Saturday, November 29, 2008

Updates on the Canadian political scene

We have had some pretty dramatic things happen in the last few days here in Canada. No doubt passions are boiling high on both sides. This is unfortunate as during a recession we need all parties to work together not pick fights and I hope after this ends, whatever the outcome, we see a more collaborative approach. Below I will try to give a non-partisan summary that at this objectively.

Those supporting the move to form a coalition claim it simply representing the will of the majority of people who didn't vote Conservative while those opposing it are claiming it is a coup d'etat, although both sides have a valid point, they should consider the other side for a moment and maybe we would get a more rational decision.

In Canada, we vote for individual MPs, not the prime-minister and the individual MPs colletively can decide whoever they think would be the best PM. If the majority decide someone from the opposition should be PM, that is perfectly legitimate and within their right in a Westminster parliamentary system.

On the other hand, those claiming this represents 62% need to be careful about saying this. The reality is each vote was for an individual party, not a coalition and no can say for certainty how the public would have voted had they known such coalition would happen. The reality is despite their similiarities, all three parties have some fundamental differences so although I am positive if they ran under a single slate they would get more than either did on their own and possibly win the election, it is unlikely they would get the sum of their votes as some Blue Liberals might find supporting a coalition with the NDP too much to stomach and likewise the Bloc Quebecois due to being a separtist party might be hard for some to support. It is true the Bloc Quebecois has largely put separtism on the backburner and I think that is the only reason the coalition is even plausible. In most countries where coalitions are the norm, parties usually give their preferred partner, who they would be willing to work with if that doesn't work, and which parties they would never consider. Since Canada doesn't have a history of coalitions no party addressed this, but either way I am sure it will be brought up next election and either it will be shown to be legitimate by the Tories losing seats or losing outright or the public will say it is not by giving the Tories a majority.

As for the Governor General, she has a number of options and lot will depend on the results in the next week. If the Liberals + NDP + BQ formed a formal coalition she would have no choice but to grant their request. If only the Liberals + NDP form a coalition, this would put them at 114 seats, 29 seats less than the Conservatives so she can only say yes if there is a written agreement from the Bloc Quebecois pledging support to such coalition. Finally she can exercise another discretion, which is refuse to dissolve parliament due to an election being so recent and also the fact we are in an economic crisis where an election would be harmful to the national interest. In that case she would ask the opposition to form government and if they could get the confidence of the house, they would form government, but if not, there would be an election. Although I am sure she faces a difficult decision, I am sure it will be one done based on constitutional precedence not her own feelings.

As for the precedence of this, it does have precedence in the King-Byng affair in 1926 as well as David Peterson's agreement with the NDP in 1985. Where this becomes unchartered territory is the fact Meighen actually beat King in 1926 in seats and was only not PM since he formed a coalition with the Progressive Party. Likewise in 1985, David Peterson won the popular vote and also the NDP + Liberals had the majority of seats and the Liberals were only four seats behind the Ontario PCs. This time around, the Liberals got significantly less votes than the Tories and significantly fewer seats, at the same time, never have we seen a prime-minister so partisan and confrontational and so vindictive towards his opponents. Also we are in an economic crisis, not a boom. If the economy was doing well, expect such a coalition would be far less likely to fly with the public. In fact that is probably why one never materialized in Harper's first term despite the fact he had far fewer seats.

Now as for what will happen, I don't want to make any bets. I think Harper likes being PM and suspect many of his new MPs, especially those who are in cabinet are probably giving him an earful on this, so he may very well blink, although the opposition could say too little too late. Also, public opinion could come out strong against this causing one opposition party to blink although I wouldn't count on that happening. I think that is what Harper is hoping for, but it seems if this has done anything, it has only polarized the nation further, not united it. Also I think the coalition has a very good chance of going ahead, but there are still many things to be worked out so whether it will be a short lived one that lasts only until next spring or one that lasts a few two years remains to be seen. The longer it lasts the issue of how it came about will fade from the public mind and the next election will be based on its performance not how it got there.

