James Dobson: Homosexuality is now OK

OK, he didn’t really say that, but his reasoning in saying that Obama is distroting the Bible basically says it:

In the comments aired Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Dobson said, adding that Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

So I guess that means that evangelicals who use Leviticus to argue that homosexuality is against the Bible are now longer allowed to use it.  Yeah, I didn’t think they would go for that.

Not using their brain

So the blog which shall not be named is still going on about Obama’s certificate of birth. Apparently, after someone else provided their certificate, they’ve come up with two theories:

1. The certificate is forged, but Obama used a real certificate of birth as a base
2. His certificate was only submitted, but not approved, and thus the certification isn’t a certification at all.

First, let’s tackle the first one.  The first line of thought is partially supported by the argument that since the certificate provided by a reader says “Date Accepted by State Registrar” and Obama’s says “Date Files by Registrar,” that that mistake proves that it’s a fake, since it isn’t the same.

However, this reasoning has one fatal flaw: If they followed everything else about the certificate to a tee, how in the world could they miss that?  The fact that it’s different almost lends credence to the idea that it is legitimate, since, if they weren’t sloppy anywhere else, how could they miss that?

The second theory deals with the difference in terminology, ie “accepted” vs. “filed.”

Now, one thing I noticed is that Obama birth was in the 60s and the other Hawaiian certificate of birth was in the 30s.  Is it possible that there was a change in terminology from “accepted” to “filed” between now and then? Perhaps.  I don’t know, but neither do the hold-outs either.

Second, even if it is somehow a difference in status, the paper still says “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings.”  In other words, if someone went to a court and said “Make Obama prove he was born in Hawaii!,” he could take this to court and it would be accepted.  So “filed by” doesn’t seem to make is to that it’s not-official given what the paper says.

The other issue people bring up is the difference in colors and the raised seal on the 2nd certificate.  It’s seems to me that either Obama’s was scanned or altered (my guess is scanned) to increate the brightness or the other birth certificate was scanned or altered to darken the brightness.  This would explain why the green is lighter, why the text is lighter, and possibly even why the seal shows on one but not Obama’s.

And of course the final, and most ridiculous claim, is that some how the black box is some sort of evidence it was fordged.  Duh, they (meaning the Obama campaign) blacked out the certificate number, probably because of identity theft fears or something.  I’m not sure how people take that as evidence of forgery.

Speaking Too Soon

PUMA yesterday:

P.U.M.A is glad to have Bill Clinton on board…

Oops:

President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States.

How these people actually expected or believed that Bill Clinton wouldn’t support Obama is beyond me.

Ironic Comment of the day

Heh:

One can assume a candidate has an electability problem when a majority of Americans (55%) do not believe that candidate views the society he desires to represent as “fair and decent.”

This coming from a blog whose sole purpose is to say how Obama, the DNC, the media, and life in general screwed Clinton out of the Democratic nomination because everyone is sexist or whatever.

Oh, and where did they get the 55%? By subtracting the 45% who says he does believe that society is fair and decent from 100%, despite the fact that the poll itself only said 39% believes he doesn’t. What about the other 16%? Perhaps they don’t know enough to render an opinion? It doesn’t necessarily mean they think he doesn’t view society as “fair and decent.”

This also brings up another question:

If he doesn’t view US society as fair and decent…so what?  Despite what the blog claims, not believing that society is “fair and decent” and having a fundamental love for your country aren’t necessarily the same things.  If one doesn’t believe that it is fair and decent, aren’t you running for President so that you can try to change society to make it fair and decent?  Isn’t saying that to be fit to be President you have to view the US as “fair and decent” kinda like saying that the US can do no wrong and can never do anything bad? Isn’t that one of our beefs with the GOP, that they can’t admit that the US could possibly ever do anything wrong? (The US is eternally great! Yay for us!)  What if US society really is fundamentally not fair and decent?

