The big news of this event will cause some people to pause and think about this. Walmart has lost an employee and may face a lawsuit, so they may learn.
Life is about learning. People will learn for this, but events like this will always happen because people die and are replaced by the young and the young has to learn. Humans think they are special and can't imagine that they can act like animals; but they are animals, no more special than the rat, flea, mosquito or any other animal. In fact, molecular biologists have concluded that rice is a more complex life form than the Homo Sapien.
Clinton would have won by 11 points. She probably would have won around 395 electoral votes, a little more than Obama. However, it probably doesn't make much difference. You win the presidency by winning 270 electoral votes. Moreover, big landslide victories don't necessarily mean that the winning side wins the next time around. Ask Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and George Bush SR. about this. Also, after the Republicans swept 49 states in 1972, Jimmy Carter won in 1976.
I got a feeling that Obama is going to be a quite popular president especially after the economy begins to turn around and will win a landslide victory in 2012.
Was how easy George W. Bush got out of the shadow of George Bush, SR. Yet, Clinton couldn't get out of Bill's shadow. I agree that sexism did play a role. Nevertheless, I'm very impressed how Obama has handled the transition. The signs are good that Obama is going to make a very good president.
Part of Clinton's strategy was to get the Supers who supported her to go public right a way to give her the appearance that she had an invincible lead. But the Clinton's burnt a lot of bridges with the Congressional Democrats while Bill was president. A lot of the congressional democrats (and perhaps a majority) were never going to support Hillary for president. Those Democrats tended to wait toward the end to declare their support for Obama.
There are several reasons why Obama won. First, you have to realize that this was the closest primary fight ever since the modern day primary system began in 1972. Thus, it isn't as if Clinton could not beat Obama. Had certain events or conditions been different, Clinton could have won the presidency.
First, people were dismayed over how Bush was leading the country. People wanted change. Since Clinton was the husband of Bill Clinton, symbolically she never could be considered to be the agent of change.
Second, Democrats in general like new faces. This is the opposite of Republicans who like the seasoned politician who waits for his turn. Democratic fights are often framed as the establishment versus the anti-establishment candidate. This year favored the anti-establishment candidate.
Third, Obama's speeches was more inspiring than Clinton's speeches. Obama understands that people want optimistic vision. In giving stomp speeches, talking about general direction trumps specifics. Talking about values trumps lists of programs. By being more inspiring, Obama inspired the youth.
Fourth, by inspiring the youth, Obama was able to recruit the biggest army of volunteers. Moreover, because the youth was such a big part of Obama's campaign, the Obama campaign better understood how to make modern day technology work for them. They understood the power of the internet and effectively used facebook as an internet campaign tool.
Fifth, Clinton lost the black vote. Intitially Obama's constituency was virtually the same as Bill Bradley's constituency in 2000 and Paul Tsongas's constuency in 1992. Clinton actually had the majority of the black vote until Obama proved that he could win by winning Iowa, and when Clinton made the statement that it took LBJ to pass civil rights legislation. The Bradley coalition plus the black vote gave Obama the slight advantage.
Sixth, Clinton's vote on supporting the Iraq War hurt with the progressive wing of the party. She could have apologized for her vote, but I don't think it would have worked because such an apology would have not been credible. Such an apology would have been viewed as changing a position just to win votes.
Seventh, Florida and Michigan. The effect of Florida and Michigan is harder to analyze. But I suspect that had Republican rules had been in place to count half of the delegates, Clinton would have gained enough momentum to fight off a challenge from Obama. However, had the Michigan primary been resceduled to a date after Super Tuesday, Obama probably wins the Michigan primary. So timing is important in the analysis.
This race was close enough so that had any one factor changed, Clinton could have won the presidency. Had the economic crisis occurred one year earlier, then her Iraq vote might not have hurt her so much. Had Bush been more populsr then the prospects of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton might not have been such a big negative. Also, Clinton should have gotten speech coaching just like what Obama did in the early 2000's. Obama became a much better speaker as the result of the coaching.
Packaging his alternate energy program as a economic stimulus package is a good idea. That way he can kill two birds with one stone. You help fight the economic depression and global warming at the same time.
A strong correlation is discovered. Still, only 15 data points is being used.
Another interesting fact: Since Truman's second term, only one recession has started during the six democratic presidential terms. On the other hand, nine recessions have started during the nine Republican presidential terms. If you go back to Roosevelt, four recessions have started during the ten democratic terms. Not only have there been more recessions during Republican administrations, but recessions under Republican administrations have on average have been longer and deeper.
Republicans do seem to have a more win at all cost mentality than Democrats. Thus, we could expect more frivolous challenges by the Coleman side by the Franken side. On the other hand, I'm sure the Coleman people think they are the angels, too.
I'd like to know how the rejected absentee ballots are distributed through out the state. Are they more proportionally from the Blue areas or the Red areas? Which type of voter gets their ballots rejected more often?
It appears that first time voters and other constituencies that vote more Democrat tend to make more mistakes when voting. Thus, that could indicate possible gains for Franken. On the other hand, older voters whose signatures change over time also have a relatively high rejection rate. This group of people tend to vote relatively more Republican. Thus, its hard to say who would gain more if we count some of the rejected absentee ballots. This election could be decided in the courts.
To me that's the crucial question. If Franken challenges are mostly to include ballots that weren't originally counted while Coleman challenges are mainly to exclude ballots that had been counted, then I can see Franken winning this election. However, if Franken is challenging ballots that indicated a vote for Coleman and Coleman is challenging ballots that indicated a vote for Franken, then I think Franken can only win by counting the excluded absentee ballots.
My best guess is that Franken has gained about 45 votes that are not tied to any challenges, and will gain about 43 votes simply because Coleman made more challenges. That means Franken is behind by about 119 votes.
According to the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, if you discount the challenged ballots Franken has gained 46 votes. In addition, Coleman has made about 100 more challenges than Franken. This means that Franken is probably behind by about 70 votes.
Given the above statistics, I think Franken has about a 50-50 chance of overtaking Coleman once the challenged ballots go to the canvassing board.
But the unemployment rate in the second quarter of 2008 was less than six percent.
In 2009, the umemployment rate will depend on whether Washington lets the Big 3 liquidate or not. If not, then I see the unemployment rate rising to eight to nine percent. If the Big 3 liquidates, then I see the unemployment rate reaching 15-20 percent during the W Depression.
Once the stock market crashed and the economy began collapsing, McCain was doomed. No vice presidential choice would have saved McCain. Only a major gaffe by Obama would have given McCain a chance, and given the temperment of Obama, a major Obama gaffe was unlikely. Moreover, in this political climate, a gaffe may have actually helped Obama by making him look more human.