Sarah Palin ...You're Not in Alaska Anymore

Gawd, can I just say how sick I am of this whole debate 'low bar', 'raising the bar', winning without a 'bar', talking heads blabbering on about who's gonna win the Biden/Palin debate...enough already. Let the debate begin!

Listen, pretend for a moment you're Sarah Palin. Really small town gal in the big city. How 'bout in a big country? And what about being on the World Stage? As clueless as she's appeared, Sarah's got to be thinking about how the eyes of the world will be on her. But, then again, maybe she's not, as her misconstrued self-confidence glows like the halo of an impenetrable bubble of ignorance around her pretty little head. A bubble that filters the ways, and news, and facts of the outside world for her. She seems to live in a Wonderland of denial.

So, Sarah, you can snow people in Alaska, but the lower 48 actually read papers (is that elitist?) and have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the world; they may even know some facts. Hey, you're about to wake up and realize, "Sarah, you're not in Alaska anymore!" This is gonna be fun.

Age of Aquarius?

Instead of looking at the 'bailout catastrophe' as the end of the world, why not see it as the beginning a new world order? Without hyperbole, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to right the egregious imbalance of the 'haves' and 'have nots' or 'haves very little'. First of all, there is no need to rush to pass a troubled, "less than perfect" bill just to appease the fat cats without considering creative, viable alternatives. And that takes time. Time that, in the end, would prove time well spent to come up with solutions that make sense for everybody.

This doesn't mean that Karl Marx would be riding into town, that there would be an automatic redistribution of wealth - although it would be nice, but an equitable solution could bring people at the top, down to earth - well, they'd still be hovering above ground, for sure - and would, at least, give people who are struggling, a sense that their concerns are being addressed, and dealt with.

My hope is that Obama takes a real leadership role in this, has the courage to not cowtow to pressure from Wall Street, but does, indeed, take the principled stand to stand up for Main Street (new buzz words).

I have believed in Obama, the man (not his every stance on issues) as have millions of others, and I have volunteered for him from the very first day he announced his candidacy to run for President, opining that with his ascension to President, we might all rise to become our better selves...that materialism, greed, and abject self-interest would drown in the Swamp of Avarice, and penury would be offered a helping hand. We can see the Age of Aquarius just peeking over the horizon...all we have to do is have the fortitude to not succumb to the forces at the top, to those who want to keep their status quo while not improving ours.

Here is our opportunity to right the ark...the ark that is so lopsided that it is in danger of sinking with the majority going down first while the 'ruling class' at the top claws desperately to try and save themselves by clinging to the rotten starboard rails.

Here's your chance to be heroic, Obama. Be the White/Black Knight that gallops onto stage left, and "saves the day!" Bring all sides together, as you say you're good at, and don't leave the stage until you have brokered a sensible bill. The Age of Aquarius is depending on you.

More From Public Obama Enemy #1

Bill Clinton: Don't 'Overly Parse' McCain Request to Delay Debate

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html

National Enquirer Coming Through as Predicted!

Ok, the story's breaking as per my post of September 8:
The World Will Be Saved by the National Enquirer

Here's the latest: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_world_exclusive_sarah_palins_secret_lover_revealed/celebrity/65481

The Enemies List of the Obama Campaign as Compiled by Me

Public Obama Enemy # 1. BILL CLINTON
This is what happens when deep psychological pathology intersects with unbridled ambition and lust for power with a vengeful, reptilian nature with a Rushmore-like ego with a sickening paucity of a moral compass. Here's the disgusting non-endorsement by the spiteful, Bill Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dns6oX4p98

Email conversation between me and my son:

Son: i don't think Clinton understands how much he's hurting his standing with this stuff. i dislike him way more than i dislike his wife.

Me: i never liked the sonofabitch, and now i have nothing but contempt for him. if the clintons think that, if Obama loses, we will rally around her in 2012 (the year the world is supposed to come to an end), they are clearly smoking something very strong. i never understood that thinking 6 months ago, and it doesn't make any better sense now. do they think that no one else will emerge or be worthy to run then?

Obama will win November 4th. Period. The Clintons can start their own country. Maybe they can hook up with the Palins, have Alaska secede from the Union and form some kind of monarchy. Then they can battle amongst themselves. Possibilities abound.

