Larry Sabato shows what things would be like if the electorate is split roughly 50-50 with patterns of the early Double-Zero Decade (there were two nearly 50-50 Presidential elections) being tweaked some to fit 2008. I can easily imagine how 52-48 splits of the popular vote go either way. If the Republican wins 52-48, then reasonably all states in yellow and red go for the Republican, and maybe all states in blue at most barely go for the President. I can explain what the other side would look like, in which case President Obama wins just about everything in yellow. 50-50? They split. Sure, selection of the Republican nominee will matter greatly, so if the Republican nominee is (Indiana Governor) Mitch Daniels, then Indiana goes firmly into the Red group while a state like Arizona, Georgia, or Missouri shifts into the yellow category.

But I somewhat disagree with Sabato's assumptions about some states as 50-50. First, Indiana was a fluke. The Obama campaign saw some possibility of a win in the primary in Indiana and found it relatively inexpensive to keep a presence in a state that Republicans usually win. The state is ordinarily difficult for any Democrat not from the general area to campaign in, which explains why it was one of the worst states for Kennedy, Carter (1976), Clinton (who won all the states surrounding Indiana but not Indiana itself -- twice), Gore, and Kerry. Obama paid much attention to Indiana early and never gave up on it. An exact replication of 2008 in 2012 is unlikely, so as I see it, Indiana goes to Obama only if he wins about 55% of the popular vote nationwide. In contrast, I notice that John McCain won Arizona by a margin narrower than one usually expects of a well-regarded Favorite Son. I would nearly switch Arizona and Indiana in a 50-50 split, but put Arizona as Lean R and Indiana Likely R. Likewise, I see Colorado and Nevada drifting D because of demographic trends -- namely the growth of the Hispanic population. I'd switch those two states with Pennsylvania. I am less optimistic about President Obama in a 50-50 split of the popular vote than is Larry Sabato.

But Sabato catches something significant: in 2008, even though Barack Obama won some states by huge margins that might not be replicated in 2012, he won many such states by smaller margins than those by which he lost in. President Obama can be re-elected with a 49-51 split of the popular vote because winning the 36 electoral votes of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin by 4% each will mean almost as much as the Republican winning Texas by 24%.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Of course Verdi also explained the origin of the Mafia - or at least that of the term itself - in another opera of his:

A woman goes to a church in Palermo to fetch her daughter, who had been praying there all day - but once inside the church, she finds her being raped by a French soldier (Sicily being under French occupation at the time). The mother runs out of the church, screaming "Ma fia! Ma fia!" (Sicilian dialect for "My daughter! My daughter!"). The townspeople instantaneously rise up - and within six weeks rout the French from the entire island.

I vespri siciliani? Oddly, Ma fia! Ma fia! sounds much like the French Ma fille! Ma fille!. Standard Italian (which Verdi used) would be La mia figlia! La mia figlia! Italian gli is usually cognate to French ill before a vowel (even its silent e), French silent e usually cognate to Italian a that is always pronounced clearly and unambiguously. Italian doesn't pronounce the g but does pronounce the one l, but French pronounces neither l. Go figure!

Not an Italian-American, I have never associated any heroic achievements to the Mafia -- but only crime.

Nitpick, Italian "gl" represents a palatalized L, much like Spanish "ll" in some conservative dialects or Portugese "lh"

Originally Posted by Odin

Nitpick, Italian "gl" represents a palatalized L, much like Spanish "ll" in some conservative dialects or Portuguese "lh"

...or in lli as in Million in both English or German, in which case one has a palatalized l for all practical purposes. For the French it was a bataille and for the Italians it was a battaglia -- and in the French word, the two l's deserted and the e barely made its presence known if at all.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...or in lli as in Million in both English or German, in which case one has a palatalized l for all practical purposes. For the French it was a bataille and for the Italians it was a battaglia -- and in the French word, the two l's deserted and the e barely made its presence known if at all.

Ah! Thanks! I've been mispronouncing it all this time.

It was only when I studied Old English that I realized German prefixes were NOT pronounced "ge-" but, rather, "ye-"

Yours for standardized orthography - which would make English unreadable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...3gYF_blog.html

In a sense, it’s fitting that Bin Laden was killed at a time when the questioning of Obama’s American-ness had reached its apex, or if you prefer, its nadir. Last week, Obama was forced to release his long-form birth certificate in order to quiet the claim — one tacitly or overtly fed by leading conservatives, Republicans and right-leaning media outlets — that Obama wasn't really born in America.

