Election Day!

I woke up at 6 this morning so I could hold signs 100 feet away from a polling site for three hours. And as boring as it sounds, those three hours were far from boring. We ended up standing across from a church, and No on 4&8 signs probably weren't welcome to members of that church. In general, we got a lot of support. A lot of honks, thank yous for being present, and questions about 4 and 8.

On the other hand, we were flipped off a lot, shouted at, and called names. We had one guy come around about seven times telling us why we should vote Yes on 8, telling us a story of a little boy who was killed and therefore gays shouldn't marry. He drove by in his truck later, which had McCain/Palin and Yes on 8 posters duct-taped to it... classy. He put on his McCain mask and shouted, "Guess who the next President is going to be!" Were we really supposed to answer that? One of us did, and he shouted back, "He'll die twenty minutes after inauguration." And Yes-man replied,  "Good! Guess who's going to be President when he dies?" 

So our spokesman again shouted back, "Palin thought dinosaurs were around 5,000 years ago. People were around then." And our trusty Yes-man thoughtfully responded, "Guess where she got that from, the BIBLE!" We were dumbfounded, and had no comeback. Did he seriously just reference dinosaurs in the Bible?

I learned a lot today:

1. Don't park in front of people's driveways, even if you're voting. They will bitch about it in front of their kids, not hesitating to use a string of profanities. 

2. Lines are long, bring a book. 

3. Even if you think you're standing 100 feet away from a polling site, if someone complains, you'll probably have to move unless you have a measuring tape. 

4. Don't stop in the middle of the road with Yes-man trying to explain to a confused voter what Prop 4 and 8 say.

5. If you say good morning first, even people who flick you off will say good morning too.

6. Old women are either super liberal or super conservative; you can never be sure.

All Eyes on U.S.

The world is looking to us and watching our elections as closely as we are. Under world news sections, Campaign ’08 shows up. Tomorrow we choose the most powerful person in the world. And today, the Presidential candidates are attending 10 rallies in 4 time zones.

McCain is pushing hard. He told Indianapolis that “Mac is back” (see this NYTimes article). And Obama is pushing back, addressing a crowd booing McCain’s economic plan, saying, “You don’t need to boo. You need to vote.”

So who is it going to be?

Well, according to PoliticalWire, even Karl Rove is predicting Obama to be the most powerful person in the world. Most polls support Obama’s win. He leads from 2-13% in most polls (see here).

On the other hand, Arianna Huffington declared the Internet the winner of the 2008 election cycle. I agree, the Internet has overall positive approval ratings and represents all of the voices of a democracy. 

By this time tomorrow, all eyes will be on watching every internet, television, and radio leak. We may know who is the winner, we may not. We may have unprecedented voter turnout, we may not. We may encounter problems at polls, we probably will. Tomorrow will be predictable, and it will be unpredictable. It's a paradox, but hey... That's American politics.

Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

In the Gallup Polls today, Obama is leading in Registered Voters 52%-41%, Likely Voters (Expanded) 52%-43%, and Likely Voters (Traditional) 51%-43%. Interestingly, consumer confidence has gone up one point, and is now at 6% positive to 75% negative; it’s getting close.

The first thing I noticed on the Gallup site was this title: “Little Evidence in Surge of Youth Vote.” Turns out that the level of interest in this year’s election is no higher than in 2004. This year, 18-29 year olds make up 12% of Gallup’s likely voters, as opposed to 13% in 2004.

Gallup reports the implications as this:

“While Gallup data do suggest that voter turnout among young people will be high this year (as it was in 2004) compared to historical turnout rates, the data do not suggest that it will be appreciably higher than in 2004. Even if more young voters are registered this year, they do not appear to be any more interested in the campaign or in voting in the election than they were in 2004.”

I find these numbers incredibly hard to believe. Maybe I have too much faith in my age group. Maybe it’s being surrounded by diehard Obama fans 24/7. I just can’t imagine that with all of the excitement surrounding this year’s election, that there’s going to be less turnout than years passed. Or maybe percentage-wise, people my age will turnout in the same ratio they have before, but in sheer numbers, there will be higher turnout this year. There’s just absolutely no way that the level of enthusiasm I’ve seen plague our campus results in no higher turnout. 

Negative Waste

Is trash talking useful? In the long run, yes. It’s informative and acts as a check on candidate’s claims. But I’ve been getting irritated when every speech is only half information and half bashing (cough PALIN cough). 

CNN reports that Palin spent her weekend in Flordia, addressing the 3 million seniors over 65. The article was critical of Palin’s negative turn in her speech, saying Obama exploited seniors’ fears, and calling his tax plan “phony.”

The most irritating thing reported in the article was this:

“Palin also continued to repeat a claim, which has been debunked, that ‘according to an independent analysis, our opponent's new policies will destroy nearly 6 million jobs over the next decade.’ She later made the same claim at rallies in Central Florida and Raleigh, North Carolina.

