Election Forecast

With the election just a few days away now, I'm ready to go out on a limb and make my state by state predictions. With 50 states to consider and unknowns ahead, the margin for error is great. But I think Bush will hold the momentum in the final few days (especially with Arnold helping him in Ohio) and seal a victory. In comparison to past incumbent elections, this one will be close. But not as close as the media would have you to believe. Bush will carry 52% of the popular vote to Kerry's 47%. Bush will most likely win with 306 electoral votes to Kerry's 232. Bush will win every state he carried in 2000 except New Hampshire. He will pick up, though, Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Minnesota--states Gore won.

Florida will go for Bush by a margin of 3 points. Barring rain in Philedelphia and Pittsburg, Bush will fail to carry Pennsylvania--the state simply has too strong of a Democratic base in the big cities. Ohio is going to be tighter than I'd like, but Bush should win it by 2%. Bush hasn't paid as much attention to the state as I had thought he would which can only mean that the Bush campaign's internal polling is looking good for them.

As election night unfolds, there are several indicators to watch out for...

A win for Bush in New Hampshire would be a portent of bad things to come for Kerry. This New England state should be Kerry's easiest pick up. And Kerry can't win unless he holds all the states Gore won plus picks up at least one that Bush won.

There's been a lot of talk in the last few weeks about a possible Bush upset in New Jersey. This would be fabulous, but it's also a bit of wishful thinking. But if Bush looses New Jersey by 5 points or less, the election is probably over for Kerry. New Jersy is simply too large of a Democratic bastion for Bush to get that close.

Likewise, if Bush manages to keep the results in Pennsylvania within 2-3 points, it will be a long night for Kerry. Democrats have to carry Pennsylvania by at least 5% to win nationally.

Kerry won't have a chance of winning if he looses Florida by more than 4%. This would be a sign of an erosion in his national support among Hispanics and African-Americans.

Assuming Florida goes for Bush, there is almost no electoral scenario in which Kerry can survive loosing Ohio.

Michigan and Hawaii are two states that I'm pained to predict to go to Kerry--but not by much. It's very reasonable that Bush could possibly win one of these if not both (I put the odds at 40-60 for Bush). Michigan, like all the Great Lake states is trending Republican. It's still heavily unionized with an efficient democratic machine in place. But the gay marriage amendment on the ballot along with the increasing willingness of conservative democrats to vote Republican could tip the balance. Hawaii is another fun case. Although Gore carried the state by an enormous 18 points, Hawaii tends to stick with the incumbent--Republican or Democratic. I think a large part of this is grounded in the state's large presence of Japanese-Americans whose culture tends to place a premium on loyalty. Bush coming within even 5 points of winning would be huge given what happened in Hawaii in 2000.

Minnesota will be another close state, but I think it's been trending Republican enough to go for Bush this go around. Plus, Kerry has been losing a lot of ground in the northern part of the state this past week (especially in the 8th congressional district) over--of all things--snowmobiles (I guess it would be a big issue for me if Mississippi enjoyed as much snow as northern Minnesota).

If any of my forecasts are wrong, I think the culprit states are most likely to be New Hampshire and Michigan. Again, Ohio will be tight but I'm hedging my bets that its Republican base is enough to carry through for the GOP at least one more time around. Fortunately for Bush, he can lose Ohio and still win so long as he picks up Iowa and Wisconsin--two state's he more likely to win than he is to lose Ohio.

In the final analysis, I could be completely wrong on almost everything I'm predicting. No one knows for sure save God Himself. But based on what's happend historically and what's known now, I believe this is the best analysis that can be offered.

Through the haze

Cassini recently enjoyed a very close flyby of Titan. This moon has both fascinated and frustrated astronomers with its hazy atmosphere. In fact, it's the only moon in the solar system that boasts an atmosphere. Hopefully Cassini will help open our eyes to this puzzling world...

Do unto Kerry...

Below is a comment from Harland followed by my response.

Harland:

Should Sen. Kerry be excommunicated from the Catholic Church? How is he different than any other Catholic with a pro-choice view? Because he is in the limelight? These antics are yet another reason why the public, and many Catholics for that matter, have lost faith in the Church. People are looking for more personal relationships with the Lord; they don't need a mediator that will dictate their relationship with God.