Birtherism, of course, is only one strand in a larger narrative — including charges that Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, hates exercising American power, and embraces American decline — that’s designed to sow fears about the true nature of Obama’s real intentions towards our country. This narrative has at times even involved Osama himself — recall the use Osama, 9/11, and terrorism-related imagery to attack Obama, and the “jokes” conflating their names. Amazingly, all this reached its ultimate conclusion with the release of Obama’s long-form certificate, during the very same week when Obama was quite literally putting in place the final details of the plan that finally resulted in Osama’s death.

You couldn’t ask for a more perfect expression of how at odds with reality this storyline — and the media freak-show feeding it — are than that.


Obviously Obama still faces immense challenges that aren’t changed by bin Laden’s death, and in some ways, Obama has not broken with his predecessor’s national security approach. But the larger journey is still something to marvel at. The Sept. 11 attacks fundamentally transformed American politics. In the weeks, months and early years after Sept. 11, when fears of terrorism ran white hot and national security was widely seen as the linchpin of permanent GOP dominance, who would have thought that a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name would get elected over a Republican war hero while promising to restructure America’s relations with the rest of the world — and then go on to give the order to successfully kill the country’s number one terrorist foe, accomplishing one of America’s principal national security objectives?

From the vantage point of that hospital room in 2001, it would have seemed unthinkable. Yet here we are. The question now is whether the killing of bin Laden will fundamentally reshape what remains of the political landscape created by Sept. 11, by badly undermining the conservative narrative that Obama is weak, indecisive and insufficently committed to defending America, and by making those who question Obama’s intentions toward our country look ever smaller.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ent-obama.html

Rush Limbaugh on Osama bin Laden's death: 'Thank God for President Obama'

Rush Limbaugh began his radio show Monday morning praising President Obama for his leadership in the demise of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

In his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh who has been one of Obama's fiercest critics, gave the commander-in-chief all the glory in the successful mission that ended the life of Public Enemy No. 1.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we need to open the program today by congratulating President Obama," Limbaugh said. "President Obama has done something extremely effective and when he does, this needs to be pointed out. President Obama has continued the Bush policies of keeping a military presence in the Middle East. He did not scrub the mission to get Bin Laden. In fact, it may be that President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off."

Limbaugh, who has recently criticized the first lady's figure, said in 2009 that he hopes Mr. Obama fails, and complained last year about Americans donating to the post-earthquake humanitarian relief in Haiti, continued about Bin Laden: "You see the military wanted to go in there and bomb. They always do. They wanted to go in there and drop missiles and launch bombs. A number of totally destructive techniques here. But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces. No one else thought of that. President Obama. Not a single intelligence adviser, not a single national security adviser, not a single military adviser came up with the idea of using SEAL Team 6 or any Special Forces," Limbaugh said, with what some are saying is a slight tinge of sarcasm in his delivery.

"Our military wanted to go in there and just scorch the earth," Limbaugh continued, "but President Obama single-handedly understood what was at stake here. He alone understood the need to get DNA to prove the death ... it was President Obama single-handedly and alone who came up with the strategy that brought about the effective assassination of Osama bin Laden," the radio host said, concluding, "Thank God for President Obama."

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/0...ion-cancelled/

2012 Election Cancelled

Obama Buoyed by 100 Percent Approval Rating

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In what historians are calling an unprecedented development in American politics, both major parties decided today to cancel the 2012 election.

The decision to scrap the 2012 contest came on the heels of a new poll showing President Barack Obama with an approval rating of one hundred percent, believed to be a record high for an American president.

Mr. Obama even polled well among Republicans, with a majority of GOP voters agreeing with the statement, “I no longer care that he wasn’t born here.”

The new bipartisan spirit sweeping the nation was captured well by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who tearfully told reporters, “This is a great day for America… oh, leave me alone, goddamn it.”

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump made no official announcement, but sources said he was considering running for Prime Minister of Canada.

The cancellation of the election comes in the aftermath of the death of Osama bin Laden, whose last words reportedly were, “I knew I shouldn’t have signed up for Foursquare.”

Of all the major news networks, Fox News did not report news of bin Laden’s death, saying that it would air cartoons “until further notice.”

In Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued the following official statement: “Uh-oh.”

In North Korea, President Kim Jong-Il said this: “I have lost my last friend on Facebook.”

And in Wasilla, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said this: “We must find and kill Osama bin Laden.”

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/0...ion-cancelled/

reposting on facebook!!!

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/0...ion-cancelled/

Okay, I really did LOL! Very funny. Thanks for making me laugh...The last 3 lines are my favorites!

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...3gYF_blog.html

I wouldnt get too excited yet. I remember in March of 1991 when George H.W. Bush had a 90% approval rating and everyone thought he was unbeatable. The election is 18 months away and Obama will need a good economy (or at least improving greatly), lower gas prices, good stock market to have a good chance of re-election. He'll get a bounce from this, but I doubt it'll hold without further good news.

Originally Posted by Weave

I wouldnt get too excited yet. I remember in March of 1991 when George H.W. Bush had a 90% approval rating and everyone thought he was unbeatable. The election is 18 months away and Obama will need a good economy (or at least improving greatly), lower gas prices, good stock market to have a good chance of re-election. He'll get a bounce from this, but I doubt it'll hold without further good news.

He may not need those things at all. This is a Fourth Turning. A similar argument would have held that Lincoln could not have been reelected in 1864 if the war was still going or that Roosevelt couldn't have won in 1936 if we were still in depression. An interesting dynamic is playing out right now, with the popular reaction to what the Republicans are trying to do with their majorities in the House and in several states. The reality of our situation is that we have a terrible set of circumstances, things are not going to be all sunny and bright by next year, we're in this for a long haul, and the question before the voters is who has the best approach to lead us through it. If the voters understand that, then none of the things you say are true. If not -- if they're still stuck in a bunch of 3T illusions -- then you will be right. But at this point in time, I doubt that's the case.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

He may not need those things at all. This is a Fourth Turning. A similar argument would have held that Lincoln could not have been reelected in 1864 if the war was still going or that Roosevelt couldn't have won in 1936 if we were still in depression. An interesting dynamic is playing out right now, with the popular reaction to what the Republicans are trying to do with their majorities in the House and in several states. The reality of our situation is that we have a terrible set of circumstances, things are not going to be all sunny and bright by next year, we're in this for a long haul, and the question before the voters is who has the best approach to lead us through it. If the voters understand that, then none of the things you say are true. If not -- if they're still stuck in a bunch of 3T illusions -- then you will be right. But at this point in time, I doubt that's the case.

Well Lincoln had some good news in Sept 1864 with the capture of Atlanta. Roosevelt also had a lower unemployment rate than when he came into office. Obama will need that too. It doesnt have to be perfect but people will need a sense that things are getting better.

Originally Posted by Weave

Well Lincoln had some good news in Sept 1864 with the capture of Atlanta. Roosevelt also had a lower unemployment rate than when he came into office. Obama will need that too. It doesnt have to be perfect but people will need a sense that things are getting better.

Obama certainly had a good week with the birthers discredited and OBL killed (assuming you're not a conspiracy theorist who doubts either of these). But I don't see this election about being anything other than jobs and the economy, unless some massively cataclysmic world military event steals center stage. It's hard for me to even imagine which issue will register as a distant second in the minds of the people.

As far as what some Republicans are doing, whether in the House of Representatives or in statehouses, it may be an example of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it." Walker's situation in Wisconsin is an obvious example of this, but there are others. People think they want austerity and "small government" in the abstract -- until it's actually presented to them as an option they can attain.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Obama certainly had a good week with the birthers discredited and OBL killed (assuming you're not a conspiracy theorist who doubts either of these). But I don't see this election about being anything other than jobs and the economy, unless some massively cataclysmic world military event steals center stage. It's hard for me to even imagine which issue will register as a distant second in the minds of the people.

As far as what some Republicans are doing, whether in the House of Representatives or in statehouses, it may be an example of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it." Walker's situation in Wisconsin is an obvious example of this, but there are others. People think they want austerity and "small government" in the abstract -- until it's actually presented to them as an option they can attain.

2012 will be a referendum on the Obama Presidency not Walker or the House of Reps. If his approval is decent he'll win.

Originally Posted by Weave

2012 will be a referendum on the Obama Presidency not Walker or the House of Reps. If his approval is decent he'll win.

I wouldn't count on that totally. Obama has been underwhelming for most of his Presidency, but the Reps have been so extreme that even wimpiness may not be a factor. People vote for people they like or against people they fear. The Reps are acting a bit crazy, so the fear-factor could be in play.

Interesting poll results. Obama gets NO bounce from the Bin Laden kill. Now granted this is a "newsWEAK" poll which is usually skewed left, I was shocked at the results. Frankly we must wait a bit to get good polling but I am surprised at this. Interesting questions are this poll......

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...in-laden-kill/

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

He may not need those things at all. This is a Fourth Turning. A similar argument would have held that Lincoln could not have been reelected in 1864 if the war was still going or that Roosevelt couldn't have won in 1936 if we were still in depression. An interesting dynamic is playing out right now, with the popular reaction to what the Republicans are trying to do with their majorities in the House and in several states. The reality of our situation is that we have a terrible set of circumstances, things are not going to be all sunny and bright by next year, we're in this for a long haul, and the question before the voters is who has the best approach to lead us through it. If the voters understand that, then none of the things you say are true. If not -- if they're still stuck in a bunch of 3T illusions -- then (weave) will be right. But at this point in time, I doubt that's the case.

Attitudes can change fast in a 4T. I think that most Americans feel far safer now that Usama bin Laden is dead. I think that President Obama has just been exposed for what he is -- a cautious figure who tolerates no foul-ups that result from sloppy behavior. Above all he is not the sort of figure that the world saw far too much of among the previous Reactive generation -- a cynical, strutting, reckless adventurer with hurt feelings to salve and dreams of glory to be achieved irrespective of any human cost.

It's time for people to recognize that a return to a heady boom is impossible. FDR could win re-election with economic conditions much worse in late 1936 than in the middle of 1929. Lincoln could win in 1864 with a bloody carnage in no sign of coming to an end. All that people could see was progress.When people see such as the best that they can hope for, then they make their adjustments.

5/1/2011 is a break -- in something, even if we can't quite figure what follows.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Attitudes can change fast in a 4T. I think that most Americans feel far safer now that Usama bin Laden is dead. I think that President Obama has just been exposed for what he is -- a cautious figure who tolerates no foul-ups that result from sloppy behavior. Above all he is not the sort of figure that the world saw far too much of among the previous Reactive generation -- a cynical, strutting, reckless adventurer with hurt feelings to salve and dreams of glory to be achieved irrespective of any human cost.

It's time for people to recognize that a return to a heady boom is impossible. FDR could win re-election with economic conditions much worse in late 1936 than in the middle of 1929. Lincoln could win in 1864 with a bloody carnage in no sign of coming to an end. All that people could see was progress.When people see such as the best that they can hope for, then they make their adjustments.

5/1/2011 is a break -- in something, even if we can't quite figure what follows.

Conditions in 1936 were much worse than in 1929, but much better than in 1932! They won't be that much better in 2012. However, Obama has just scored a major foreign policy success and might parlay it into a significant withdrawal from Afghanistan which would be popular. His biggest asset, however, is obviously the Republican Party, which has not produced a candidate who could possibly win. I expect him to win fairly narrowly, and that could well signal that yes, Virginia, we are in a High.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Conditions in 1936 were much worse than in 1929, but much better than in 1932! They won't be that much better in 2012. However, Obama has just scored a major foreign policy success and might parlay it into a significant withdrawal from Afghanistan which would be popular. His biggest asset, however, is obviously the Republican Party, which has not produced a candidate who could possibly win. I expect him to win fairly narrowly, and that could well signal that yes, Virginia, we are in a High.

No, it would not. There is nothing whatsoever possible, nothing that could occur, that would signal that we are in a 1T in 2012. No way, nohow, not possible, forget it, can't happen, period.

One thing that happens in a 4T is a clear definition of sides. There's a general recognition that a problem exists, and contesting, diametrically opposed solutions. Separate from England, or bring the colonies more directly under Parliamentary rule. Dissolve the union, or form a new constitution. Separate into two countries, or abolish slavery and strengthen the federal government. Go all the way to government for the rich, or incorporate elements of socialism.

We are seeing that now, I believe. The progressive wing of the Democrats have voiced one side: move to alternative/green energy, get out of foreign wars, restore the middle class and narrow income gaps, major health care reform. The Republicans, after winning last year's election, have now had a chance to present the other side: crack down on labor, abolish Medicare, dissolve the federal government's aid to everyone except the very wealthy. The president (typically) is trying to straddle the fence between the two, which in the end won't work.

What I believe is that the 2012 election will be a referendum on those two approaches. But the election is a while off yet, and we will see more drama between now and then. Because in fact we ain't nowhere NEAR the end of the Crisis yet. And no election result sitting there all by its lonesome will say to the contrary.

A loud-mouthed, spittle-spewing Cajun cue ball once uttered an immutable truism about presidential elections..."It's the economy, stupid!"

The left has tried very hard to draw comparisons between Obama and Reagan. In order for Obama to follow Reagan's course, the economy would have to take off like a rocket this year, as it did in 1983. Instead, we are seeing the rise of inflation that everyone knew was coming due to Fed policy, along with weakening growth and a possible return of rising unemployment.

It cost me $50 to fill up my car's 14 gallon tank the other day. Spikes in gas prices of that magnitude have been known to spark recessions. We may very well be in for a double dip. Even without a recession, we are already currently experiencing 70s-style "stagflation"*. Unless something changes with the economy, Obama is virtually guaranteed to lose regardless of every other factor, including who his opponent is. Nothing else matters.

*There is an argument to made that following the course of Keynesianism in response to economic downturns, as we did without interruption from the New Deal era until 1980, and as we have in the current crisis since before Obama even took office, leads inexorably to "stagflation". I read an article recently that suggested Bernanke (a student of the depression) had succeeded in averting the 1930s, but brought us back to the 1970s as a result. You learn from experience -- trial and error -- and we may have enough data now to draw a firm conclusion about the end result of Keynesian policy: "Stagflation". Some would say the 70s were proof enough, but it could soon finally be inarguable.

Well, I guess from the above we know that JPT is still in 3T mode: a demand for instant results and instant gratification, my gas price has gone up WAAAH! and no consciousness at all that we are in a long process or that expecting the president to wave a magic wand and make everything perfect is unrealistic to say the least. As I said above, if the voters on the whole are also in 3T mode, then what he said is true and absent an instant return to real prosperity for most people Obama is a goner. We will have to see whether most of the voters have sobered up a bit by now, or not.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is an argument to made that following the course of Keynesianism in response to economic downturns, as we did without interruption from the New Deal era until 1980, and as we have in the current crisis since before Obama even took office, leads inexorably to "stagflation".

Not a good one, in view of the fact that a Keynesian response was made, as you say, to every economic downturn from -- well, from World War II, not the New Deal era -- until 1980, and "stagflation" was a phenomenon only of the mid to late 1970s. If what you are saying here were true, would we not have seen "stagflation" in the 1940s/50s/60s as well?

The cause of "stagflation" was the spike in oil prices engineered by OPEC beginning in 1973. It ended in 1983, the year that the North Sea oil hit the market and broke OPEC's control. Government economic policies had nothing whatever to do with either causing or ending it.

For not the first time on this thread I'll point out that the 2012 electorate will as is always true in a presidential election be larger, younger and ethnically more diverse than was the 2010 one. IOW, the 2012 electorate will look a lot more like the 2008 electorate than it will the 2010 one. This means that almost every state will hue bluer in 2012 than it did in 2010.

IMHO the most likely 2012 outcome is a fairly narrow Obama victory. In that I agree with the esteemed, and I do think highly of Prof. Kaiser, academic. However, I disagree that such an outcome portends the first 1T election since 1964. And BTW, I do agree with him that 1964, though cuspy, was stilll a net 1T election.

It's going to take a couple more election cycles before the outer driven millie dominant coalition can outvote the older inner driven boomer dominated coalition. As of now any pro Obama 2012 outcome may still be followed by another, though weaker, boomer backlash in 2014. By 2018 such might not be possible. The 4T is when the idealists peak in power and then decline. 2008 objectively was when we could see the beginning of the decline. The 2018 outcome may well be where we see an outer driven course locked in place until it is challenged and in time replaced by generational forces associated with the next awakening.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, I guess from the above we know that JPT is still in 3T mode: a demand for instant results and instant gratification, my gas price has gone up WAAAH! and no consciousness at all that we are in a long process or that expecting the president to wave a magic wand and make everything perfect is unrealistic to say the least. As I said above, if the voters on the whole are also in 3T mode, then what he said is true and absent an instant return to real prosperity for most people Obama is a goner. We will have to see whether most of the voters have sobered up a bit by now, or not.

This is not an issue of turnings. This is a permanent fact of elections and economics. Here's a chart of the price of gas over the past 6 years:



I'm not guaranteeing another recession, but if I was forced to place a bet...it's a no-brainer where I would place it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is not an issue of turnings. This is a permanent fact.

Yes, the price spike in oil is indeed a permanent fact, or at least it will endure until we get off oil. Welcome to the ranks of those who understand Peak Oil.

However, people's attitudes to this and how it reflects in electoral results IS a matter of turnings.