Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Beautiful
McCain's acceptance speech was beautiful. How gracious. How thoughtful. How sincere. He started to get that voice back towards the end, and seemed to go back to 2000 with his voice while doing something else he hasn't been able to do - reaching his thoughts to the future and what's most appropriate for it. He was perfect.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Prediction
"You don't need a weatherman [like Bill Ayers] to know which way the wind blows." -Bob Dylan
I didn't write it here, but the day that Sarah Palin was announced, I said to all my buddies at work: "It's over, we are looking at a Reagan-like landslide." I didn't even know how ridiculously stupid Sarah Palin was, I just knew that taking someone who I never heard of meant that it was unlikely that they would last under the national media scrutiny.
It was brilliant to announce a woman-as-V.P. the day after the Democratic Convention, stealing Obama's thunder. Otherwise we would have been talking about Obama's speech as "historic" (words of David Gergen) for days. We'll still talk about as historic, but we'll forget that we forgot all about it for 10+ weeks.
Anyway, back to my predictions:
As far as Electoral votes go, it will be hard for anyone to ever beat Reagan's 525-13 win over Mondale (Mondale only took his home state of Minnesota). In the popular vote Reagan took 58.8%, Mondale 40.6). If we talked about "mandates" back then, Reagan would have been dictator. That was also his re-election campaign, in the 1980 contest he took only 50.2%, a 10% point lead over Jimmy Carter with 6.6% going to John Anderson.
Obama certainly won't get 49 states in his corner, but it's not going to be nearly as close as most pundits think. The pollsters who say it's within 3 points or that Obama won't break 50% are going to have to justify their services next year. Like the bundled mortgages, there are just too much REALITY for computer models to take into account. Maybe it's my experience writing computer models that lead me to so suspect of anyone who takes polling data and extrapolates the answers into very different results based on hunches (why don't they publish the raw data too?).
Obama will draw north of 55%, I'm predicting 56.5%. McCain will be around 41.5%, with 2% going to Nadar+Barr+everyone else. Yeah, that's right, a 15% lead. Imagine what the reelection will look like. I'm calculating 407 electoral votes for Obama, 127 for McCain. Why so much higher than everyone else? I think the Black vote, the young vote and the newly registered will turn out, moving Indiana, Montana, and Georgia in Obama's column.
I've been watching the Senate races more closely. Without a filibuster-proof majority, Obama will be dealing with gridlock, no matter how far he reaches across the isle. On the Senate races I'm expecting that Obama's new voters and the excitement he's generated will translate into a lot of voters just pulling the (D) right on down the line. And since the pollsters are underestimating the effect, I think the Democrats will get it, or fall one short.
Surely switching to the Democrats will be these 7 states:
Alaska - gotta chuckle whenever a corrupt politician loses.
Colorado - Would you want someone as abrasive as Bob Schaffer leading your state?
New Hampshire - not that I'm much of a fan of either. I thought this would be closer since Sheehan is not very likeable.
New Mexico - basicallly has been conceeded to the cousin of of the Colorado democratic candidate.
North Carolina - love to see that fake Liddy Dole (Archer Daniel Midland champion) go down in her own meanspirited flames.
Oregon - easy win
Virginia - the Democrat is rich enough to pay for it himself?
The close ones are :
Kentucky: I don't see Senate Minority leader losing.
Mississippi: I was hopeful here, but Wicker seems to be pulling away too far from Musgrove for the Obama effect to, well, have an effect.
Georgia: This is going to be the surprise of the night. The Obama effect will put this one in the Democratic corner, though it would have to be big enough to avoid a runoff, which is unlikely.
Minnesota: I think in the end, Minnesota will elect Franken, but he may be just not Senatorial enough to win. I listened to his radio show for a long time, and he knows what's going on, but he's far too partisan for my tastes. He's so "ah-uh-um-ah" all the time that I think he probably smokes pot every day or every other day - he's just not serious enough to make a good Senate and I bet wouldn't last long even if he won.
So I think the Dems will pick up 8 seats, perhaps 9, falling short enough that when nothing gets done, it will be blamed on the Dems, and their run will lose all its steam.
As a comparison, here are the predictions from the "This Week" roundtable:
I didn't write it here, but the day that Sarah Palin was announced, I said to all my buddies at work: "It's over, we are looking at a Reagan-like landslide." I didn't even know how ridiculously stupid Sarah Palin was, I just knew that taking someone who I never heard of meant that it was unlikely that they would last under the national media scrutiny.
It was brilliant to announce a woman-as-V.P. the day after the Democratic Convention, stealing Obama's thunder. Otherwise we would have been talking about Obama's speech as "historic" (words of David Gergen) for days. We'll still talk about as historic, but we'll forget that we forgot all about it for 10+ weeks.
