Beyond Opinion

I remembered a long time ago in a computer class that the computers we were provided quacked when you tried to mouse something that you shouldn't. It was the error message sound. I told the instructor that he had a duck instead of a mouse. He said he was going to get rid of that quack.

I remembered it and wanted to try the quack out to see what it must have been like. So on both my home and work computers, I changed the default sound for several types of events on the computer to a file quack.wav, which I found with the aid of Google. The file quacks when activated.

Soon after I did this, two people said they did not like the quack. It bothered them. So what's it about quacks that bother people? These same people would readily go to a duck pond in a park to feed the ducks, even though lots of quacking is going on there. Why is it so menacing on a computer screen? Huhh? And in this very same work place, there are other disturbances going on, like people gabbing about the temperature and other topics, people singing songs and telling jokes, and even bringing in boxes that play songs when hit or wound, and to top it off, a lot of mostly pro-Republican and pro-Bush political arguing. So all this does not bother people, but quacks do? People are afraid of ducks. I guess that must be the case. Just like when I jiggle keys and my cats run off, these people run off or more likely complain when they hear the barest sound of a quack. All I can say is, we are a duckophobic species, and when you are working around with others, it's best if your computer doesn't quack. Sad, but true. Quack. (Excuse me.)

I was amazed to read on Race 2004 that "A new Ward Research poll without Nader in Hawaii has Bush in the lead." Whaaa?? I thought Hawaii was one of Kerry's strongest states. If this is true, Kerry is finished. It means a landslide for Bush somewhere between 1984 and 1988 strength. I am not sure if I would trust this poll. Somehow I have a vague recollection of polls coming out in Hawaii that had Bush ahead. The majority of polls so far have had a strong lead for Kerry, and so I expect that Hawaii would go for Kerry and the election will be close.

But yet this election is not that simple any more. In fact, it is becoming an Alice in Wonderland election. Two other Whaaa??s have occurred recently. First, I hear on CNN, and then in a subscription newsletter, that to win this election, either Bush or Kerry must carry at least two of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. However, this same site Race 2004 shows Kerry carrying (kerrying?) Ohio and Pennsylvania, but yet losing to Bush by 271-267. It shows Bush taking two of three out of the Midwest Dukakis Three (MD3), which is what I call Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Electoral Vote.com shows all three of the MD3 going to Bush, so that Kerry, despite having Pennsylvania and Ohio, still needs Florida for a big-3 sweep to win the election. Perhaps the rule should be revised to say that the winner needs 3 out of 4 of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and the MD3, except that if MD3 splits then the 2 out of 3 rule holds, and if the 4 split, then anything can happen.

And now the big one. Hold on to your hats, folks. Especially you Bush fans out in Hawaii and the MD3. A new national poll out today shows Kerry with a 3-point lead! This is the Associated Press poll, as reported by Bloomberg. (Link probably won't work after 2004 October 31.) So on Election Day, Bush will take the MD3 and Hawaii, but he will lose the election. Right.

What do I think? I withdraw my prediction of Kerry. There have been recent Bush advances, and this has really tightened things up. As I said before, I now regard the Lichtman Keys as useless at this point, because of backward interpretation. So the polls and events the next few days will decide who wins on November 2, and hence whether Kerry becomes the greatest President in American history.

It is well known that Bush mangles the English language at times, producing what are called Bushisms. Some examples are saying that Japan and the US have enjoyed a century and a half of good relations, confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, and coining the non-word misunderestimate. Some of these are quite humorous and interesting.

So the question arises: does Kerry commit Kerryisms? Apparently the people from Slate magazine think so. They quote many examples of supposed Kerryisms in an article in Slate, and I read them and I just don't get it, somehow. This looks like normal talk, and Kerry is not misusing the words. Bush commits Bushisms, but Kerry does not commit Kerryisms.

So what does Kerry do? Kerry is a blabbermouth. Here is an example from Slate:
Kerry's Script: It's wrong to make it illegal for Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices.
Actual Kerry: But not satisfied to hold onto the drug company's profit there, they went further. Medicare belongs to you. Medicare is paid by the taxpayer. Medicare is a taxpayer-funded program to keep seniors out of poverty. And we want to lower the cost to seniors, right? It's common sense. But when given the opportunity to do that, this president made it illegal for Medicare to do what the VA does, which is go out and bulk purchase drugs so we could lower the taxpayers' bill and lower the cost to seniors. It is wrong to make it illegal to lower the cost of tax and lower the cost to seniors.