I guess that also brings up some confusion in the question: what exactly is meant by the “US society?”  It’s people? It’s government? A combination of both?  Something else?  If you see the war as evil and wealth being concentrated in the top 1% as bad, then you may very well see society as being unfair.  However, if you’re talking about the people themselves, then perhaps one would be less likely to think that.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more the question seems poorly worded. I should note that only 60% of Americans in the survey felt that soceity was fair and decent.  Yes, it’s a majority, but based on the argument above, 40% of Americans – including a majority of African Americans – aren’t patriotic and, ironically, most of them are probably Democrats (an interesting thing for someone who is supposedly trying to save the Democratic Party from itself to say).

Status of the Electoral College: June 24

Here is the map for June 24th. Notes are below:

Numbers:

• Official count: Obama 233, McCain 171, Too Close to Call 134
• Strong states only: Obama 172, McCain 105
• Weak states only: McCain 66, Obama 61
• Count with “leaners”: Obama 289, McCain 249

• Weeks until the Democratic Convention: 9 weeks
• Weeks until the Republican Convention: 10 weeks
• Weeks until Election Day: 19 weeks

All states with change of status

• Alaska (Weak McCain to Too Close to Call)
• Colorado (Weak Obama to Too Close to Call)
• Florida (Weak McCain to Too Close to Call)
• Georgia (Strong McCain to Weak McCain)
• Iowa (Weak Obama to Too Close to Call)
• Mississippi (Strong McCain to Weak McCain)
• New Hampshire (Too Close To Call to Strong Obama)
• New Mexico (Too Close To Call to Weak Obama)
• Oregon (Strong Obama to Weak Obama)
• Pennsylvania (Too Close To Call to Weak Obama)

All states with some sort of change this week

• Alaska – new polls June 17 & June 23
• California – new poll June 20
• Colorado – new poll June 19
• Florida – new polls June 18 (x2) & June 19
• Georgia – new poll June 20
• Iowa – new poll June 20
• Kentucky – new polls June 17 and June 19
• Maine – new poll June 18
• Minnesota – new poll June 17
• Mississippi – dropped a poll for being over a month old
• Nebraska – dropped two polls for being over a month old
• Nevada – new poll June 20
• New Hampshire – new polls June 18 & June 20
• New Mexico – new poll June 23
• North Carolina – new poll June 17
• Ohio – new polls June 17, June 18, & June 19
• Oregon – new poll June 23
• Pennsylvania – new polls June 18 & June 23
• Utah – new polls June 23 (x2)
• Virginia – new poll June 18
• Washington – new poll June 23
• Wisconsin – new poll June 18

Also, see the spreadsheet.

This was, on average, another good week for Obama.  While this week wasn’t quite as fantastic as it looked like it might be earlier, it still turned out to be pretty good.

Obama added three new states to his total while losing two more for a net gain of 14 Electoral Votes this week.  The states Obama gained this week are New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire while he lost Iowa and Colorado this week.

New Mexico hadn’t had a new poll in almost exactly a month, but this new poll affirmed a significant enough lead in the state to push it into the “Weak Obama” category.

Pennsylvania saw 2 new polls this week after also not seeing any polls for nearly a month.  These two polls gave Obama, on average, an 8 point lead (one was 12 points, one was 4 points), which was enough to also push the state into “Weak Obama.”

Finally, New Hampshire also had two new polls, both of which showed Obama with a double-digit lead in the state, pushing it all the way from “Too Close To Call” to “Strong Obama.”

Colorado is another state which hadn’t had any polling done for nearly a month.  Also, it looks like the state being in the “Weak Obama” column might have been a fluke to begin with as the last three Rasmussen polls in the state have shown an Obama lead of 3 points, 6 points, and 2 points, with the 6 point lead obviously being the odd one out (though Survey USA did show an 8 point lead at around the same time).  In any case, the state moves down back into “Too Close To Call.”

