Sunday, August 17, 2008
It Won't Be a Toss-Up
Today in the Sunday Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper (but not the web site, called Inrich.com), two columns appeared about whether the Obama-McCain election will be a toss-up. One column, authored by Alan Abramowitz, Thomas E. Mann, and Larry J. Sabato, says "No", that Obama will win it easily. The other, authored by Jim Campbell, says "Yes"; it isn't decided yet. So which is right?
In Abramowitz et. al.'s column, they say consider the following. Barack Obama has led John McCain in every national poll for the last two months. They also say that Obama is leading in 11 of the 12 closest states in 2004. However, polls don't mean that much. At this time in 2004, Kerry had a comfortable electoral lead in the polls with 327 electoral votes. At this time in 1988, Dukakis was leading by double digits. But both in November. I checked on the 12 closest Dukakis states. According to Electoral-Vote.com, out of these 12 states, McCain is currently leading in Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. That is 4 out of the 12 states, not just 1. It is possible the article was written when Obama was leading in these states, which he did sometime within the past two months.
They also refer to voter identification. But that doesn't matter that much. Remember the Reagan Democrats?
At the end, Abramowitz and the others hit upon some real reasons why Obama will win. There is an unpopular war going on. The economy is souring. The same thing happened in 1952, and Eisenhower easily defeated the party in power, the Democrats. So the same thing may happen this year. I would also like to note that this election is similar to 1960 as well: recession, several foreign policy mistakes, including Cuba and the U-2 incident, plus in addition the opposition was lead by a charismatic figure: John F. Kennedy. Obama appears to be charismatic, all the more reason why we can expect a win from him.
So Abramowitz is basically correct, but he can eliminate his entire article except the last two paragraphs. They are the ones that matter.
Another article was written by Jim Campbell. I wonder if he is the same Jim Campbell that has commented on Allan Lichtman's columns. He says that Bush's low approval ratings do not matter much in this election because it is an "open seat" election. According to Allan Lichtman, the record of the current President is the most important factor in determining who will win. An election is essentially a referendum on the current administration. Since Bush's record is so abysmal, any Republican is going to encounter serious difficulties in getting elected in 2008. He says that McCain votes liberal 26% of the time but Obama votes conservative only 5% of the time, meaning McCain is more centrist than Obama is. Mr. Campbell discounts the value of polls (probably true).
In the last paragraph, he hits upon a criterion which has not appeared at all before: race. Something like it appeared in 1960, with religion being the criterion. Despite huge factors favoring the Democrats, Kennedy eked out one of the closest elections in history. Since other factors favor this election being like 1960, that suggests that Obama's race could make this one close.
One indicator that I have found that is better than anything else I have seen is Allan Lichtman's 13 keys. These are statements about the situation at election time. If five or fewer are false, the incumbent party candidate wins, else the challenging party wins. Six of the keys involve candidate charisma, foreign policy, and the economy, and the others deal with nomination contest, third parties, social unrest, scandals, policy, and incumbency. Right now 9 keys are down, and pattern of keys is identical to 1960. This supports my conclusion that Obama should win, but his race may be an impediment to his victory, like religion for Kennedy. It is sad that this is the case, but it is. We got a ways to go yet on that long road to a racially-blind society.
In Abramowitz et. al.'s column, they say consider the following. Barack Obama has led John McCain in every national poll for the last two months. They also say that Obama is leading in 11 of the 12 closest states in 2004. However, polls don't mean that much. At this time in 2004, Kerry had a comfortable electoral lead in the polls with 327 electoral votes. At this time in 1988, Dukakis was leading by double digits. But both in November. I checked on the 12 closest Dukakis states. According to Electoral-Vote.com, out of these 12 states, McCain is currently leading in Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. That is 4 out of the 12 states, not just 1. It is possible the article was written when Obama was leading in these states, which he did sometime within the past two months.
They also refer to voter identification. But that doesn't matter that much. Remember the Reagan Democrats?
At the end, Abramowitz and the others hit upon some real reasons why Obama will win. There is an unpopular war going on. The economy is souring. The same thing happened in 1952, and Eisenhower easily defeated the party in power, the Democrats. So the same thing may happen this year. I would also like to note that this election is similar to 1960 as well: recession, several foreign policy mistakes, including Cuba and the U-2 incident, plus in addition the opposition was lead by a charismatic figure: John F. Kennedy. Obama appears to be charismatic, all the more reason why we can expect a win from him.
So Abramowitz is basically correct, but he can eliminate his entire article except the last two paragraphs. They are the ones that matter.
Another article was written by Jim Campbell. I wonder if he is the same Jim Campbell that has commented on Allan Lichtman's columns. He says that Bush's low approval ratings do not matter much in this election because it is an "open seat" election. According to Allan Lichtman, the record of the current President is the most important factor in determining who will win. An election is essentially a referendum on the current administration. Since Bush's record is so abysmal, any Republican is going to encounter serious difficulties in getting elected in 2008. He says that McCain votes liberal 26% of the time but Obama votes conservative only 5% of the time, meaning McCain is more centrist than Obama is. Mr. Campbell discounts the value of polls (probably true).
In the last paragraph, he hits upon a criterion which has not appeared at all before: race. Something like it appeared in 1960, with religion being the criterion. Despite huge factors favoring the Democrats, Kennedy eked out one of the closest elections in history. Since other factors favor this election being like 1960, that suggests that Obama's race could make this one close.