It seems he keeps going on and on and on and does not know when to stop. He overruns time limits on his campaign trail, doubling the size of a speech through the massive amount of ad libbing that he does to the script that is given him. One thing that seems to be in his favor is that he does not claim to have the answer to things. However, he can shorten his talking, and get more impact, as his essential points will not be buried in a frothing blabberia.

I have run into a few blabbermouths in my life and they have wasted hours or even days of my time. So I expect that if Kerry is elected, he will blabber on and on and waste people's time. That is not so bad as finding an excuse to put American troops in Iraq. But still, if Kerry will shorten up a bit, he will improve his chances for re-election.

By the way, on that . . . , it seems that Bush is gaining again. The race now looks closer than before. For that reason, I now am not going to name a predicted winner. Yesterday I said that Kerry was going to win. I played this game today. I gave Bush the state in the union that most favors him, namely Utah. Then I gave Kerry the "state" that favors him the most, the District of Columbia. Then I gave Bush the next state in his favor (Idaho), and Kerry his next (Massachusetts), and I went like that over and over again until Kerry's total surpassed 270. The state that did that was Ohio. I think the election will be decided on this one state. How Ohio goes, so will go the nation on 2004 November 2.

I have been watching with interest the polls in recent weeks, although Lichtman of the 13 keys says it does not make any difference. Now they begin to make a difference. Kerry got no post-convention bounce. Bush got a mild one, but the excellent way that Kerry handled the debates caused him to win 2 and tie one, and it erased the difference in the polls. Now the polls are slowly inching his way. I look at several poll places, including Slate, Race 2004.net, and Electoral Vote.com (if that Electoral Vote link gives you an infinite hourglass, try sticking a 2 or a 3 after "-vote", but don't otherwise). These are "metapolls", meaning that they are a poll of polls, including Rasmussen, Survey USA, Gallup, CNN, Zogby and others. These poll results are beginning to show a creep towards Kerry.

Really, most of the states are settled and out of play. The only ones that aren't are the swing states, which in my opinion are Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, and good old Florida. Most of these are "plastic peanuts", even moderate ones like Wisconsin. The election seems to be boiling down to the three giants among these states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Up to now, it seems that Pennsylvania has trended towards Kerry, Florida towards Bush, and Ohio right smack in the middle as possibly this year's decisive state. Now the polls indicate almost unanimity for a slim edge for Kerry in Pennsylvania, a bare trend towards Kerry in Ohio, and about as dead even as can be in Florida (not again!). This means that Kerry is slowly getting the advantage.

But wait - don't the Lichtman Keys to the White House show a trend towards Bush, instead? Up to now I have been saying that Bush will win because he has not lost enough of these 13 keys to lose the election. Up to recently, I would say that was the case. However, based on what I have seen recently, I am calling Key 11, Foreign and Military Success (FMS), fallen. This means that Bush has lost six keys, and that costs him the election. Therefore, I am now predicting, rather cautiously and nervously, that Kerry will win this election and send Bush back to Texas.

What are the Lichtman Keys? A few years ago, Prof Allan Lichtman published his book about 13 keys, or statements about the candidates and the country. These are the statements, along with my assessment of them.

1. After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.

Stands. This is a numerical fact, caused by the Republican sweep of 2002.

2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.

Stands. No one dare run against him in the Republican nomination.

3. The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

Stands. George W. Bush is the President.

4. There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

Stands. No third party is coming anywhere near 5% of the vote, which is required to topple this key. They all are going to get about 1% or less, unless something dramatic happens.

5. The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

Falls. Up to about two months ago, I would say this one stands. But what matters are not figures, but how people feel about the economy. I don't think people feel good about the economy, as can be seen in such places as Ohio. So I called this one down about two months ago. By the way, Allan Lichtman disagrees with me on this, saying it still stands.

6. Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

Falls. This was ensured by the Dot-Com bust of 2000 March.

7. The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

Falls. Some would argue that the Department of Homeland Security is a major change. But apparently this was just shuffling the blocks around. These blocks perform pretty much the same functions as before the creation of the Department. So Allan, and I, call this one down.

