Electoral race
With the presidential election only a couple of months away, it's time to start making predictions about the outcome. The LA Times has a cool Flash utility to let you examine poll results and do your own red-state/blue-state analysis. (registration required?)
The present electoral picture with electoral votes is as follows:
Bush: AL (9), AK (3), GA (15), IN (11), ID (4), KS (6), LA (9), MS (6), MT (3), NE (3+1+1), ND (3), OK (7), SC (8), SD (3), TX (34), UT (5), VA (13), WY (3) = 147.
Kerry: CA (55), CT (7), DC (3), IL (21), MD (10), MA (12), NJ (15), NY (31), RI (4), VT (3) = 161.
Swing: AZ (10), AR (6), CO (9), DE (3), FL (27), HI (4), IA (7), KY (8), ME (3+1), MI (17), MN (10), MO (11), NH (4), NM (5), NV (5), NC (15), OR (7), OH (20), PA (21), TN (11), WA (11), WV (5), WI (10) = 230. Slate is doing an in-depth look at most of these states (example).
I'll go on record predicting that Bush will win AR, TN, NC, KY, and CO (196 total). Kerry will take WA, OR, NH, HI, at least 3 of the 4 votes from ME, and NM (195 + 1? total). I predict that Florida will have more problems this election. Anyone care to guess how the remaining states (and therefore the election) will go?
The present electoral picture with electoral votes is as follows:
Bush: AL (9), AK (3), GA (15), IN (11), ID (4), KS (6), LA (9), MS (6), MT (3), NE (3+1+1), ND (3), OK (7), SC (8), SD (3), TX (34), UT (5), VA (13), WY (3) = 147.
Kerry: CA (55), CT (7), DC (3), IL (21), MD (10), MA (12), NJ (15), NY (31), RI (4), VT (3) = 161.
Swing: AZ (10), AR (6), CO (9), DE (3), FL (27), HI (4), IA (7), KY (8), ME (3+1), MI (17), MN (10), MO (11), NH (4), NM (5), NV (5), NC (15), OR (7), OH (20), PA (21), TN (11), WA (11), WV (5), WI (10) = 230. Slate is doing an in-depth look at most of these states (example).
I'll go on record predicting that Bush will win AR, TN, NC, KY, and CO (196 total). Kerry will take WA, OR, NH, HI, at least 3 of the 4 votes from ME, and NM (195 + 1? total). I predict that Florida will have more problems this election. Anyone care to guess how the remaining states (and therefore the election) will go?
1 Comments:
I'll consider each of your seven issues in turn in the context of a two-candidate race. Since California is not a swing state, you can vote your conscience, but some of us live in states where every vote will count in the presidential race.
1) Bush doctrine: No matter how badly things go, Bush is too proud (or fanatically convinced of his correctness) to reverse course. It's a shame that Kerry is afraid to take a self-consistent stand on Iraq, but he couldn't possibly have bungled Iraq and international relations as badly as Bush. Advantage: Kerry2) Military spending: Bush has revived missile defence, a costly expenditure in a scientifically unsound program of dubious value post-9/11. Bush does want to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia (which doesn't really want us), but only if he can base them in Iraq (which really doesn't want us, puppet government excluded). We still have a huge base in Guantánamo, located in a country that doesn't want us, and our treatment of the base as a zone where no law applies undercuts our moral superiority over the Cuban government. Advantage: Kerry3) The deficit: In 2001, the Democrats left behind a huge surplus and fiscal responsibility. Three things plunged us into deficit: an economic slowdown, tax breaks, and increased spending. One could argue that the economic slowdown was a matter of bad timing for Bush, although I've disapproved of his handling of the economy in general. The Republicans frittered much of the surplus away with reckless, regressive tax cuts that the Democrats opposed. And spending has skyrocketed in defence, spearheaded by a costly, quixotic crusade into Iraq. Advantage: Kerry4) Social security: The more fiscally responsible candidate (Kerry) is the one more likely to create an environment in which social security can continue to exist. Bush's pet project of privatizing social security will have the result that millions of seniors will lose much of their retirement savings in the stock market. Unfortunately, neither major party candidate is calling for eliminating the cap on earnings subject to social security taxes, nor is either candidate pushing cutting social security and medicare taxes rather than income taxes. Advantage: Kerry5) Healthcare: Actually, I disagree with you here. Medicare benefits should be increased and extended to everyone. This would of course be far more expensive than the current system and require higher taxation, but the higher taxes would be more than offset by the elimination of health care premiums (on an aggregate basis, as well as for the average wage-earner). Neither major candidate is willing to go this far, although in the 2000 debates Bush was unwilling to consider a program that would guarantee health care coverage for all Americans. Reimportation of drugs is not a sustainable solution to the problem of high prescription drug costs, although senior citizens should not be prosecuted for seeking a lower bill for pills. I don't really know enough about those medicare prescription drug cards that have recently been introduced, but I hear that seniors aren't happy with them. Advantage: Private health care industry and Kerry
6) Taxation: I don't disapprove of special treatment for treasury and municipal bonds. Governments can get cheaper credit since the tax advantages are built into the lower rates of return. Increased federal revenues from taxing municipal bonds would have to be offset by additional transfers of funds to cities, so at best it would be a wash. Separate rates are okay, but capital gains and dividends should not be taxed at a substantially lower rate than wages. Bush's dividend tax cut showed a total disregard for an equitable allocation of resources. Advantage: Kerry7) Energy policy: Increasing fossil fuel taxes to European levels would be economically disastrous unless it happened over a long period of time. I fully support nuclear power as a short- to intermediate-term solution, although a recent Physics Today article shows that this is not a viable long-term solution. What do the candidates have to offer? Kerry wants to promote conservation and alternative energy solutions. Bush wants to drill in ANWR and let the oil companies dictate national energy policy. Advantage: KerryEven if there's a candidate that's a perfect match on the issues, I have to support Kerry because I live in a swing state. Given that this country doesn't move fast politically, he objectively is a good choice because he will move us incrementally in the correct direction on most of these issues.
Actually, there are plenty of candidates that would substantially agree with you on most or all of these issues, just not in the US. In Canada for instance, three of the four main political parties (including the ruling Liberals) are in favour of international cooperation, a small military, a solvent social and employment insurance system, sustainable national health care, progressive taxation including a national sales tax, and an energy policy that reduces per capita consumption while moving away from petroleum-based fuels. Honestly, our country would do well to emulate Canada on many issues. After all, what could be more American than stealing somebody else's good ideas and calling them your own? :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home