One indicator that I have found that is better than anything else I have seen is Allan Lichtman's 13 keys. These are statements about the situation at election time. If five or fewer are false, the incumbent party candidate wins, else the challenging party wins. Six of the keys involve candidate charisma, foreign policy, and the economy, and the others deal with nomination contest, third parties, social unrest, scandals, policy, and incumbency. Right now 9 keys are down, and pattern of keys is identical to 1960. This supports my conclusion that Obama should win, but his race may be an impediment to his victory, like religion for Kennedy. It is sad that this is the case, but it is. We got a ways to go yet on that long road to a racially-blind society.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Don't Put High-A in Richmond!
Today I found out from the Richmond Times-Dispatch that there is a good chance that a team from the High-A California League will want to move to Richmond. There are two such teams, both of which have stadium problems (not issues!). Sound familiar, Richmond? They may be switching to the High-A Carolina League.
I did some wikipediaing around and found that the two teams are the High Desert Mavericks, a Seattle Mariners farm team, and the Bakersfield Blaze, a farm team of the Bush-League Texas Rangers. They say that the Blaze will go to Fayetteville, North Carolina, and the Mavericks to Richmond, Virginia. According to the Bakersfield Californian, the parent Rangers are unhappy with Sam Lynn Field, because, among other things, it faces southeast or east so that the setting sun glares into the eyes of the fielders. It seems that Bakersfield isn't doing anything about it. So you think the Texas Rangers are going to do any better in Richmond? There are stadium problems in Richmond, too, such as an uneven field and poor drainage. This is the reason the Richmond Braves are leaving.
The same deal with the High Desert Mavericks. Their stadium also needs repair and the people of Adelanto, California, will not provide it. They may be moving to Fayetteville, North Carolina, although the Californian says Fayetteville cannot provide the required stadium. Further, as I mentioned earlier, the Red Sox bought out the Houston Astros' Carolina League affiliate Salem Avalanche. They currently have the Lancaster JetHawks in the California League. Are they going to move the JetHawks east?
In any case, a High-A is a terrible deal for Richmond. The population of Richmond exceeds the total of all the populations of all the cities in the Carolina League! (1.2 million to 1 million, according to a commenter on an earlier InRich.com article). Richmond will be the hippopotamus of the Carolina League if the Blaze moves to Richmond. And it isn't really High-A anyway. A long time ago minor league baseball tried to find a letter that was better or A'er than A, and so they wound up stuttering: AA, AAA level baseball. AAA should be renamed A, AA should be B, High-A should be C and Low-A should be D. Would Richmond really be happy with a Class C Team?
I think Richmond should reject any High-A (i.e, C) team. Richmond deserves better. They should watch the New York Mets and the New Orleans Zephyrs, a geographically unhappy pair. The Mets want Syracuse instead, and if that happens, the Toronto Blue Jays would get the Zephyrs. Richmond should try to get the Blue Jays to bring the Zephyrs to Richmond. If that happens, I would like to see the team named the Richmond Martins in honor of the birds frequenting 17th and Grace at this time of the year.
If this falls through, a year or two without minor league baseball is far better than having to settle for a puny little Carolina League team.
I did some wikipediaing around and found that the two teams are the High Desert Mavericks, a Seattle Mariners farm team, and the Bakersfield Blaze, a farm team of the Bush-League Texas Rangers. They say that the Blaze will go to Fayetteville, North Carolina, and the Mavericks to Richmond, Virginia. According to the Bakersfield Californian, the parent Rangers are unhappy with Sam Lynn Field, because, among other things, it faces southeast or east so that the setting sun glares into the eyes of the fielders. It seems that Bakersfield isn't doing anything about it. So you think the Texas Rangers are going to do any better in Richmond? There are stadium problems in Richmond, too, such as an uneven field and poor drainage. This is the reason the Richmond Braves are leaving.
The same deal with the High Desert Mavericks. Their stadium also needs repair and the people of Adelanto, California, will not provide it. They may be moving to Fayetteville, North Carolina, although the Californian says Fayetteville cannot provide the required stadium. Further, as I mentioned earlier, the Red Sox bought out the Houston Astros' Carolina League affiliate Salem Avalanche. They currently have the Lancaster JetHawks in the California League. Are they going to move the JetHawks east?
In any case, a High-A is a terrible deal for Richmond. The population of Richmond exceeds the total of all the populations of all the cities in the Carolina League! (1.2 million to 1 million, according to a commenter on an earlier InRich.com article). Richmond will be the hippopotamus of the Carolina League if the Blaze moves to Richmond. And it isn't really High-A anyway. A long time ago minor league baseball tried to find a letter that was better or A'er than A, and so they wound up stuttering: AA, AAA level baseball. AAA should be renamed A, AA should be B, High-A should be C and Low-A should be D. Would Richmond really be happy with a Class C Team?
I think Richmond should reject any High-A (i.e, C) team. Richmond deserves better. They should watch the New York Mets and the New Orleans Zephyrs, a geographically unhappy pair. The Mets want Syracuse instead, and if that happens, the Toronto Blue Jays would get the Zephyrs. Richmond should try to get the Blue Jays to bring the Zephyrs to Richmond. If that happens, I would like to see the team named the Richmond Martins in honor of the birds frequenting 17th and Grace at this time of the year.
If this falls through, a year or two without minor league baseball is far better than having to settle for a puny little Carolina League team.
