FlishFun.com

I know there is tons of talk about “Electability” when it comes to the current Democratic Nominees and much talk about the Electoral Votes. The main issue seems to be, will their Primary wins translate into Electoral Vote wins? According to the latest Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain charts, they’re not doing so well in the Electoral Vote area. So, who wants to see some maps?! I know I do! The starting map image was borrowed from Electoral-Vote.com, and I gathered the data and colored them in.

Let’s start with the Wins (and current predicted wins) for Obama/Clinton:

The biggest thing you can see here is that Obama rules the Midwest and South East, while the South West and North East go mainly to Clinton. Sure, that’s a generalization, as there are a few states that don’t fit the mold (Florida, Washington, Maine), but it’s a good sum up of their strengths. So, with seeing that map, most people say that Obama is great at winning Red States, while Clinton can easily pick up the “standard” Blue States. Is this really the case? Let’s go back a few elections and see which (if any) States are really “red” or “blue”. Read the rest of this entry →

I was browsing the web last night when I came across the new Republican National Convention logo:

Wow… what a logo that is. Wanna see the Democratic National Convention logo? Check it:

I don’t think those mountains stand a chance against that elephant. In fact, here’s an awesome mini-article about the current RNC Logo (The Angry Elephant):

The elephant—a symbol of the Republican Party dating back to Thomas Nast’s cartoon in Harper’s Weekly in 1874—has long been thought to be both “strong and dignified.” While these words have not always described the Grand Old Party itself, they do well apply to the old and familiar elephant symbol, with its simple red and blue graphic forms and three patriotic stars. The new Republican National Convention logo has pushed the immobile elephant in a less cute direction, now looking something like Babar’s evil and dumb cousin who ate wild mushrooms; it’s breaking free of the circus ring in order to bludgeon the crowd. Simplicity has been cast aside with the new agressive stripes, flailing limbs, a curly trunk, and pointy tusks. A terrifyingly patriotic and angry eye stares at the indoctrinated far right, and threatens the majority of the United States (also the world) with a circus of policies we can’t even imagine. Just like the party it symbolizes—the symbol is both unwieldy and frightening—”strong and dignified” no more.

This is what the terror looks like up close, right before you get crushed.

(note: this was written by a hippie, pinky, east-coast, big-government liberal)

Hilarious and scary all at the same time.

The short answer is “no”. Well, not in this universe, but that seems only to be because of the way Democrats have “split” the delegates, rather than have the “winner-take-all” system of the Republicans. A lot of people probably assume that Obama would be still winning had the Democrats used that system, but they’d be wrong. According to Electoral Vote, it looks like the only way Hillary isn’t currently winning is due to the fact that there isn’t a “winner-take-all” system in place. To quote the data:

Quite a few people have asked what would have happened if the Democrats had used a statewide winner-take-all rule. In other words, suppose the statewide winner got all the delegates. Where would be be now? Here is the answer. The calculation assumes Clinton won Nevada and Texas. She got more votes in Nevada but fewer delegates (by 1). She also won the popular vote in the Texas primary.

Hillary Clinton would have 1726 delegates to Barack Obama’s 1533. The reason the Democrats don’t have a winner-take-all rule is because they are Democrats. They don’t consider it fair that the birthday boy or girl gets to eat the whole cake. You have to share it with your friends. Republicans have a different world model. You either win or you lose. If you win you get to take all the marbles home. If you lose, you get no marbles. Try harder next time. If the Democrats had employed winner take all but for only 80% of the delegates leaving 20% for the PLEOs, the score now would be Clinton 1381, Obama 1226.

So there you have it… Obama should be counting his lucky stars that the Democrats don’t have a winner-take-all rule. The other interesting thing about this number is that Florida and Michigan aren’t included, so it shows Hillary would be ahead even without the help of those two states. I wonder if this will change anyone’s opinion on the whole race, or will maybe just be seen as an interesting fact.

Rhode Island… done. Texas… outta here. Ohio… stick a fork in it. Last night Hillary Clinton not only stopped Obama’s winning streak, but with 3 large victories she stopped his momentum faster than a crash barrier could stop a speeding dump truck. Obama has to be hurting… not only has the press turned on him over the past couple days, but now his “sure thing” has become a little more unsure. To quote the article above:

And how did Obama react? He blew up during a Texas press conference heavily attended by Chicago journalists. He stormed off after only eight questions regarding the contacts between his campaign and Canadian diplomats over NAFTA and the Rezko trial. The national press had already been grumbling about his insularity, and Obama gave them an excuse to write reams of material about it, Rezko, and the NAFTA dance.

In short, Obama has exposed himself as a seriously inexperienced and flawed candidate. He hasn’t really been tested until now, and the glass jaw he showed in the first few days of the real bout must have the party establishment worried about a lengthy battle against either Hillary or McCain. Against both, he may soon flounder — and that slim lead in pledged delegates will not present much of an obstacle to bypassing him in Denver.

Yikes. Obama doesn’t do well when he’s not winning and everything isn’t rainbows and puppy dogs and sunshine it seems. Now, the one thing I keep hearing people say is “Well, he’s won more states! Hillary should just give up!” The only response I can give to that is, have you checked out the “popular” vote? Sure, Obama has a few more delegates and has won more states, but the man can’t seem to swing a big state to save himself. California? Clinton. New York? Clinton. Texas? Ohio? New Jersey? Clinton. Obama does great in small states like Alaska, North Dakota, Hawaii, etc… but he just can’t seem to get a big win. Not something someone trying to become President wants to see. Anyway, the popular vote… last week Obama’s camp said Hillary should drop out after losing 11 states in a row, but here is the current breakdown of the popular vote (as of 8:00AM CST from CNN.com):

Barack Obama: 13,423,474 (50.36%)

Hillary Clinton: 13,234,050 (49.64%)

Just a bit close, no? That’s a difference of only 189,424 people out of 26,657,524 votes… that translates into a 0.71% lead. Oh yeah, she really has no chance at all… you know, unless she actually starts winning states again (whoops, looks like that’s happening!). For those curious, these numbers include FL and MI, with Obama getting all the “non-Clinton” votes from MI and it does not include the Texas caucus (which is still being counted and too close to call).

In other news (meaning Republican news), Huckabee finally conceded defeat last night after losing to McCain. While this news is completely expected, it was nice to see him actually run the full race rather than just give up early on. So, the GOP finally has their nominee in the bag… now he just needs to pick a running mate. Let’s hope the Democrats figure this whole thing out soon before they’re left in the dust. Now, I’ve mentioned it before, but I’d love to see a Clinton-Obama ticket, and apparently so would Hillary:

With most political observers sound asleep after a long Tuesday evening that appeared to augur at least seven more weeks of possibly bitter and divisive struggle between the two Democrats until a potentially decisive Pennsylvania primary on April 22, Clinton went on some morning news programs, according to the Associated Press, and appeared to raise the possibility of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket.

“That may be where this is headed,” she said, “but, of course, we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”

Interesting… that’s the second time this has come from her camp, but the first time it has been mentioned by her. It’s also a smart move… it shows that she respects Obama and wants to try to re-unite the Democratic Party. It’s also a trap, as he’s kind of in trouble either way he answers. If he says “no”, then it make it look like he’s just trying to make a power grab, the nomination is his and only his! Screw the party!! If he says “yes” to the thought, then voters may start voting more for Hillary as it will stall his momentum more. Smart move by her any way you can look at it.

Well, it looks like we’ll be continuing on to the next races… fun fun fun!