Jordan:

Harland, your comment brings to light two difficult issues. First, within Catholicism itself, if the doctrines of the church are to be enforced, then anyone (not just a high profile politician like Kerry) who advocates or actively supports (either with money or their vote) the pro choice position should be excommunicated. Within the Catholic church, the support for abortion is pure heresy. Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on earth and that the tradition of the church itself is just as valid as Scripture in determining the will of God. Therefore, if God's voice on earth--the Pope--says abortion is wrong and if the traditional position has always been against abortion, then anyone that supports abortion rights (again, within the context of the Catholic church) is in direct and blatent opposition to the will of God. For the Catholic church to maintain any sense of consistency or legitimacy, it must enforce it's own doctrines. That's why Kerry--and any other Catholic who is pro-choice--should be excommunicated.

Now, having said all that, let me address the second issue that you raise. I agree with you that people have lost faith in the Catholic church and have done so for good reason. Historically, the Catholic church has been full of hypocracy and deceit. So of course it's not going to be hard to find evidence that they aren't treating Kerry in a fair way. I think the main reason Kerry has an argument against the Catholic church's position is not because his position on abortion is right (it's not) but because the church--like you pointed out--has been arbitrary in its enforcement of when someone gets excommunicated for a political position that goes against the Pope.

All of this just proves why the catholic church is doomed to failure: its too instititutionalized and as such is laden with hypocracy, corruption, and inconsistency. Absent from Catholicism is any real meaning PERSONAL relationship with the Lord. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus. Not priests or anyone else the Catholic church offers.

Catholics are right about abortion, but they are so by accident. They claim it's all about the sanctity of life, but they fail to fully understand what that means. They are opposed to abortion for the exact same reasons they are opposed to the death penalty. Yet the Bible is full of examples (especially in the Old Testament) of God sanctioning capital punishment. In fact, over 35 sins are listed as capital offenses in the law of Moses. And while I don't believe Christians are bound by the Law today (just look to the teachings of Paul) I do believe that the principles laid down in the Law are just as true and legitimate today as the God who authored them. All this is to say that a Christian should base their political beliefs on what they believe the Bible teaches--not based on the institution we know as the Catholic Church.

And as far as abortion goes, people can argue this one ad infinitem but I do believe the Bible prohibits it. I base this on the fact that the Bible says we are created in the image of God, on the fact that God is sovereign and in control of all things and willed before the foundation of the world everyone's existence. Remember, nothing happens by accident; if God were caught off gaurd by anything, if even the smallest thing happened apart from the knowledge and permissive will of God, then God could no longer be God. Also, a few specific Scriptures such as Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5 bear our the pro-life position quite powerfully in my opinion.

But specifically in terms of your statements about Kerry, I more or less agree with you. I believe Kerry should be excommunicated, but I think he's getting the short end of things as long as the Catholic church isn't willing to be consistent across the board. And I also agree that the Catholic church should not be the mediator in anyway between people and God. Only Christ can do that because only He died for our sins.

A Good Man

The following story comes from the Washington Times:

A fourth-generation logger from Montana, Bruce Vincent, was in tears when he walked out of the Oval Office.
    As executive director of Provider Pals, a youth cultural-exchange program, Mr. Vincent was among a small group of people invited to the White House on May 3 to receive the first Preserve America Presidential Awards.
    His first impression of President Bush: "a firm handshake and a look that can be described only as penetrating. Warm, alive, fully engaged, disarmingly penetrating."
But then Mr. Vincent came face to face with a personal side of Mr. Bush that few have seen, particularly in the Oval Office — his spiritual side.
    "After about 30 or 35 minutes," Mr. Vincent recalls, "the president and first lady made one more pass down the line of awardees, shaking hands and offering congratulations. When the president shook my hand, I said, 'Thank you, Mr. President. God bless you and your family.'
    "He was already in motion to the next person in line, but he stopped abruptly, turned fully back to me ... and said, 'Thank you — and God bless you and yours, as well.' "
    Mr. Vincent then took the opportunity to request that Mr. Bush remember his stepmother, Loretta Vincent, in prayers that day. At that exact moment, Mrs. Vincent was having a tumor removed from her skull at a hospital in Kalispell, Mont. What occurred next is worthy of presidential, if not religious, history books.
    "He grabbed me by the arm and took me back toward his desk as he said, 'So that's it. I could tell that something is weighing heavy on your heart today. I could see it in your eyes. This explains it,' " were the president's words to Mr. Vincent.
    Mr. Bush then discussed with the award recipient the importance of family and the strength of prayer. "He said, 'If it's okay with you, we'll take care of the prayer right now. Would you pray with me?' I told him yes, and he turned to the staff that remained in the office and hand motioned the folks to step back or leave. He said, 'Bruce and I would like some private time for a prayer.'
    "As they left he turned back to me and took my hands in his. I was prepared to do a traditional prayer stance — standing with each other with heads bowed. Instead, he reached for my head with his right hand and, pulling gently forward, he placed my head on his shoulder.
    "With his left arm on my midback, he pulled me to him in a prayerful embrace. He started to pray softly. I started to cry. He continued his prayer for Loretta and for God's perfect will to be done. I cried some more. My body shook a bit as I cried, and he just held tighter. He closed by asking God's blessing on Loretta and the family during the coming months."
    Mr. Vincent's wife, Patti Jo, told Inside the Beltway from the couple's home in Libby, Mont., yesterday that Loretta Vincent is undergoing radiation for the tumor and "so far, so good." Sadly, Mr. Vincent lost his mother to the same form of cancer in 1996.

Terror's agenda in this election

Some excerpts from yet another excellent article by Charles Krauthammer:

"But Spain and Australia -- Britain, with Tony Blair up for reelection next year, will surely be next -- are merely supporting actors. The real prize is America. An electoral repudiation of President Bush would be seen by the world as a repudiation of Bush's foreign policy, specifically his aggressive, preemptive and often unilateral prosecution of the war on terrorism, most especially Iraq. It would be a correct interpretation because John Kerry has made clear that he is fighting this election on precisely those grounds.

Does this mean that the bad guys want Kerry to win? Michael Kinsley with his usual drollery ridicules the idea by conjuring up the image of Osama bin Laden, "as he sits in his cave studying materials from the League of Women Voters," deciding to cast his absentee ballot for the Democrats

The point, of course, is that the terrorists have no particular interest in Kerry. What they care about is Bush. He could be running against a moose, and bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi would be for the moose."

News from the 4th Rock

The Martian rovers have found yet more evidence of past water on the surface of Mars. This is particularly interesting to me in that the latest finding suggests that water on Mars wasn't just a one time occurrance--rather, it existed, dried up, then reappeared again.

Round Two...

Some belated words about the VP debate between Cheney and Edwards...

I think of all the things I've read, Dick Morris summed up the debate best when he wrote that John Edwards looked like a deer caught in the headlights. No matter what criteria you use to judge that debate, Cheney won hands down. It wasn't even close. Cheney was the stern and stoic headmaster and Edwards was the wayward student. In short, Cheney did everything Bush should have done in the first debate. And by virtue of that fact, there wasn't anything in the world Edwards could have done to mount a compelling defense.

Edwards tried to begin the debate by going on the offense. But after his first remarks of the night, Edwards was playing catchup--always trying to mitigate the effects of the knockout blows Cheney was landing. Of all the lines from the debate, the one that struck me as the most effective and devastating was Cheney's brilliant rhetorical question: "If you can't stand up to Howard Dean, how can you stand up to Al-Qaeda?" Cheney hammered Edwards by primarily hammering Kerry, forcing Edwards to try to defend Kerry's derogatory statements about the war and our allies.

The mainstream media has had a difficult time handling this debate. Cheney won, but they would never concede that the prince of darkness himself beat their johnny boy trial lawyer from North Carolina. Instead, they've been railing Cheney for saying that he first met Edwards during the debate. This points to two things. First, the fact that the media has been pointing out the times Cheney and Edwards have been in the same vicinity as one another indicates how devastating Cheney's statement was. Second, the prior run ins only bolster Cheney's point: none of the run ins occurred in the Senate where Cheney would be most likely to come in contact with Edwards. Keep in mind that Cheney made his comment in the context of blasting Edwards for his lack of attendance in the Senate.

The point has been made that someone like Bill Clinton would never have won the Presidency in 1988, before the end of the Cold War. After the Cold War, people’s moods lightened and the affairs of this nation suddenly seemed to be less serious and grave. I think 9/11 reverted the nation’s mentality back to the way it was before the Cold War in the sense that it’s not all about feeling good and being a warm affable candidate. Rather, the nation needs and is looking for a serious approach to the serious problems we face. Cheney conveyed that seriousness, that gravitas if you will, that Edwards never could. He clearly showed not only that he is a master of policy, but that he has core unshakable convictions. Convictions like that (even if at times they might lead us astray) are our nation’s greatest strength. Our military and economic might will only be as strong as the strength of our ideals and our determination not to see them comprised by threats from within and without.

If I were a terrorist, I would spend far more time worrying about someone of the likes of Dick Cheney than I would someone like John Edwards.

The Duelfer Report

Here's the Duelfer Report on Iraq's WMDs...

I'm going to try to go through some of this (it's over 1000 pages) but from the Key Findings, despite the whining and shrieking of the Democrats, this report not only documents the total corruption that Saddam infused into the UN but makes it clear he was ready at a dime's notice to reinitiate his WMD programs.

From the Key Findings of the report:

"Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."

"Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities."

"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."