Who's Laughing Now?

Tomorrow's Results Tonight

Let's keep the predictions short and sweet:

ELECTORAL VOTE: Obama 419, McCain 119

POPULAR VOTE: Obama 54%, McCain 42%, Barr 2%, Nader 1%, McKinney 0% (rounding to the nearest percentage point)

KERRY/GORE STATES: Obama wins them all

TOSS-UP STATES: Obama wins Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Virginia

SURPRISE STATES: Obama wins Arizona, Louisiana, and at least one electoral vote from Nebraska

STATES WHERE I'M HEDGING MY BET: Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia -- I don't think Obama will win these, but if it's as big as it could be, these states will be closer than expected, even if they don't tip.

SENATE SEATS: Dems net +11 seats (including wins for Martin in Georgia and Musgrove in Mississippi)

CLOSEST SENATE RESULT: McConnell/Lunsford in Kentucky

BIGGEST SENATE SURPRISES: Graham/Conley in South Carolina, Johanns/Kleeb in Nebraska, and Cornyn/Noriega in Texas (These will be much closer than expected, and the Dems may pick up one of these seats.)

HOUSE SEATS: Dems net +42 seats (including seats in Alaska, Idaho, and Wyoming)

BIGGEST HOUSE SURPRISES: Dems take total control of all House seats in New England and Minnesota, and all but 2 in New York; their margin in the Southwest (AZ, NV, NM, and CO) goes from 10 of 21 seats to 16 of 21 seats

GOVERNORSHIPS: Dems hold North Carolina and Washington and pick up seats in Indiana and Missouri, for a total of 30 governorships

FUN GUBERNATORIAL FACT: Indiana would thus have its first female governor in Jill Long Thompson, and North Carolina its first female governor in Bev Perdue. If both women win, then in January there will be nine U.S. states with female governors, the highest number at any one time in U.S. history.

HOW LATE WILL I GO TO BED?: I might not. But then I have Wednesday and Thursday off. (Wednesday night I'm going to the "Celebrate Obama" event at the Texas Embassy, so that could be a late one . . . )

Another November 4

On November 4, 1980, the American people elected Ronald Wilson Reagan of California as our 40th president in a landslide. He won the popular vote by 10 points, trouncing President Carter 489-49 in the Electoral College. On President-Elect Reagan's coattails, Republicans netted a gain of 12 seats in the Senate, putting them in control of that house of Congress for the first time in decades.

Interestingly, Carter had held a narrow lead in the polls until right up before Election Day, as there was a sense (among the media, at least) that voters would not trust Reagan to run the country. He was too far to the right, a "right-wing nutcase," even. And then, on November 4, 1980, he won in a landslide that redefined America as a center-right nation for a generation.

And now, this Tuesday, some 28 years later, a generation later, another November 4 sees another monumental election in our nation's history. And I predict, just as on that past November 4, the polls have failed to reflect the true momentum of what has come to pass.

The fact is, we are no longer a center-right nation. Party ID has shifted massively from a slight advantage for Republicans to a much more sizable advantage for Democrats, and also an increased edge for independents. Are we a center-left nation? That remains to be seen. But the nation, as a whole, is a much bigger tent than it used to be.

And people are hurting, and much more open to the possibilities. And that's because the last eight years have seen a massive failure of all the institutions on which we thought we could rely. Banks have failed. People have lost much of their savings, their retirement funds. They've lost their homes. Three thousand people were murdered on September 11, 2001, and we have failed to apprehend the culprits, let alone bring them to justice.

Instead, our government lied its way into an unrelated war, all while relegating extraconstitutional powers to the vice-president, withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions, and authorizing torture and other profound violations of our most fundamental principles. Here, I am speaking not only of the Constitution, but of our sense that we, as Americans, must hold ourselves to a higher standard, because we are the standard to which the world aspires. To paraphrase President Reagan, and the Americans who came before, we are that city on a hill.

And yet, in the aftermath of the bloodiest day on the American mainland since the Civil War, our leaders failed us. There was no true call to national unity, no sense of a need for moral courage, of a calling higher than our own individual interests. Instead, the president told us to go shopping. All the while, the Congress ratcheted up spending, not only on defense, but increasing entitlements to a level surpassing that of Lyndon Johnson.

In retrospect, then, it's no surprise that Americans drowned on their rooftops and starved on the streets of one of our great cities for nearly a week before the government could figure out where they were and how to save them. And now, with the financial industry on the brink, and unwilling to spend its own capital to save itself, the government writes a blank check, nationalizing banks nearly destroyed by their own greed.

And the debt. The unthinkable debt. Since the fiscal year ended September 30th, we have already added an additional $500 billion to the national debt. This is as much as was added in the entire last fiscal year. Now it's well above $10 trillion and counting.

That number is so large, it's nearly unfathomable. What people see is their own bottom line. They're not making much more than they used to, but they can't buy as much. And we're talking basics, like gas, like milk. And employers are cutting back on health care.