8. There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

Stands. The anti-Iraq War protests were not enough to topple this key, which requires massive demonstrations and unrest comparable to 1968.

9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

Stands. Several possibilities, but all have fizzled, including Abu Ghraib.

10. The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Planeattack, or 9/11, was definitely a foreign and military failure.

12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

Falls. Bush is not charismatic; he's quirky instead.

13. The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Stands. Kerry to me has a powerful, commanding voice, but not quite the style to create charisma

That's five keys down. Now the decider:

11. The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Up to now we have all been saying that invading Iraq and Afghanistan are foreign or military successes. After all, we did kick out the Taliban, scattered Al Qaeda all over the place, killed Saddam's sons and captured Saddam. But that's only part of the story. Sure we captured Saddam, but at the cost of being stuck in a quagmire war where insurgents shoot at US troops every day. The country is slow in coming back, and its oil exports have actually decreased. But what seals this one is public opinion. If you look at the polls on the question of whether we do well in Iraq, most of them show huge percentages for Fair and Poor. Rasmussen does, for instance. This to me is not a military success, and not in the perception of the nation's people. So in my opinion, this one falls. Up to now I have been saying that it stood. And that swings my prediction to Kerry. But what about Afghanistan? Didn't we disperse Al Qaeda and overthrow the Taliban? Yes, but we have yet to capture Osama bin Laden. So that is not a success either. If he is captured between now and November 3, that will swing my prediction back to Bush.

But it still is not certain. To me, deciding whether the FMS or the STE keys fall or stand is a murky judgement call, and one that is subject to Monday morning quarterbacking. In other words, if Kerry wins, that means that FMS fell, but if Bush win, then it must have stood. With this in place, the keys become practically useless, and one can only depend on the polls, which are going to become more accurate every day. It still could go either way, but right now I am saying, based on six keys falling and on the polls, that Kerry will win, but I have low confidence in that.

What happens if Kerry wins? This country has a crisis coming up. Check out Fourth Turning and Oil Crisis for details. Also look at my Periodic Presidents, in the archives of this blog; later I will place them in a separate location. President Bush is a Nero President, analogous to Hoover and Buchanan. The next president in my Periodic Table would be the Crisis President, like Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. These presidents are regiarded by historians as the best in US history, but that is only because they led the nation through crisis. Even a rather ordinary president can become great in crisis. Still a President needs a certain amount of the "right stuff" to become a Crisis President. Kerry demonstrated in the debates that he has that stuff. Bush has not. So if Kerry is elected, he will become one of the greatest Presidents in American history. If Bush is elected, his policies will be discredited, leading to a Democratic victory in 2008. I tried the keys on that assuming Bush wins and get something like 9-12 keys down for the Republicans. The winner of that election will be one of America's greatest.

Hurricane Gaston (2004 August 30) washed out a number of roads around the Richmond, Virginia, area. One such road is US 301, which is the best way to get from Richmond to Baltimore, or maybe even Washington. A bridge was washed out at Kersey Creek, which is between I-295 and Va 54. I heard they are going to be putting up a temporary bridge by the end of this month. Until then, Virginia DOT has put up a web site describing it as closed. This is what the site says:

Route 301 Hanover-The road is closed at the Kersey Creek Bridge due to a bridge washout. Through traffic is prohibited between I-295 and Route 54. The detour is Route 643 to Route 656 to Route 657 and back to Route 301.

OK, except that if you look on a map, Routes 643 and 657 intersect US 301 between I-295 and Route 54. Detours are put up to route through traffic around a part of the road that is closed. Since when do you start at a detour at a place that you can't travel to? "Road Closed" comes before "Detour". That doesn't make sense. The detour needs to come first. Route 643 is in the prohibited part of I-295. And so is Route 657. Either Virginia DOT has placed a detour on roads that the public can't get to, or one of their last two statements above is false.

I say if you want to take Route 301, go ahead and go north from I-295, take the detour, and get back on Route 301 and continue. Carry a copy of VDOT's announcement to show in case someone stops you for going on a prohibited road. My preference right now would be to take I-95 around it to Va 54 because these country routes are probably slow. But that does not matter. VDOT needs to reword its advisory.