I mean come on! You’ve been proved wrong, you can’t keep telling the public the same lie. Well, I guess you can and that’s American politics, but at least try to be a little more inconspicuous.I’d much rather hear why your plan is BETTER, not why the Democrat’s plan sucks. But you can’t always get what you want. Most Americans disapprove of negative campaigning, yet we can’t get enough of it. We’re watching the crash on the side of the road, with no empathy and a lot of time wasted waiting in traffic. We’re a consumer culture; we eat up anything that entertains us. Palin’s negative campaigning isn’t exactly what we want, but it’s getting us talking about her, and it’s giving her exposure in the media. Three days before the election, it has to be an all out effort.  

Pumpkin Palin and Prop 8

With all of the Prop 8 information floating around our campus, it’s interesting to see the presidential candidates’ opinions on it. For non-California voters, Prop 8 would amend the California constitution to make gay marriage illegal. Prop 8 would be the first time civil rights were limited in California (see here for more information).It’s such an important proposition, because both sides know that if California goes gay, the rest of the country will follow.

A New York Times article outlines the differences between Obama’s and McCain’s disapproval of gay marriage. Fortunately, neither supports a ban on gay marriage, but both also would rather have civil unions rather than gay marriage.

Obama bases his opposition on religion—as a proud Christian, he believes that “marriage is a sacred union.” McCain on the other hand, bases his opposition on “generational and cultural experiences,” according to his advisors.

In California, Obama has spoken against Prop 8 and its opponents. McCain agrees with Prop 8, but as a federalist republican, would not support a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

Sarah Palin follows McCain’s disapproval of gay marriage and support for Prop 8, but probably for reasons other than the generational gap. Now, I can’t speak for Palin, but I assume that stems from her conservative religious views. My question is, if the biggest reason to oppose gay marriage is because of religion, what happened to a separation of church/state? I thought we were trying to get religion out of politics. Or even the argument, “I can’t even imagine myself doing that!” Well duh, don’t do it then. But look at history: we banned persons of color from marrying whites, and look how well that turned out. I’m a product of an interracial marriage, and I look back on those laws and see how ridiculous they were. Hopefully, generations from now will look back on the days when homosexual couples weren’t able to get married and raise a family together, and see how ridiculous it was.

On an unrelated note, Palin looks amazing as a pumpkin.

Post-Election Palin

Fox News reported today that win or lose on Tuesday, Palin will be around for a long time. She believes, essentially, that she's put up with enough crap from the media, voters, and almost everyone else around her that come Tuesday, she'll keep pushing for more. 

A lot of the criticism Palin has received along the campaign trail is what she claims is double standards of sexism. Palin is criticized for her wardrobe, and doubted because she has a family. To address this, she said simply, she'd probably face the same thing that a male candidate would miss when he's away from his family for a couple of days. 

That reminds me of the Vice Presidential debate, where Palin was trying to USE her family to gain sympathy: she's a working mom with lots of kids and a granddaughter on the way. Unfortunately for her, Biden shot back with a background story of his own family, and even choked up for a bit. It was Palin's mistake to not address this during the debate, but it confuses me more now to hear Palin complaining that she's being held to double standards.

Wasn't she the one bringing up family in the debate? Biden simply could not understand what it was like to raise a family as a mother, except that he did know what it's like to be a single parent. Whoops, Palin! Wasn't Palin the one to bring up her hockey mom status? And yes, Palin, male candidates get criticized for their $400 haircuts just as much as you do (Thanks, Kerry).

Even if she doesn't win on Tuesday, Palin should be looking forward to a future of criticism of every part of her life, whether it is a double standard or not.

Polls for Prom Queens

The Wall Street Journal brings up a good point: we’re getting addicted to polls.

We watch them constantly, analyze them for mistakes and biases, and then spread the gossip. If someone isn’t convinced this election is more of a high school prom queen competition than any other election cycle, then just look to our obsession with polling. Every little thing that a candidate does, or some even that happens on the national level, can be explained through poll results. “Obama is up in Florida? Well, that’s because Palin spent so much RNC money on her clothes.” And we pick apart the sources of our gossip, too. “I look at the Drudge Report every single morning and spend three hours talking about how much Drudge sucks.” This makes as much sense to me as making following around the girl who starts rumors in your fifth period geometry class.

We forward emails, we send links, we print polls out, we highlight them, we talk about them, we argue about them, and we even exaggerate them. We can’t stop checking them, and can’t stop using them to prove other people wrong. We get excited when our candidate does well, and frustrated when he can’t seem to capture a state. We make up reasons why certain demographics are voting one way, or explain it away as the poll’s bias. We love polls. And that love consumes us.

But would we be America without some sort of celebrity obsession? This election has given us the resources and opportunities to become addicted to polls, through websites like Pollster.com, RealClearPolitics.com, and FiveThirtyEight.com. We can gauge how popular the candidates are and worthy of that sparkling tiara.