As for my opinion, I think Harper's arrogance got the better of him. He probably figured a leaderless Liberals having just fought an election and performed poorly wouldn't have the stomach to stand up to this. Also this time around, only 11 members needed to come down with the diplomatic flu. However, I think the Liberals reached their boiling point in which the bullying by Harper was too much to take and they were going to fight back. As for my preferable outcome, unless Harper makes changes to his economic statement, they need to not back down, but at the same time they shouldn't go ahead no matter what. As a Blue Liberal and a strong federalist, forming a coalition with the NDP and working with the Bloc is not something I am very comfortable with and in fact if such a coalition had existed on the ballot, I probably would have voted for a smaller party is neither option is desirable for me. I am a centrist, not a left winger, not a right winger and I feel both options stray too far from the centre. If Harper does back down on this, I hope he changes his tone dramatically, although my guess is he will go back to his own ways in about 6 months to a year when he has a better chance at getting the governor general to agree to a dissolution. By the same time, a Liberal-NDP agreement is somewhat worrying to me as well as relying on the Bloc's support. I don't mind helping Quebec industries and workers who are struggling, but all regions should be helped equally, no favourtism to one over another. If the NDP gets cabinet posts like environment or foreign affairs that is fine with me, but for heaven's sake, keep them as far away from finance as possible. This would be a disaster and if they get finance, I will have to reconsider my options. Harper has put partisan interests ahead of the country, therefore any replacement coalition must place country first and party last. Also, if this only increases Harper's chance at a majority next time around, I would look for a way out. Governing temporarily only to see Harper get a majority is not desirable. I would rather let him govern longer and then lose in the next election than the former.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Budget Update

Today, Jim Flaherty brought down the fall update. With the opposition parties pledging to oppose it, we could be back in another election after having one only a mere 6 weeks ago. I highly doubt this will trigger an election, still I think the update clearly was provocative and should be changed.

As we enter a recession, now is time to put partisan interests aside and put the interests of the country and its people first and partisan interest lasts. We can get more done by working together rather than apart. In the US, both McCain and Obama in the last election talked about times when they reached across the aisle and throughout the world, parties of different political stripes are putting aside their narrow partisan interest. Unfortunately that is not happening here in Canada. I am not oppose to the fact the Tories do not include an economic stimulus at the moment, since in crisis like these I would rather the government take their time to consult and look things over carefully so we can get it right. The main thing is that the government is taking the economy seriously and taking action. Unfortunately it appears the Tories are asleep at the switch and don't seem to take the situation seriously. I also believe we should do as much as possible to avoid a deficit, but not at all cost, however, if we do go into deficit, it should be as small as possible and their should be a plan to get out of it as soon as we recover. My greatest worry is that once we go into deficit it could be many years before we come out. United States had a surplus when Bush entered office in 2001, but few today talk about it going out of deficit anytime in the near future. In fact the chances of the United States being in the black before 2016 are very low. The problem is once we get into deficit, the kind of changes that are going to need to made to get out of deficit will not be popular with the public and few governments will be willing to take the political risk involved with raising taxes or cutting spending. At the very least, we should only post a cyclical deficit, not go into a structural deficit. For those unfamiliar with the two terms, a cyclical deficit means that when the economy as growing at its normal rate, the budget will be balanced or in surplus and it will only fall into deficit when there is below average growth. A structural deficit means there is a deficit regardless of what part of the economic cycle one is in, even during a boom. Ontario right now has a cyclical deficit whereas the United States has a structural deficit.

On the issue of spending cuts, I am all for trimming the fat, but it should be done smartly and done on what is best for the country, not what is best for the party in power. Unfortunately, the governments decisions to cut funding to political parties seems to fit the latter. For one thing, this is only $36 million, so if not coupled with cuts elsewhere, it will make hardly any difference and considering an election would cost $300 million, it would actually save more to not do this if it avoided an election than to do it. This is clearly an example of the Conservatives wanting to knee cap the opposition parties so they can establish themselves as the natural governing party. I am not opposed to cutting the political subsidies if it involves spending cuts to all discretionary spending and it is in proportion with cuts elsewhere, but I do oppose doing it on its own. For one, thing I believe a strong healthy opposition is vital for a successful democracy. One party rule is not something anyone should want regardless of their ideological leanings. Also, this does not involve one subsidizing a party that they oppose. Each party gets $1.95 for every vote they receive, so otherwise your money is going towards the party you voted for, not towards a party you may not like. In fact I would argue this is the fairest way as it ensures every vote gets equal weight rather than giving an advantage to whichever party has more wealthy donors or most likely in the current case, whichever party has the most committed base. The Tories have a strong committed base who are happy to fork over much dollars, but many of those people hold views that are outside the mainstream of Canadian politics and donate precisely to move things in their direction, whereas those closest to the centre, they are happy with the status quo and have less incentive to donate. However, regardless of what one thinks here, this is a divisive issue when now is the time for parties to work together and now is the worst time to introduce divisive policies. Unfortunately, it seems Harper and many in his party do not know how to work with those with different views which I think if anything is just as big a problem as their views in themselves. If Harper held the same views as he does, but was more willing to work with those with different views, I would have a far less negative view of him.

As for what will happen, I think there are three possibilities. The most likely is one party blinks. This could be either by having 11 members not show up so it passes or the Tories realizing the opposition is serious about bringing down the government and realizing it could mean a coalition of the opposition without an election will cause them to back down. The other possibility is the government is defeated and we go to another election. This seems highly unlikely and I doubt any party actually wants this, but accidents do happen and it is quite possible we could get an election no one wants. I suspect much of the campaign won't be on the issues, but rather who to blame for causing an unnecessary election. The final possiblity which I think is more likely than the second is the opposition parties agree to back the Liberals and they are then able to go to the governor general and ask her to let the Liberals form the government. This would be unprecedented since although this has been done before in Ontario in 1985, David Peterson won the popular vote and had only 4 seats less than the Progressive Conservatives. With the Liberals having only half as many seats as the Tories, 26% of the popular vote, this would be entering unchartered waters. In fact I cannot think of any Western democracy where a party that finished 12% behind the first place party formed government. There are cases of the winning party getting less than 26% of the popular vote, but these are countries with far more parties than we have. For example, in the Netherlands, the governing party almost always gets under 30% of the popular vote, but there they have around 10 parties with seats, so a totally different scenario than in Canada. Never mind all of those that have had governing parties who win under 30% use proportional representation not first past the post. In addition, I highly doubt the Tories really want this since this would allow Dion to become prime-minister and considering how low they set the expectations of him, if he does a half decent job he might just win next time around, so this just might be a case of where Harper's ego ended up blowing up in his face.

For the Liberals, I would make clear that all members will be present for the vote, so the Tories cannot count on 11 members having the diplomatic flu. I would also make clear that we are willing to back the government if they agree to remove the plan to cut funding to political parties and promise to work cooperatively with the opposition an putting together a stimulus plan for the spring budget. In minority governments, all parties have to make compromises and this is a reasonable one and if the Tories agree to it, we back the update, if they don't we vote against it and accept whatever the outcome is.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

US politics going forward

Now that the US election is over, the hard work begins on where to go. In the case of president elect Barack Obama, he enters office under probably the worse conditions any president has since FDR, so he has a very difficult task ahead. Likewise expectations of him are very high. So the question becomes how will he satisfy all the groups who supported him and achieve his promises. With the economic downturn, his goal should be to achieve his promises by 2016, not necessarily in his first term as the next two years will likely be focused simply on getting out of the crisis the US economy faces. What he needs to do is at least get started on his promises once the economy begins to recover which in all likelihood will happen before 2012. In addition he needs to have a strong team and show strong competence during the recession. While most people generally don't take too kindly to their political leaders during a recession, that is not always the case. FDR governed during the great depression and was re-elected so the main thing is that Obama is able to show he is effectively dealing with the crisis. Also, he can always recover from low approval ratings if the economy starts to rebound. Reagan in 1982 and Clinton in 1994 both faced low approval ratings and in the case of Clinton in 1994, the Democrats suffered badly in midterm elections. Yet in both cases, the above leaders went on to be re-elected. Since things will be tough in the next few years, it wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans make gains in the 2010 midterm elections, which is why it was so important for the Democrats to make gains in 2008 so they can at least maintain control of both houses even if it is weaker than it currently is. He also needs to stick close to the centre. The areas Obama gained in are mostly moderate areas, not liberal ones so if he is too liberal, he will likely go the way Jimmy Carter did in 1980. However, I think after being in the wilderness for many years and having more losses than wins in the past 25 years, the Democrats have learned the dangers of being too liberal and therefore will govern close to the centre.

For the Republicans, it is a very different scenario. The once dominate GOP has been shattered and the strong coalition that Reagan built in the 80s has been blown apart. The question becomes where does the party go in order to regain its trust with the electorate. The GOP will some day return to power as no party ever stays in power forever, but it still remains to seen whether it will be soon or many years away. Many Republicans are already claiming the party was too moderate and needs to move even further to the right. This would be a completely dumb idea as most of the areas the party lost are moderate areas, not hardcore conservative ones. The reality is that many Americans are sick and tired of politics of division and governing by ideology rather than pragmatism. They want a party with principles, but one that can also deliver results and one that tries to unite people, not pit group against group. They would be best to focus more on the fiscal conservatism rather than social conservatism as this is very divisive and is not a major issue for most people asides from the white Evangelicals who are a large voting block, but not the majority (and also vote Republican anyways). For one thing, advocating balanced budgets and keeping spending under control might be a smart start as these are conservative principles that were widely discarded by the Bush administration. And these are ones that actually sell amongst the public. Either way, the good thing about the last election is it was a final nail in the coffin to ideological conservatism. The fact that one of the most conservative countries in the Western World turned its back on it should be a sign to all leaders in the democratic world that ideological conservatism is bound for failure. The Conservative Party in Canada would be well advised to take note of this, as it seems a large chunk of its members at the convention want to move the party to the right and back to its Reform roots. Likewise the Liberals could learn a lot from the Democrats. Besides better fundraising techniques, our party is too quick to write off certain regions of the country and certain groups when we need to appeal to Canadians from coast to coast not just in Toronto and Montreal. We also need to be a party of unity, not division and I feel some in the Liberals are too quick to label certain parts of the country and segments as un-Canadian who don't vote for them. This is what the Republicans did and we should not follow this route. The reality is if the Democrats can come within three points of winning in Montana and won in many rural counties of Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, so there is no reason the Liberals cannot win in similiar areas directly north of the border. They simply need to do a better job of appealing to those people. If people see a party as hostile to their region or who they are, they won't even give the party a second look. But if the see the party as caring about them, they will give the party a serious look. And while not all will support it, some will. I will have more on the Canadian political scene in a later post when I get around to posting it.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

US Election post-mortem

If there was one word to describe the election two nights ago in the United States it was historic. While the fact the United States elected its first African-American president was undoubtedly the main reason many said it was historic, it was historic in many other ways too. And in fact it could possible turn out to be historic if this results in a political realignment much the way Roosevelt's victory in 1928 and Reagan's in 1980 did. 45 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr., had a dream that one day America would be a country where people would not be judged by their colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. And the results last night vindicate that for the most part (although not fully) this has happened. The reality is most Americans voted for who they thought would be the best president, not what his skin colour was. I supported Obama right from the beginning when few thought he even had a shot at winning the Democrat nomination and I supported him over Clinton and over McCain because I thought he had the best vision for the United States. I first saw him interviewed on Larry King about a year and a half ago and I when listening to his vision I was truly amazed. I was convinced this was someone who could do very good things if only he had a chance. I went on his website to check out his policies as some are great orators, but lousy politicians and sure enough I found many policies that I agreed with. I am a Blue Liberal myself so hardly some socialist and hard core lefty as some Republicans called Obama, but instead very much like a typical moderate voter even though I cannot vote in the US. I also saw in his senate race in Illinois how he not only won in Chicago where the Democrats usually pile up huge majorities, but won in the suburbs which lean Republican and the rural areas of Illinois which are solidly Republican. I figured if he could do this in Illinois, why not nationally and in many ways he did so. He not only picked up swing states like Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada, but picked up states few thought the Democrats could win 4 years ago. Colorado was seen as a real stretch while until the midterm elections, the idea of Virginia turning blue seemed impossible. But that wasn't it, he even won Indiana and North Carolina which a mere six months ago had someone told me those would be blue states, I would have said they were completely nuts. Clearly the idea of the Democrats being a bi-coastal party and only winning in the large cities is no longer the case. In many ways it is the Republicans who face the problem of not being a truly national party. Not only are the cities rejecting them, they are also losing in the suburbs and even rural areas are only narrowly voting Republican, not by the huge margins they use to win there. Also the fastest growing areas and the fastest growing demographics (Latinos, educated voters) are all turning away from the GOP. This doesn't mean the GOP is finished as a party. They still got 46% of the popular vote and can certainly come back much the way the Democrats did, but they will have to make major changes if that is to happen.

The loss for the GOP was partly over the unpopularity of the Bush administration, the economic meltdown and certainly Obama's outstanding campaign and strong appeal helped turn what should have been at least a narrow Democrat win into a Democrat landslide. However, there is another factor not talked about much here which I think happened. Whenever major shifts happen in the American political alignment, it is usually when one party shifts too far from the centre and loses touch with the average American voter. In the late 20s, the Republicans hands off approach to the economy and unwillingness to deal with the impending Great Depression led many to believe they were too right wing on economic policies so the Democrats were elected and remained the dominant party for many years to come. By the late 70s and early 80s, high taxes, excessive regulation, and excessive government intervention were all seen as not working. Reagan said government is not the solution, but the problem and this reasonated with many as despite the heavy levels of government intervention, the economy wasn't doing too well. In many ways the Democrats had swung too far to the left and they paid a price for this. Fast forward almost thirty years later and what looked like a permanent realignment in favour of the Republicans appears to have been shattered. During those thirty years, every victory the Republicans won only convinced the hard right elements that if they moved even further to the right they would win even bigger. This worked in the short-term, but it eventually blew up in their faces as the Republicans are simply too right wing for many in the US despite the fact the US is one of the most conservative countries in the Western world. The United States is still a centre-right country, but it is not a right wing country and that is where the Republicans messed up. Had they stayed a centre-right party rather than swinging hard to the right they probably wouldn't be in the mess they are today. If we look at the areas in each state Obama picked up that swung it in their favour (DC suburbs in Virginia, Denver suburbs in Colorado, I4 Corridor in Florida etc.) these are all moderate areas, not liberal, not conservative areas. Today the Democrats more or less occupy the centre while the Republicans don't anymore and I think that has a lot to do with the change that happened last night. Obama's policies of giving a tax cut to the middle class and lower income Americans as opposed to the very wealthy, using war as a last resort rather than first resort, and focusing on the economy rather than moral issues that pit community against community are all examples of him appealing the middle centrist voters. In fairness, McCain was initially a moderate, but his party had been hijacked by the hard right and if he wanted to keep the party united behind him, he really had no choice but to turn to the right. It was not just McCain/Palin that caused the results, it was the general rot within the Republican, the divisive tactics, and the ideological rigidity that hurt it.

Now that Obama has been elected, the tough part is going to be living up to expectations. Many people are very pleased he won and certainly globally, there is probably no day ever in history where America's image around the globe has changed so dramatically in 24 hours. But with high expectations, Obama will undoubtedly disappoint something. The important thing is that he moves the country in the right direction even if he doesn't get everything done. Also the good news for him is he won't face re-election until 2012 and his toughest decisions will likely come early in his mandate so although I expect his popularity to take a hit early on, Reagan and Clinton both faced the several problems after two years in power, yet both were handily re-elected. Also, the Democrats have a large enough lead in congress and the senate that it is unlikely the Republicans will regain control of either house in 2010 even if the Democrats do lose some seats, which will be a good thing for Obama. As for what direction he should take the country, I believe he stay as close to the middle as possible. The liberal areas of the US were already going Democrat to begin with, it was the moderate areas that put him over the top. Likewise the rejection of the Republicans was not people embracing liberalism, it was a rejection of neo-conservatism. Americans want a president who will unite people, not divide them, and who will govern based on what works not blind ideology. Drifting too far to the left would divide people and cause the same problems and governing by ideology be it left wing or right wing never works.

As for my predictions, it looks like I got two states wrong again (Indiana and North Carolina) so not bad in terms of my predictions and in both cases they were won by very narrow margins. Another interesting thing is the US for the first time ever had a higher voter turnout than Canada and while we had our lowest ever, they had their highest in over 100 years. Maybe this should give politicians an idea of what needs to be done to increase turnout. Likewise the Democrat gains in areas that seemed impossible 4 years ago shows the Liberals can rebound if they put their mind to it. In a span of four years, both countries have dramatically seen their political landscapes change, albeit in totally different directions. While the Conservatives have won many traditional Liberal strongholds and the Liberals are reduced to a shell of their former self, in the US the Democrats have won in many Republican strongholds who are reduced to a shell of their former self. This does not mean we are now a more right wing country. Harper got 38% while McCain got 46% so more still voted for parties on the right in the US than Canada and likewise 2/3 of conservative voters wanted Obama to win. But it certainly does mean in many areas are policies will be more conservative albeit the ability for any government to radically to change anything is difficult so we will still have tougher gun control laws and more public health care system than the US does despite having a more conservative government.

