 |
 | |||
We're almost to that official start of the real campaign season -- the end of the conventions! And we're picking up the pace here too! The latest electoral analysis is online. I've updated the Frequently Asked Questions section with some good queries from readers. And two new articles are up: One from a reader who looks at the math and says things look good for the Republicans in 2008; and another by me that examines what would happen if the winning presidential candidate dies after the election but before the inauguration. If you're interested in submitting an article we're always willing to post them! Check out the article submission guidelines for information. Basically remember -- political is OK, but don't get too partisan. In the submission posted today the author says the Republicans are probably going to win the election, which seems to be too partisan at first glance. What makes it acceptable is they he uses facts and reason to support his argument, not partisan rhetoric or talking points. If you want to argue the other side that would be great! Just don't do so by telling us the Democrats are going to win because they are wonderful people and everyone hates Bush! Analyze the data and give us the facts to support your conclusion and even if it seems too political it will be acceptable. And remember -- the views of other authors do not necessarily reflect the views of President Elect. Only my views reflect on the site! Also feel free to send in those election questions. Besides getting to color in the maps, doing the FAQ page is my favorite part of doing this site! Even if you don't think anyone else will care about the question go ahead and send it in. I answer a lot more questions through email than I post on the site, especially from students who have specific questions about whatever they are covering in class. Just because it might not get posted to the site doesn't mean I won't answer it! Just remember to check the FAQ page first. If it's already answered there I probably won't answer it in an email. Coming up next: In a few days I'll have a blog entry about the VP picks from each candidate. In about a week and a half we'll have the next analysis. And I hope to update the FAQ section as needed! Also keep an eye on that Twitter feed. I've been using it, rather than this blog, to announce the smaller updates to the site. | ||||
 |  |
|
| |||
The belated July update is online! Here's how we'll be updating from here on out. The electoral analysis will be updated at least twice in August, at least three times in September, at least four times in October, and a final update right before election day. This blog will be updated with election news much more often once we get past the conventions. For now though I am off to Comic-Con! After all, there is much more to life than politics -- even in a presidential election year! | ||||
| |
|
| |||||
| ||||||
| |
|
| |||
The June analysis has been posted! We'll know more about how strong Obama might be by next month. But right now things are all pretty fluid as voters take their first real look at the two general election candidates together. Several people have asked how I thought Clinton getting the nomination might change things. I think it might have helped the party a bit. For example several states such as West Virginia might have been easier to pick up. But Obama has a better shot at picking up new voters that probably would have sat at home rather than come out and vote for McCain or Clinton. So you can't really measure that yet. | ||||
| |
|
| |||
Obama has finally reached that magic number of delegates. Are we finally ready to move on to the general election? It's been fascinating from a historical perspective! Not just one of the longest and most expensive primary campaigns in history, but by the way, it was between the first legitimate black candidate and first legitimate female candidate (and former first lady!) vieing for a major party nomination in history! The June analysis will be up this Friday. I've been asked when we'll start more frequent updates. Compared to 2004 I'm actually updating more often already! I'll probably start increasing the frequency of the analyses in August. Though you'll still see FAQ and other updates much more often as they are ready. | ||||
| |
|
| |||
Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr won the Libertarian presidential nomination this weekend. Wayne Allyn Root will be his running mate. Check out the story from the Libertarian Party or CNN. Oddly, Barr was targeted by the Libertarian Party during his 2000 re-election bid for his support of the drug war. Some credit the party with ousting Barr from Congress. You can read a bit about that story, and much more about the candidate at Wikipedia. | ||||
| |
|
| |||
As we get closer to summer time a candidate's thoughts turn to choosing a running mate. McCain is meeting with possible candidates this weekend - though he claims it is just a social gathering. And Obama has apparently found someone to head up his selection process. But, as an article from Bloomberg makes clear, "it probably won't make much difference on Nov. 4." Over the past 50 years, 17 men and one woman have been chosen by the major parties to run for the vice presidency of the U.S. Only one -- Lyndon Johnson in 1960 -- demonstrably affected the outcome of the presidential race. | ||||
| |
|
| |||
I've been online since 1994 and running websites since 1995. So I'm no stranger to a certain internet phenomena, but it still puzzles me to this day. Some people feel that online communication gives them the right to say things that they would never say to a person's face. Since they don't have to worry about any repercussions they have the power to be rude and nasty. If a waiter brings you the wrong drink, you correct them, of course, but you don't start putting them down as incompetent unless you want to risk that your next drink might get spit in! But on the internet if someone makes a mistake, or just "looks" at you the wrong way, some people think they have the right, nay the responsibility, to unload in a way they wouldn't dare do in real life. On the 1944 election page, I have one of the states drawn the wrong color. Now on the bottom of every page I ask people to send me error reports when they find things that need to be corrected. And I'm happy to say that, on the rare occasion where a mistake has been spotted, 95% of people are as nice as they can be since their goal is to just make the site a little better. But occasionally I get this: "ohio went for Dewey-Bricker in 1944Can you imagine sitting at a speech, lecture, sermon, or class and, if the