Nathan Tyree: courage

---

Abraham Lincoln, a junior senator from Illinois, is remembered as the greatest of all presidents. It was his courage to stand for the right instead of taking a safe position based on the politically expedient that made him great. Bravery is what we are talking about here. It is, by the way, interesting to note that Lincoln was probably the least experienced man to serve as president. He spent a few years in the Illinois legislature, then a couple of years in the United States senate before becoming President.

John F. Kennedy was possibly the most beloved president of the twentieth century (FDR comes close in the estimation of many people). JFK rose to his position because of his ability for stirring oratory and his talent for raising people’s hopes. When Kennedy proclaimed that we would “go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard” he was making a promise that many would have labeled as ‘false hope’ raising. And yet, he had the audacity to say it and make it a reality.

Franklin Roosevelt took charge of a nation in crises. He forced a series of socialist programs through a congress that was terrified of the very idea because it was the only way to save a floundering country. He swayed and led a populace with his astounding speeches (including lines that were sometimes cribbed from others: like the nothing to fear but fear riff).

Those who have been the bests presidents were not those with the most experience. In fact, other being vice president, I'm not certain that one can amass any experience that is relevant to the office of the presidency. Rather, the best presidents have courage and the ability to inspire. This year there is only one candidate that fits that bill.

Obama inspires. There is no question about this. Just listen to him speak. Obama is courageous. He is the only one of the candidates who had the cajones to stand up against a popular war simply because it was wrong.

Hillary and McCain have both shown that they are interested mostly in the politically expedient. Our choice is clear.

Comments (10)

Nathan Tyree: Wyoming

---

Obama won a landslide in Wyoming increasing his delegate lead a bit more heading into Mississippi, where he is favored to win.

On another note, here's an interesting article about the campaign at Daily Kos

Comments (0)

Nathan Tyree: Electric Votes

---

This is great news. Great news! I recently predicted that in the general election Obama could win some deeply red states. Survey USA has done polling in all fifty states comparing how McCain does against Obama and how he does against Clinton. The overall answer is that Obama beats McCain much more soundly than Clinton does. In Nebraska ( a very red state that splits it’s electoral votes by congressional district) Obama polls within the margin of error and actually takes part of the state’s electoral votes. Obama is also doing quite well in other red states. It looks, in fact, like Obama has a real chance of winning Alaska and Kansas.

You can see the number here:

http://www.surveyusa.com/


EDIT: Forgot to mention, Obama takes North Fucking Dakota

Comments (0)

Nathan Tyree: Want to play a game?

---

Slate has a nice Delegate Calculator that lets you see how the delegate counts end up given the percentages for each remaining state. Play with it and try to find the scenario that gives Hillary the delegate lead.

Comments (4)

Nathan Tyree: Red States

---

This morning Clinton Surrogates are busy playing the self pity and sexism cards while simultaneously attempting to move the goal posts. Depending on which Clinton flack you listen to either Obama has to win landslides in TX, VT, OH and RI or get out, or Hillary simply has to still be breathing after Tuesday to stay in. I have to wonder how the Clinton team would be talking if Obama was in the position she is in ? If Obama needed to take 70% in every remaining state to achieve a tie, I think that they would demand that he pull out gracefully. She can no longer win, and yet she will not stop. She’s fear mongering and using Rovian tactics while trying to change the rules mid-game. She’s got the endorsement of The Joker, which seems somehow fitting at this point. My worst fear is that she will force this to the convention, use the Clinton connections to slime the Florida and Michigan delegates into play, cute some sort of deal with super delegates and destroy the party while stealing the nomination. I hope that this fear is unfounded.

What happens on Tuesday?

I've always believed that looking at a single poll, while entertaining, isn't truly useful. The method I like to use is as follows: Each time a new poll is released for a state I calculate the average of the four most recent polls then graph that. The trend line generated shows me very clearly how the electorate is moving. Then, after the state in question votes I compare the results to the prediction generated by my calculations. This cycle has been interesting because Obama seems to always finish better than the polls suggested he would. Often the swing is well outside the margin of error. I think that this is largely due to incredible voter turnout and the youth vote.

I've been going over my numbers for Texas and Ohio. The trend in both states is clear. Now, I recognize that HRC does very well among voters who fail to decide until the day they vote, so adjusting for the slight downturn we should see in Obama’s numbers for that I predict that he wins Texas around 55% 44% and Ohio is a razor thin margin. OH likely ends with an Obama victory with a margin of 1% or less. Vermont goes strongly in the Obama column, and Rhode Island goes in Clinton’s.

John McCain has noticed that Hillary is finished and started to campaign against Obama. This will be an exciting match up. I’m ready to make an unorthodox prediction right now: in the general Obama will win some red states (Kansas, for instance, is in play- hell, even Texas is sort of in play). Obama’s greatest strength is that he can truly compete in places that no other Democrat can.

Comments (0)