Iowa, meanwhile, had a new Survey USA poll which showed McCain gaining 5 points on Obama in the state since last month.  This seems a little off since we haven’t really seen this trend much of anywhere else (with one exception, which you’ll see below).  It’s possible that the truth is somewhere in between the two polls.  In any case, the new poll showing only a 4 point Obama lead results in Iowa (just barely) sliding into “Too Close To Call” after a week in Obama’s count.  One also has to consider the fact that flooding in the state may have disrupted the ability to poll reliably as well.

The other state of note for Obama is Oregon, where two consecutive polls have now shown a tightening in that state. Rasmussen released a poll last week which showed Obama’s lead narrowing from 14 points to 8 points while Survey USA released a poll this week showing his lead narrowing from 10 points to 3 points.  Why we’re seeing contraction like this in Oregon, but no where else is sort of a mystery.

I’ve seen it suggested that, since Oregon is the only somewhat reliable blue state to hold a primary in May or later, that this may just be a drop from an “Obama high” that Oregon had after his campaigning there in the primary a month ago.  That sort of makes sense, especially considering that every other state that held a contest in May or June Obama is either losing or that state just isn’t being polled much.  The only real exception is North Caroline, but they held their primary two weeks before Oregon did, so perhaps the “primary bump” has already worn off there (which is good news for Obama since the state is “Too Close To Call”).

For McCain, this past week has seen yet another set of significant states falling out of his grasp and into the grey area.  This week McCain loses Alaska and Florida to the “Too Close To Call” category, for a total loss of 30 electoral votes this week.  This is especially distressing for McCain since, as fivethirtyeight.com notes, Florida is McCain’s firewall: a large state he didn’t think he would have to contest.  Having to contest Florida would be disaterous for him.  Just add on top of that having yet another “reliably red state” in Alaska becoming not so reliable anymore.

In the meantime, new polling in Georgia and dropping old polls from Mississippi moved both of those states from “Strong McCain” to “Weak McCain,” making the deep south looking very….pink, instead of very red.  This leaves only 3 states east of the Mississippi as “Strong McCain”: Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  In other words, two basically Southern white states (aka, Southern states with a minimal African American population) and Alabama, which appears to be the only deep southern state resisting the trend towards Obama. (I should note that Alabama was Bush’s best state east of the Mississippi in 2004 and tied for best in 2000.)

As for polls, my polling wish list right now is polling for: Michigan, Missouri, Connecticut, North Dakota, and Montana.

Also, a sort of polling bias that I’ve noticed:  Five of Obama’s Six “weak” states have enough polling to garner a pollster.com average (and we got new polls in 4 of them this week).  None of McCain’s nine “weak” states do (and we got new polls in only one of them).  Polling agencies are still doing polls based on 2000 and 2004, not 2008.  Hopefully they’ll figure that out soon.

States which haven’t had a new poll in over a month:

Arizona, DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Wyoming.

Sister states

These are states for each candidate where the margin in those states are within 1% of each other and are within 3 total electoral votes or 25% of electoral votes of the smaller state of each other.

• Virginia (Obama, 13 EVs, +0.7%) and Missouri (McCain, 11 EVs, +0.5%)
• New Mexico (Obama, 5 EVs, +6.1%) and Mississippi (McCain, 6 EVs, +6%) or North Dakota (McCain, 3 EVs, +6%)
• Oregon (Obama, 7 EVs, +7.1%) and West Virginia (McCain, 5 EVs, +8%)
• Minnesota (Obama, 10 EVs, +10%) and Louisiana (McCain, 9 EVs, +9%)
• New Hampshire (Obama, 4 EVs, +10.6%) and Kansas (McCain, 6 EVs, +10.6%)
• Maryland (Obama, 10 EVs, +14%) and Oklahoma (McCain, 7 EVs, +14%)

Electoral-vote.com Map

June 24, 2004: Kerry 300 (+48), Bush 238 (-48).
Changes by election day: Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio

Today: Obama 317, McCain 194, 27 tie
Total with same EV shift as 2004: Obama 269, McCain 242 (with it coming down to Florida, Florida, Florida)

To see the current status, go to the Status of the Electoral College page.

The Second Spot

As we are now only a week until July, it’s time to serioiusly start thinking about when candidates will choose their running mate.

First, a brief history:

• In 2004, Kerry announced Edwards has his VP on July 6th. The Democratic Convention started July 26th, so Kerry picked his nearly 3 weeks in advance.
• In 2000, Bush picked Cheney on July 24th while Gore picked Liebmerman on August 8th.  The Republican Convention started July 31st while the Democratic Convention started August 14th, so both candidates basically waited as long as they possibly could before choosing.
• In 1996, Dole picked Kemp on August 10th.  Their convention started August 12th that year so that was really cutting it close.  I should note, though, that the summer Olympics were held from July 19th to August 9th, which made the timing awkward for Dole.
• In 1992, Clinton picked Gore on July 9th, and their convention was held July 13th.

So what do we see?  First off, the biggest gap between choosing a VP and a party’s convention was 20 days for Kerry in 2004.  Otherwise the gaps were 7 days, 6 days, 2 days, and 4 days, going back through 1992.  Basically, the selection for VP was supposed to be a big boost and attention getter for the candidate in the week leading into their party’s national convention.

However, things will almost certainly be different this year.  To start with, the Olympics run from August 8th through the 24th, the Democratic Convention goes from August 25th through the 28th while the GOP convention runs from September 1st through September 4th.

This means that Obama will have to choose a running mate by no later than August 8th, and will probably want to do it no later than the first couple of days in August so that any bump he gets form choosing a VP isn’t trampled by the Olympics.

McCain has a little bit more leeway, but not much.  It would be feasiable that he could choose a VP between August 29th and August 31st.  However, those days are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday – days which I would think would be unfavorable for picking a VP (the days for announcing a VP above were all Tuesdays in 2000 and 2004, Saturday in 1996 [but like I said, Dole didn't have much wiggle room there], and a Thursday in 1992).

Tuesday seems like a logical choice as well since it gives you a maximum media boost while not doing it on a Monday, when people may still be hungover from the weekend.  That means August 5th may be a prime date for someone to announce their VP choice – the only Tuesday in August not taken up by either the Olympics or a convention.

Now, here is the catch: candidates always tend to like to be the last one to choose a running mate.  In the only example above where we didn’t have an incumbent running, Gore chose his last, largely because Bush had to choose his before the GOP convention.  In this sense, normally the party with the later convention chooses their VP second because the candidate who has their convention first is forced to choose theirs first, unless the other candidate just feels like announcing first.

However, that dynamic is upset this year because the conventions are one week after the other, so there is really no time for McCain to name is VP between conventions, plus we have the Olympics for the two weeks before the conventions as well.  This may lead to a game of chicken between McCain and Obama to see who can wait the absolute longest before having to announce, lest they either get trapped by the Olympics or risk stepping on the other’s announcement.

This means that when the candidates choose their VP may actually become an issue this year.  By the start of July, McCain will have had 4 months to look at VPs.  By the start of August, he will have had 5 months.  Obama is going to get a total of 9 weeks if you take out the weeks the Olympics are being held.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, come mid-July, we start hearing some noises from the Obama camp that McCain “can’t decide” and is “indecisive” on his VP choice, and if he can’t even come up with a VP choice in 4 1/2 months, then how can we trust him to make quick decisions in the White House?  The point to this would be, of course, to try to politically force McCain to choose his VP first, allowing Obama to go second and choose his, presumably, in the first week of August.

However, if it comes down to a game of chicken, Obama may feel that he has the advantage since he has the moral argument (I’ve had 9 weeks while you’ve had 5 months) and he may feel that he can afford having his VP selection bounce get stomped by the Olympics more than McCain can.