speaker makes a slight error, standing up and just screaming "You made a mistake! You are unreliable and unprefessional"? No! No sane person would ever do that! But something about the internet just brings the crazy out in people. What's sad and a little scary in this case is that the email came from someone with a State Department email address. A quick Google search shows the writer is a First Secretary at a foreign embassy and holds a Ph.D.! So, even though this person could not get through a 16 word email without making a simple spelling mistake, I'm expected to run a large website with massive amounts of facts and data without a single error! All run for free for users at my expense. Seriously though, as I've already mentioned, on every page of my site I ask people to send me any errors they might find since I understand that humans are not perfect and mistakes are bound to come up. And not just from unreliable and unprofessional people like me. Even professional editors can make mistakes. For example, the error here comes from a published book I used as a source since I don't actually know the results of every state in every election in history off the top of my head. I have caught and fixed several errors from this source but this one slipped past me. The good news is that as I redo the election pages of the site I am also redoing the maps and other data using a different source that will hopefully be a bit more accurate! Of course it is a government publication, so like our State Department friend here, it also could be prone to unprefessionalism. | ||||
| |
|
| |||
According to the Chicago Tribune, McCain is going it alone in his search for a vice presidential running mate. "He's the chairman of the selection committee," said Charlie Black, referring to the candidate himself, during a lunch with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.However, on a recent appearance on "The Daily Show", McCain revealed his choice as Dwight Schrute, a character on NBC's "The Office"! Among the comments to that last article are a bunch of people complaining about Rush Limbaugh's "vote tampering". For those that might not be aware, radio show host Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" aims to prolong the misery of the Democrats by having Republicans take a ballot in Democratic primaries, where most vote for Clinton. I do not like this tactic one bit either. But, to be fair here, the Democrats complaining about Limbaugh need to remember that this idea as a national campaign started in 2000 - when Democrats were urging each other to take Republican ballots to try to prevent George W. Bush from getting the nomination. And who were Democrats voting for to stop Bush? John McCain! | ||||
| |
|
| |||
Primaries in Indiana and North Carolina today. Can Obama put it away tonight? Or is Clinton in this no matter what? My sense is that if Clinton does not win Indiana or keep it within 5% in North Carolina then the pressure to drop out will be relentless. | ||||
| |
|
| |||
Back on election night of 2004, it was clear that Bush had won enough votes - popular and electoral - to win a second term. However, in a huge departure from previous years, no network wanted to be the first to say that. So some networks claimed Bush had won Ohio but Nevada was too close to call. Other networks told us Bush had won Nevada but Ohio was still a toss up. This lasted until the next afternoon when John Kerry conceded. Within minutes the networks said that there were now enough votes counted in Nevada/Ohio that they could finally make a call and project Bush had won the presidency! Yeah, right! It had nothing to do with the votes. It was all about something else - some would say it was because of politics, others might say it was just an overabundance of caution. Either way, it was a cop out. This was not a situation like Florida in 2000 where the outcome was not known. The votes were counted, Bush had insurmountable leads in both states. The data was there but the press decided not to give it to us. I didn't like that. It felt like they thought they knew what was best for us and that keeping us in the dark would be for our own good. On President Elect I listed Bush as the winner at about 4 in the morning election night after several different networks had called Bush the winner in Nevada and Ohio (even though no network had called both). What's that got to do with anything this year? As I've said before, this is an unbiased site. All I care about is the data and the facts and the history. And just like in 2004 when I ignored what the press thought of the election numbers to give you the facts, the fact here is that Hillary Clinton will be in second place at the end of the primary/caucus season. I'm sorry Clinton supporters but it is true. Her only hope of winning is a floor fight at the convention or the super-delegates. Yes, those things could happen. But the chances are slim. Instead of going with the media and pretending that this race is still a 50/50 toss-up, I'm going to go with the data and assume for the purpose of analysis that Barrack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. | ||||
| |
|
| |||
Welcome to The Unpledged Elector, the blog of President Elect. I'm the webmaster here, James R Whitson. This space will once again be used to: keep you up to date on this site, share interesting news stories, talk about the latest polls, keep up on what the former presidents and candidates are doing, and whatever else I want to discuss with readers! About the name of this blog: while not used for several decades, an unpledged elector is an elector who is not bound to a certain candidate and is expected to use their own judgment. I want this blog to have the same policy as the site in general - no partisanship, bias, or spin. I want to discuss politics but want to do it from a more historical perspective, not from a liberal or conservative point of view. I don't want to be bound to any party or candidate nor have my judgment clouded by partisanship. New additions to the site this weekend (other than this blog!) include an update to the FAQ (see that page to submit your own questions), a new Electoral Analysis for May, and some theming updates for some of the older pages on this site. If you're new here, or haven't been back since 2004, keep in mind that we accept article submissions if you're interested in writing something for the site - just check out our submission guidelines for more info. Thanks for visiting! I'll be back to talk with you again soon! | ||||
| |
|
| |
|
feel free to send them to email@presidentelect.org.
original content and graphics unless otherwise noted | ||
| |