In short, the nation is ready for a change. And actually, I don't think it was at all a sure thing for a Democrat to win this year, or to win big. A Republican that could have run strong on economic issues, connecting to the concerns of middle class and working class voters, could have had a chance. We could have had a debate on economic policy, instead of hearing the same BS talking points again and again and again.

But even that's not the fundamental problem with McCain's campaign, and the major asset of Obama's. Obama spoke in the language of American exceptionalism. McCain never did. To be fair, that's not the type of guy McCain is; he's something of a fatalist, if a romanticized one. He may have ridden to office on Reagan's coattails, but McCain was never an American exceptionalist. Obama is one, in his truest heart; really, he has to be, when you think about where he's come from.

What do I mean? Take this final viral video as an example:

Every so often, there are times when America must rise to meet a moment. And our moment is now. This is our moment. This is our time to unite in common purpose, to make this century the next American century. Let's go change the world.

Yes, obviously, it's a campaign speech. But there you have the essence of American exceptionalism that has been so lacking the last eight years: yes, the stakes are higher than they've been in decades. But together, we can meet the challenges we face, and the challenges to come. Together, united once again in our common purpose, this still-young century could be as great as the one that's past.

And, in short, I think that's why Obama will not just win, but win with a margin that's comparable to Reagan's. Sure, get-out-the-vote is a big factor, enthusiasm among the young and among African Americans is a factor. But the young and the black do not deliver a margin of 10 points or more.

If, tomorrow night and Wednesday morning, things end up blowing up as big as I think they will, you will hear a lot more about President Reagan, measuring his victory -- and his temperament, and his sense of America's greatness and great promise -- against that of America's 44th president-elect, Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois.

All Souls

So I am going to post my 2008 election predictions later tomorrow/today (Sunday, the Lord's day).

This may not happen till after I screen the new Bond film at one of my favorite cinemas, the Vue Islington, which I am rather looking forward to. Unfortunately, some of our group didn't buy their tickets in advance, and the screening had sold out Saturday afternoon. It's on four screens, but oh well . . .

So there's something to look forward to. I plan to predict electoral votes, as well as Senate, House, and gubernatorial races. I am totally spoiled now that I have my cable FINALLY working, thankfully in time for Election Night in America.

Further Insights on the Governor of the Welfare State

Three more thoughts on Sarah Palin:

1) Is she dyslexic? I mean this in the nicest way possible. I started thinking about this after her malapropism from the debate with Biden:

I'm not one to attribute the actions of man to climate change.

Well, I thought it was a malapropism, but then she said the same thing, in exactly the same words, in a TV interview a week or so later. Maybe she just hadn't memorized her talking points very well. I wonder, though, whether she might have at least a mild learning disability? I suggest this as it might be a reason she bounced between colleges (as at the time she attended college, there would have been little support for dyslexic students).

2) Do her children go to school? My mom brought this up before Andrew Sullivan did (after all, she is a teacher). It's problematic enough to have a governor who is anti-intellectual, anti-science, even anti-reading (and how I wish that was an unfair slur), but to hold her up as some sort of "hockey mom" while her children appear to be ever-present at campaign events (and not only at weekends) raises the question. Although point no. 1 above might explain why she's not a reader, and wouldn't place such a value on education (even in her own family . . .)

3) How can she possibly have a shot in 2012? I don't mean just because of her completely disastrous rollout on the national stage. Leave that aside, and consider: she is the governor of the Welfare State. No wonder she said "The government doesn't have to worry about money," because, in Alaska, they don't. They don't tax their citizens; they tax corporations, and then cut their citizens an annual check, to the tune of several thousand dollars a year for every man, woman, and child in the state.

Earlier this year, Palin imposed a windfall profit tax on the oil companies, and gave all her state's residents a second check, in addition to the one check they were already going to get this year.

Here's my point: without McCain as the focus, and with four years till her next shot at national office, surely there'll be more attention on this. And should the civil war for the future of the Republican party that I expect actually ensue, won't her fiscal record make her anathema to her party's base?

I repeat: she imposed a new windfall profit tax to give every person in her state an extra check this year. If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wanted to impose a windfall profit tax, the GOP would call it socialism. But, hey, she's a MILF, she's not hot on book-learnin', and she didn't have an abortion, so it's fiscal-schmiscal.

In Which I Say Something Nice About Sarah Palin

. . . for a change. (And that's change you can believe in!)

I am watching a program called View from the Right on CNN International, with David Brody, Stephen Hayes, David Madden, and a couple other conservative pundits. One of them just referred to the fact that Gov. Palin "can see Russia" as a reason not to present her as a foreign policy expert.

Amazing, isn't it, that Republican pundits have assimilated Tina Fey to the point that they attribute her joke to Gov. Palin? Because Gov. Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house." That was Tina Fey on SNL.

Of course, Gov. Palin did say a lot of silly stuff, but nothing quite that deliberately stupid. After all, Wasilla is on the mainland, in the Mat-Su Valley, and not on the island that shares a maritime border with Russia.

Just interesting, isn't it, how such a claim not made by the candidate can come to so thoroughly permeate the national discourse . . . Not unlike the claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet (which, likewise, he never actually claimed to have done) . . .