Info re: current EV = Electoral Votes

Also from my polling friend (numbers as of 9/19/08):

Obama: 311 McCain: 227 Others: 0 MoE: 50 (Obama leads McCain by about 1.68 times the MoE)

Critical states: NV(Obama), CO(Obama), NM(Obama), IN(McCain), OH(Obama), PA(Obama), VA(Omaba).

Other states that could shift based on the perception of the debates: NH(Obama), WV(McCain), WI(Obama), MI(OBama), MN(OBama), MO(McCain), MT(McCain)

Obama has more to lose from the debates than McCain, but this is not surprising. When you are in the lead, you have more opportunities to lose.

NOTE:
The meaning of the MoE can vary from poll to poll. When some polls say MoE 4% they mean +/- 4%. That is the %-age for a candidate can be from 4% higher to 4% lower. Their MoE is twice as wide as our MoE.

Some polls use MoE to mean standard deviation. So their MoE means that there is a 68.2% chance that the actual results will lie within their +/- MoE.

BTW: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com has good analytical methodology. I recommend following it as well.

Are you interested in polls and what they mean? Here's some very instructive information.

If you're at all interested in what the hell the polls mean, here is one explanation, from a friend of mine who works in a polling group, when I asked what MoE, margin of error, means. Even I understood it. If you're interested in more explanations, leave me a comment and I'll follow up. Here it is:

MoE is Margin of error. So 293 with a MoE of 45 means it could be as little as 270.5 and as much as 315.5. (NOTE: 315.5 - 270.5 = 45, the MoE). Obama has a margin of error range of 315.5 to 270.5 with 293 (the middle of the range) being the most likely.

OK, ignore that fact that you cannot get a 1/2 vote.

The total EV is 538. So if Obama has 293, then that leaves 245 for everyone else.

No 3rd party candidate is even close to getting anything other than 0 so McCain winds up with the remaining 245.

So this is why we say:

Obama: 293 (middle of the MoE range) McCain: 245 (everything else) Others: 0 (nothing even close) with a MoE of 45.

What does that mean in terms of chances of winning? Well ...

The actual vote will lie within the MoE range (315.5 to 270.5) 75% of the time. This means 25% of the time we are outside the margin going either higher or lower than the MoE range. When the election is this close you can think that 1/2 of those "outside the margin" casses or 12.5% of the time the vote will be above the MoE range. So 12.5% of the time Obama could get more than 315.5 EV.

The same goes for below the MoE range. So 12.5% of the times Obama could get less than 270.5 EV.

This is not exactly the case. The above MoE case is a little less than 12.5%. The below the MoE case is a little more than 12.5%. However for a race that is not a land slide, splitting the 25% into two equal parts for above and below the MoE range is a good enough approximation.

Back to the "good enough approximation":

So 12.5% of the time, it could be higher than 315.5 (Obama wins by an even bigger margin then we expect) and 12.5% of the time it could be lower than 270.5.

Obviously, if it is higher than 315.5 Obama still wins. What about the below the MoE case? Well, Obama has a narrow win at 270. At 269 there is a tie.

What happens if it is a 269 to 269 tie? When no candidate has 270- votes, the selection of the President is made by the house and the selection of the Vice Preside is made by the senate picked from the CURRENT 110th congress membership. Assume that house and senate members vote along party lines.

In the senate each member has 1 vote. Voting along party lines means that Biden would be selected VP, winning by 1 vote.

In the house each state casts 1 vote. States where the membership is split 50/50 would be unable to vote and would cast present (voting for none). For example AZ 8 house members are split 4 D's and 4 R's. McCain's home state would not be able to vote for him. So if the Presidential election where thrown into House and members vote along party lines, Obama wins by 9 votes (with two states AZ and KS not voting for any candidate).

So Obama and Biden both win on a 269-269 tie with McCain.

Anything at or below 268 for Obama and McCain wins.

Now you need 270 to win, so with Obama at 293 with a 45 MoE, we mean that he has slightly better than 87.5% chance of winning IF the election were held today. (Sept. 19)

When you bring in a number of minor technical factors (2nd order effects), the 87.5% win chance becomes about 87.8%.

=-=

So when you lead by the MoE, about 7 out of 8 times you will win.

It turns out that when you lead by 1/2 the MoE you will win about 2 out of 3 times.

And when you lead by twice the MoE you will win about 19 times out of 20