only the states listed above?

Or, alternatively, one might ask, how many ways can McCain get his needed 139 EVs using only the states listed above?

Obviously, Obama has more paths to victory — the magical number of 270 – than McCain.  For example, Obama can lose key states of Florida AND Ohio AND Pennsylvania AND Michigan, and still rack up well over 80 EVs if he wins most of the other states.  That will put him way over the 270 EV mark.

Now, let's turn to the polls.  Keep in mind, polls are not 100% scientificly accurate.  They have margins of error from 3 to 5 points (most of them), and certainly no single poll should be given much weight. 

But when we look at the collection of polls, we do get a clearer picture of the way a certain state will vote.  For example, if ten polls show that Obama has a lead in, say, Michigan, and ALL those polls say that Obama's lead is in the neighborhood of fifteen percentage points, then we can safely conclude that (barring some devastating event), Obama will win Michigan (maybe not by 15 points, but certainly by at least one point).

So let's look at those battleground states again, this time showing what the latest polls in each state indicate:

Now what can we conclude?  Well, Obama's lead in Michigan is so large now, it can almost be moved into the "safe state" category.  Which means Obama needs only 63 EVs from the remaining states in the chart above.

It's hard to see how McCain can pull so many states away from Obama, especially the ones where Obama leads by over 7 percentage points. 

A nice analysis of eight of these battleground states, including what is going on internally, can be found here at ABC News.  The bottom line there is this: Obama really has an advantage in most of those states, or it is too close to call.

Also, consider the following:

• McCain is short on funds; Obama is outspending him by 3-to-1 in most of these states [UPDATE:  Take what McCain has spent the entire campaign and divide it by two.  That's how much Obama spent from October 1 – 15!]
• In fact, McCain has given up on advertising and campaigning in some of these states, like Colorado.  He has no staff, no ads, nothing.
• Obama has bought a half hour of time on all the national networks, in an unprecedented campaign "show"
• Everyday, there seems to be another prominent conservative (or moderate) Republican coming out for Obama

What does McCain do to change this?  How can he possibly pull the 139 EVs that he needs?

He can't.  Numbers don't lie.  Granted, these poll numbers are current numbers, and the election is still 13 days away.  So they will change.  But not by that much.  It would take some HUGE event to make that many battleground states change course that drastically and go McCain's way.

And that's why this is over.

***********

THEN WHY SHOULD YOU VOTE, IF YOU ARE AN OBAMA SUPPORTER?

For several reasons.  First of all, it's not just important that Obama win — it's important that he win BIG.  You know, with a "mandate" as the media says.  The opposition will be left reeling, and he will be able to get much done in his first months in office if it is clear to him, his political opponents, and the world, that the vast majority America is soundly behind his presidency.

Secondly, and more importantly, the down-ticket races are almost as important as the presidential one.  To enact the changes Obama hopes for, he needs a majority in the Senate, 51 senators.  That will happen.

But ideally, he would want a filibuster-proof Senate, which would require 60 Democratic Senators (or, if not Democratic, then moderate or left-leaning Republicans).  Even as late as a month ago, 60 Dems in the Senate was just a fantasyland goal.  And it probably still is pretty unlikely.  But obviously, if Democrats can get CLOSE to 60, that makes passing Obama's legislation that much easier.

Obama seems to realize this, as he is doing ads not just for himself, but for down-ticket candidates.  So much for the early rightwing criticism that Obama would be a drag on the down-ticket candidates.

Here's the Senate scorecard from 538.com:

There are some pretty close races in many states.  Al Franken (of Saturday Night Live fame) is barely edging out Norm Coleman in Minnesota.  Here in North Carolina, it looks promising that Elizabeth Dole will finally be sent home.  But the polls on these are even more dicey, and nothing is "in the bag" as they say.  So it is vital that people vote in these races as well.  Three or four senators could make a difference between a locked-up Congress, or a Congress which gets things done (with a progressive agenda).

So vote, godammit.

O.K.  Lecture over.  There will be a quiz on Election Day.

Ouch:

Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary who sharply criticized President Bush in his memoir last spring, told CNN Thursday he's voting for Barack Obama.

"From the very beginning I have said I am going to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done and I will be voting for Barack Obama and clapping," McClellan told new CNN Host D.L. Hughley

McClellan, a onetime Bush loyalist whose scathing critique of the president sent shock waves across Washington last spring, has long hinted he was leaning toward the Illinois senator.

With despair rising even among many of John McCain’s own advisors, influential Republicans inside and outside his campaign are engaged in an intense round of blame-casting and rear-covering—-much of it virtually conceding that an Election Day rout is likely.

A McCain interview published Thursday in the Washington Times sparked the latest and most nasty round of Washington finger-pointing, with senior GOP hands close to President Bush and top congressional aides denouncing the candidate for what they said was an unfocused message and poorly executed campaign.

McCain told the Times that the administration “let things get completely out of hand” through eight years of bad decisions about Iraq, global warming, and big spending.

The candidate’s strategists in recent days have become increasingly vocal in interviews and conference calls about what they call unfair news media coverage and Barack Obama’s wide financial advantage — both complaints laying down a post-election storyline for why their own efforts proved ineffectual.

These public comments offer a whiff of an increasingly acrid behind-the-scenes GOP meltdown—a blame game played out through not-for-attribution comments to reporters that operatives know will find their way into circulation.

Top Republican officials have let it be known they are distressed about McCain’s organization. Coordination between the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee, always uneven, is now nearly dysfunctional, with little high-level contact and intelligence-sharing between the two.

“There is no communication,” lamented one top Republican. “It drives you crazy.”

At his Northern Virginia headquarters, some McCain aides are already speaking of the campaign in the past tense. Morale, even among some of the heartiest and most loyal staffers, has plummeted. And many past and current McCain advisors are warring with each other over who led the candidate astray.

One well-connected Republican in the private sector was shocked to get calls and resumes in the past few days from what he said were senior McCain aides – a breach of custom for even the worst-off campaigns.

Funny and disturbing, yet strangely compelling….

You know, sometimes CGI just can go too far….

Celebrity endorsements aren't my cup of tea, but they don't get much better than this.

Seriously, Ron Howard really made a lot of sacrifices in making this funny video:

Yeah, it might be too early to talk about things like this, but this article in Salon is spot-on.  Entitled "The punditocracy's Seven Biggest Blunders of the 2008 election", Salon informs us where conventional wisdom by the political pundits was wrong.  The blunders are: