Yes We Can
by Brian Pierce • Feb 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm •
While I realize that this is designed to promote Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and is being sung by famous liberals and that it therefore deserves to be cynically torn to shreds with cutting sarcasm that demonstrates how much above the hype we all are, I still say it’s a pretty cool song. But, as always, I invite you to make snarky comments about it.
By the way: on this, the eve of Super Tuesday, does anybody out there maybe want to recant any assertions they may have made in recent days that the contest for the Democratic nomination isn’t even close? Anybody?
Comment by Lally on 4 February 2008 at 1:23 pm:
I actually really liked it.
I mean, I didn’t well up in tears like *some* people, but it got stuck in my head for an hour or two.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 4 February 2008 at 1:27 pm:
I shant recant. The national numbers are close, but Clinton still leads in the individual states and what’s going to matter is who wins the individual states…if she comes close to sweeping the states, even if they are proportional representation states, she will be the nominee by 10pm tomorrow night…at which time all of your fantasies will turn gray and dreary black.
Comment by tet on 4 February 2008 at 2:06 pm:
Hmmm. Actually, no, Billy Joe.
The McAuliffe Super Tuesday strategy for making Hillary a shoo-in was tragically flawed. The Super-delegates alone are uncomitted at the present time and enough to keep either of the candidates from a certain win.
Robert Novak did the calculations last night. I mean, what part of “no mathematical possibility” do you contest?
I agree with you that Hillary will be the nominee of the party in November, but it might very well turn into a brokered convention.
The GOP is a lot more interesting, since they differ in not having proportional delegates in states like Missouri, Arizona and New Jersey.
You know what I think is going to be the deciding factor for the Republicans on Super Tuesday? Immigration. The war continues to remain unpopular, in spite of the tactical success of the surge. This means that Hillary is actually closer to the typical American’s view than McCain is. Most people concerned about personal economics are going to be voting in the Democratic primary, so they won’t be making the decisions.
(This will be reflected in the national elections and part of what will result in a Democratic landslide in November.)
I think that the closer to the Mexican border a state is, the better the non-McCain candidates will do compared to what the pundits and pollsters expect.
The big question is “How will the non-McCain voters split where they put their votes?” That’s going to depend on which state we’re talking about. I, of course, expect the Libertarians to vote for RP, the evangelicals to go for Huckabee. What will decide the elections on Tuesday is where the conservatives go. The stronger McCain appears, the more likely the guys with “McCain Derangement Syndrome,” as the mainstream GOP refers to it, are going to vote for the guy that they see having a chance to beat him–Romney.
Will it be enough? At this point, I expect it will. California delegates are awarded by district, so it will depend on how they go. Interestingly enough, both McCain and Romney have been competing primarily in heavily-Democratic districts.
If McCain wins more than 50% of the California deligates, I have been wrong in my analysis of the interactions between the four components of the GOP and I’ll lose a chapter from my book, damn it.
To accurately predict what conservatives are going to do, the best gauge is probably Georgia (61% of the voters consider themselves conservatives). Again, if McCain gets more than 50% here, it proves my earlier analysis wrong.
This is what makes horse races fun. Any of y’all make any money on the Superbowl yesterday?
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by tet on 4 February 2008 at 2:14 pm:
BTW, that was an awfully pretty video. One thing I’ve been impressed by is the ability of the Obama camp to effectively use the New Media–a feat only matched on the GOP side by the Paul campaign.
It would certainly make me happy to see him defeat the Lizard Queen in the primaries. A futile dream, I know, but a fond one.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Augur on 4 February 2008 at 2:39 pm:
Billy, so much of what you say indicates a fundamental ignorance of the democratic primary process, which is worse than blinding obama love.
“what’s going to matter is who wins the individual states” Not true. What matters is the delegate count at the end of the night. Every state the Obama camp loses by a few percent, but holds even or wins in delegates should be considered a victory.
“even if they are proportional representation states” my reading of this is that billy thinks some of the states are proportional representation states. THEY ALL ARE.
No way this is resolved by tomorrow night.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 4 February 2008 at 3:08 pm:
Augur,
It’s true that all of the democratic primaries are proportional…I realize and know this, so please relax.
Let me clarify my main point. All of the early primaries, Super Tuesday especially, are about momentum. It might be mathematically possible for Obama to win after tomorrow night but it will not be possible in terms of momentum.
You cited what I said, “what’s going to matter is who wins the individual states” … and what I meant by that is who wins the majority of delegates in each state, which will most likely correspond to whoever wins the highest percentage of the votes in each state, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that needed clarification.
Tet,
Please learn to be concise if you want anyone to read your posts. Also, you’ve been completely and thoroughly wrong about every prediction I’ve ever seen you make…by that I especially mean your Romney obsession. If you honestly think that Georgia is an accurate predictor of the entire country’s Republican voting preferences then I’m afraid there is little use in me saying anything to you.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 4 February 2008 at 3:14 pm:
Let me also say that I sincerely hope that Obama is the nominee. If he is, it would be the first time in many many years that this country was presented with two candidates deserving of their attention and admiration and affection. Two candidates, both worthy of our high office.
Comment by J. Prescott on 4 February 2008 at 3:22 pm:
I don’t think I have made a prediction about the democratic primaries because the democratic mindset has always baffled me. :).