Since this is simply too much to discuss in one post, I will have more in the following days on how things shape up. The Democrats did gain in congress although it was not one sided like in 2006, but rather net gains and as expected, they lost seats in the South, but gained everywhere else. There are also still three senate senates that are uncalled including Minnesota which will be going to an automatic recount so a filibuster proof majority in the senate is possible but not likely.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Live Blogging US Election

In less than 20 minutes, the first polls will close in several states. We have a few early polls in Kentucky and Indiana, but way too early to make any predictions. McCain is doing well in Kentucky, but Obama is doing surprisingly strong in Indiana and this is without any of the counties that voted for Kerry in 2004 reporting. The big states to watch are Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. If Obama wins only 2 of those, that should be enough to put him into the white house. If he wins only one, then Colorado and Nevada will become crucial in determining who becomes president. The first states to close are Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, Kentucky, and Indiana. I expect them to call it pretty early in South Carolina and Kentucky for McCain while Vermont for Obama. I doubt they will call Indiana right away while Georgia leans McCain and Virginia leans Obama so depending on whether they call those right away or wait may be our first signs of what is to come. I plan to sign off at midnight at which point I hope Obama has won. I doubt he will win before 11:00 as he won't have enough electoral votes until the West Coast states close, but hopefully once Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii close, this will put him over the top. Alaska is largely irrelevant in the presidential election, although it could be pivotal in the senate as this could decide whether the Democrats get a filibuster proof senate or not. Unfortunately it closes at 1:00 AM which is too late for me to stay up so I will have more on the results tomorrow.

7:00 PM EST

So far CNN has projected that Obama will win Vermont and McCain will win Kentucky so no surprise here. At 7:30 Ohio, West Virginia, and North Carolina close. I doubt they will call North Carolina or Ohio immediately and maybe West Virginia for McCain, but all of them are probably too close to call. I have also seen the first exit polls and things are looking good in Indiana and Virginia so far, although I want to see if the results follow. Also Kerry only won four counties in Indiana last time around, but this time around there seems to be a lot more blue counties than in the past, which is good a sign.

7:30 PST

No more calls, although no surprise. At 8:00, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Tennesse, Alabama, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and Oklahoma. I expect Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, DC to go for Obama, while Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma for McCain. If they call Pennsylvania for Obama, this will be very good news.

Update: John McCain carries South Carolina as expected. Also, in Indiana McCain is ahead, but if you look at what counties votes for in 2004 and what they are going now, things are looking good for Obama. He is competitive in rural Indiana which went solidly Bush in 2004 and the Chicago suburbs still haven't reported where the Democrats are strongest in the state.

8:00 PM PST

Now 77 Electoral votes for Obama to 34 EV for McCain however, none of them so far have been surprises. All were states that were considered either safe Obama or safe McCain.

Update: NBC has projected New Hampshire and Pennsylvania for Obama so this looks good. CNN is always one of the more cautious than the other networks.

Update: CNN calls both New Hampshire and Pennsylvania for Obama, so at this point McCain absolutely needs to win states such as Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. Other than Nevada, he loses any of those and that is assuming he doesn't lose Indiana, he is likely toast. Also the Democrats pick up both North Carolina and Virginia in the senate. At 9:00 several states close including some key ones. I expect Obama to easily take New York, Rhode Island, Michigan, probably Wisconsin and Minnesota right away and possibly even New Mexico. Colorado probably won't be called right away. McCain should take Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. While North Dakota is probably too close to call while Arizona might be called for McCain.

9:00 PM EST

Obama wins New York and Rhode Island as expected, but also takes Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota which went narrowly for Kerry. McCain is projected to win Wyoming which is no surprise, but North Dakota was called right away for him which is surprise. Although I expected McCain to win this, not as decisively as he did.

UPDATE: CNN projects Georgia will go for McCain which is not a total surprise. Although I had hoped Obama would pull off an upset, it seemed a bit of a long shot.

BIG UPDATE: Barack Obama wins Ohio. I think with this win, it is mathematically impossible for McCain to win, even he takes Virginia and Florida. Now is time to watch just how badly Obama beats McCain.

UPDATE: Obama also picks up New Mexico. No real surprise, but nice to see another pick-up. In fact Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii are the only states Kerry won that have not been called for Obama and they have not closed so he will almost certainly win all the states Kerry did.

Up next is Iowa, Nevada, Utah, and Montana. McCain should win Utah, maybe Montana, Obama should win Iowa, while Nevada is another key state although with Ohio now going Obama, it probably won't matter at this point.

10:00PM PST

Obama wins Iowa, while McCain wins Utah. So far Obama has now won every state that either Gore or Kerry won in the last two elections plus Ohio. Iowa is also a big victory in the sense it is a fairly rural and predominately white state which is generally a demographic that goes Republican. At 11:00 PST, it will likely be declared that Obama will become the 44th president of the United States as based on the states they have already called + California, Washington, Oregon + Hawaii would put him over the 270 electoral vote threshold even if McCain somehow manages to win Virginia, Colorado, and Florida (all which look unlikely at this point). Even Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina are still in play, although I think McCain might narrowly win them. Missouri looks the most promising as most of the urban results haven't come in while Indiana looks like Obama will just fall short, but the fact he was that close to winning a supposedly solid red state is big news.

UPDATE: CNN projects Obama will win Virginia, so it is definitely over. It is only waiting for the final call which should be minutes away.

CNN Predicts Obama will become the 44th president of the United States!! I will sign off and have more on this tomorrow.

Monday, November 03, 2008

US Election predictions

# 1 #2

#3

#4

#5



With approximately 24 hours until the first polls close, I am now going to make my predictions. Rather than listing them off I thought I would show it visually and give an explanation below. Although it is still technically possible McCain could win the electoral vote, he would have to win every state he is within 5 points which seems extremely unlikely. So in summary, an Obama win is pretty much close to a certainty. In terms of the popular vote, my predictions are:

Obama 52%
McCain 47%
Other 1%

Map #5 above (sorry for the confusion, but I am not good with computer graphics) is what I think is most likely to happen. Last time I around, I got only two states wrong (I predicted Bush would win Wisconsin while Kerry would win Ohio, so Bush still would have won), so lets see if I can beat that this time around. This would be 338 electoral votes for Obama to 200 electoral votes for McCain.

Map#4 is the more optimistic scenario for Obama where he would win 378 EV to McCain's 160 EV. This one is quite plausible if there is a strong turnout amongst younger voters, African-Americans, and Latinos and likewise by the same token a lower turnout that expected amongst White Evangelical voters.

Map#3 is the dream scenario. I don't actually expect Obama to win this type of landslide, but essentially, any blue state here, he has at least a slim chance at winning while the red states, I am so confident will go McCain, I would be willing to bet $100 on each one of them. In this case Obama would get 411 EV vs. McCain's 127 EV.

Map#2 is the nightmare scenario where McCain would get 299 EV vs. Obama's 239 EV. Although all the red states are ones I could theoretically see McCain winning, I doubt this scenario will play about.

Map#1 is the most plausible scenario for a McCain win, which would involve only two states changing hands, Obama gaining Iowa and New Mexico, but McCain holding everything else Bush won in 2004 which would give him 274 EV to Obama's 264 EV. Were Nevada to go Democrat in this case, we would have a tie, however since both the senate and congress will likely be Democrat controlled, Obama would therefore become president.
In terms of the senate, I haven't analyzed all the races closely, so my predictions are as follows

56 Democrats
42 Republicans
2 Independents (Liebermann and Sanders)
So although the Democrats would gain in the senate, it would still put them short of filibuster proof majority, albeit since party discipline is much weaker than here in Canada, they could pass a filibuster if they could get two moderate Republicans to support them on any given bill which is much easier to do than trying to get nine. Ironically if McCain becomes president, the Democrats would gain one more senator as the governor, which is a Democrat would then appoint the replacement. In the case of Obama, Illinois has a Democrat governor so no change here.
In the case of the house, I predict a net gain of 5 seats for the Democrats. Most of the pick-ups will likely be in open seats in the West and Northeast where many Republicans from the days when the party was more moderate will become vulnerable as much of that area has shifted towards the Democrats. Likewise, I predict the Republicans will pick up a few Democrat congressional districts as it is extremely rare (not even in 1994 Republican Revolution) for all the losses to occur on one side. Mostly in the South where some Democrats have won due to incumbency but those areas are now Republican unlike in the past. Also, there were a few districts (i.e. Mark Foley's in Florida and Tom DeLay's in Texas) that are solidly Republican and were only lost due to corruption charges for the sitting or retiring incumbent, so a few of those should swing back to the Republicans.
The case of the governors and state legislatures, I predict Democrat gains as well and this is actually more important than most think. In 2010, there will be the new census and therefore re-districting for the congressional districts will occur. This means that in states that are heavily gerrymandered in favour of the Republicans, they can be re-distributed in favour of the Democrats or preferably in a neutral fashion as I oppose gerrymandering regardless of who it favours.