Also, I wanted to direct those who are interested to Michael Medved’s response to Tom’s theories about the Republican primaries.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/2e932bab-9582-42bb-baf6-5e6f54aa62ad
Comment by Augur on 4 February 2008 at 4:14 pm:
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
KEATING FIVE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Comment by J. Prescott on 4 February 2008 at 4:20 pm:
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
BOB THE BUILDER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_the_Builder
Comment by tet on 4 February 2008 at 7:04 pm:
BJ, I apologize for requiring our readers to, well, read. My posts will now get longer to more fully explain my principles, since I have weeded out those, like yourself, with really short attention-spans and no longer have to worry about them.
If you had read closely, I said that Georgia was a good gauge of conservative voters, since 61% of its GOP voters consider themselves conservative. This is a higher percentage than any other state.
Which predictions have those been, Billy Joe? Even Prescott’s not been willing to name any. If I am wrong about the situation, I will learn from it and refine my theories, like a good scientist.
I’ve also always been thoroughly unimpressed by “The Moustache’s” commentary. He’s not even contradicting me, since nowhere did I talk about conservatives voting for Huckabee, just evangelicals. Conservatives will vote their ideals (and go for RP) or their desire to win an election (and vote for Romney.)
The powers that be have been trying desperately to convince the American voting public that McCain is the winner. I, for one, remain unconvinced two days before ST.
We’ll see. If I’m wrong, it’s no big deal, right? I’m an old, burned-out insane hippy. Oh, but if you, Mr. Moderate, Billy Joe, and you, Mr. Logical, Prescott, are wrong on this one…..
I won’t stop laughing at you until November and no one else here will either. I can take a risk of being seen as a little more crazy in order to bet on this one.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by J. Prescott on 4 February 2008 at 9:29 pm:
Tom,
As for, “name one time one of my predictions have been wrong” I have stated before, the majority of your predictions are so far in the future and are substantiated so flimsily that they are impossible to refute. That doesn’t mean you are right, there is just not enough info to prove you wrong. Yet. But you have been proven wrong.
http://www.urbanagora.com/2007/10/reply-to-midnight-ride-of-ron-paul.html
Note that in the comments you site polls as evidence. Everytime I have offered polls as evidence, you have dismissed it because, gosh darn it, polls are unreliable. You picked Giuliani to be the Republican Nominee. He didn’t even make it past Super Tuesday. Well played. You also said that Ron Paul would garner serious attention and would run as a third party candidate. I guess you would suggest that slightly over than ten percent in a few races and a Maine showing would be serious attention, but there has been no discussion of Paul running third party. We need to put a hold on that. However, one prediction wrong. Tom = -1 of 2.
I couldn’t find where you switched from Giuliani to Romney, so I can’t speak to that. But yeah, you have been wrong.
As for a theory, I thought a theory would have to be based in some way shape or form on some sort of measurable standard? I have yet to see you use any sort of empirical evidence. If you have, please direct me to it, and explain how it substantiates your thesis. Everytime I have provided some sort of counter evidence, like polls, you dismiss it as unreliable because there is an agenda, or they don’t use a large enough sample, or some nitpicky reason(although again, when it suits you, you use polls without considering their agenda or sample size). You use anecdotal evidence and ” as not merely indicative evidence, but conclusive proof. When I offer comparable contradictory evidence, well then either they don’t know what you they are talking about or you don’t trust them. My particular favorite was you saying “I don’t trust economics or psychology. I trust these guys because they agree with me.”
I guess my question is, how is that good science?
The only thing I have said is that I think McCain is going to win, which I substantiated with what states I think he is going to win, and a few reasons (although by no means an exhaustive list) for why I think he is going to win them. I could very well be wrong. I made the best argument that I could with the information that I had. I don’t think that makes me laughable though, as everyone on this blog who has made a prediction about the elections has been wrong in some way shape or form about the election. For example, Brian was wrong when he predicted that Romney was going to win SC and Florida. And New Hampshire. But thats fine…it was a reasonable guess at the time, but hardly laughable.
And the results of your prediction are hardly bizarre. If Clinton wins, well its not like you called a Giants win in the Super Bowl, so quit hyping it like it is this seminal event. The reason I question your predictions,are because a) you treat it as an inevitable fact and b) you substantiate it with nothing but your word and analysis and expect us to treat it like fact. If you start pulling that type of thing and expect not to take some crap, you really must be from off the farm.
Comment by tet on 4 February 2008 at 10:04 pm:
Well, I have admitted that I had a weak moment about Giuliani at the time I wrote the Midnight Ride. I did correct that error a long time before any of the primaries, however.
I’m fascinated by all of this. We’ll see whether the logical or the intuitive approach will work better. Talking about people laughing at you and Billy was a low shot, so I will apologize for saying that.
Keep in mind, though, that it doesn’t take any nerve at all to call a Hillary win. It does take a whole buncha nerve to call a Hillary/Obama win. If that comes off, and other folks besides me are starting to talk about it, I would consider it quite a coup on my part.
I was wrong about RP running on a 3rd party ticket. However, it is entirely possible that, by drawing off a high number of conservatives, he may end up deciding the Romney/McCain race.
Tuesday the voters will call the shots. They’re going to vote their emotions. I was looking at the numbers for undecided in the ST states as of this week, and they’re falling into the 10% range. I wonder what that will mean?
This election is the most fun since 1992.
Tom Trumpinski