Anyway, back to my predictions:
As far as Electoral votes go, it will be hard for anyone to ever beat Reagan's 525-13 win over Mondale (Mondale only took his home state of Minnesota). In the popular vote Reagan took 58.8%, Mondale 40.6). If we talked about "mandates" back then, Reagan would have been dictator. That was also his re-election campaign, in the 1980 contest he took only 50.2%, a 10% point lead over Jimmy Carter with 6.6% going to John Anderson.
Obama certainly won't get 49 states in his corner, but it's not going to be nearly as close as most pundits think. The pollsters who say it's within 3 points or that Obama won't break 50% are going to have to justify their services next year. Like the bundled mortgages, there are just too much REALITY for computer models to take into account. Maybe it's my experience writing computer models that lead me to so suspect of anyone who takes polling data and extrapolates the answers into very different results based on hunches (why don't they publish the raw data too?).
Obama will draw north of 55%, I'm predicting 56.5%. McCain will be around 41.5%, with 2% going to Nadar+Barr+everyone else. Yeah, that's right, a 15% lead. Imagine what the reelection will look like. I'm calculating 407 electoral votes for Obama, 127 for McCain. Why so much higher than everyone else? I think the Black vote, the young vote and the newly registered will turn out, moving Indiana, Montana, and Georgia in Obama's column.
I've been watching the Senate races more closely. Without a filibuster-proof majority, Obama will be dealing with gridlock, no matter how far he reaches across the isle. On the Senate races I'm expecting that Obama's new voters and the excitement he's generated will translate into a lot of voters just pulling the (D) right on down the line. And since the pollsters are underestimating the effect, I think the Democrats will get it, or fall one short.
Surely switching to the Democrats will be these 7 states:
Alaska - gotta chuckle whenever a corrupt politician loses.
Colorado - Would you want someone as abrasive as Bob Schaffer leading your state?
New Hampshire - not that I'm much of a fan of either. I thought this would be closer since Sheehan is not very likeable.
New Mexico - basicallly has been conceeded to the cousin of of the Colorado democratic candidate.
North Carolina - love to see that fake Liddy Dole (Archer Daniel Midland champion) go down in her own meanspirited flames.
Oregon - easy win
Virginia - the Democrat is rich enough to pay for it himself?
The close ones are :
Kentucky: I don't see Senate Minority leader losing.
Mississippi: I was hopeful here, but Wicker seems to be pulling away too far from Musgrove for the Obama effect to, well, have an effect.
Georgia: This is going to be the surprise of the night. The Obama effect will put this one in the Democratic corner, though it would have to be big enough to avoid a runoff, which is unlikely.
Minnesota: I think in the end, Minnesota will elect Franken, but he may be just not Senatorial enough to win. I listened to his radio show for a long time, and he knows what's going on, but he's far too partisan for my tastes. He's so "ah-uh-um-ah" all the time that I think he probably smokes pot every day or every other day - he's just not serious enough to make a good Senate and I bet wouldn't last long even if he won.
So I think the Dems will pick up 8 seats, perhaps 9, falling short enough that when nothing gets done, it will be blamed on the Dems, and their run will lose all its steam.
As a comparison, here are the predictions from the "This Week" roundtable:
Mark Halperin, Time Magazine:
Electoral Vote -- 349 Obama
Senate -- 58 Democratic seats
House -- Democrats net 28 House seats
Matthew Dowd, former Republican strategist:
Electoral Vote -- 338 plus Obama
Senate -- 8 plus pick up for Democrats
House -- 17 plus pickup for Democrats
George Will, ABC News contributor:
Electoral Vote -- 378 Obama
Senate -- 8 pickups for the Democrats
House -- 21 pickups for the Democrats
Donna Brazile, former Democratic strategist:
Electoral Vote -- Obama 343
Senate - Democrats 59 plus runoff
House - Democrats pickup 29
Here are my predictions ...
George Stephanopoulos:
Electoral Vote -- 353 Obama
Senate -- 58, or 59 if there's a run-off in Georgia.
House -- 264 House Democrats (+28)
Friday, September 19, 2008
Obama most liberal? NOT!
This evening I had dinner with my conservative Yankee-fan friend. We both love a good argument and have lots to argue about. Kinda like how Scalia and Ginsberg are the best of friends.
He brought up the talking point about Obama being the most liberal Senator. "More liberal than Bernie Sanders?" I asked my buddy. Unlike most right wingers, he's smart enough to know Sanders is a socialist and smart enough to evade the question.
I thought the Republicans have been pulling this "fact" out of their research library (aka their behinds), but it's actually based on something like a truth - The National Journal rankings.
Others agree with me:
Carpet baggers:
Mother Jones:
Instead of relying on a little magazine, how about relying on how liberal groups rate the Senators?
Electoral Vote combined the rating of 8 liberal groups (ACLU, NAACP, League of Conservation Voters, Children's Defense Fund, etc.), to see what the liberals themselves had to say about it.
Obama comes out FOURTY SECOND out the 100 Senators!!! There are only 8 democratic senators who are more conservative than Obama (all the Republicans are, though some are almost as "liberal" as Obama). Obama has almost the same liberal score (80) as independent (and nearly Republican VP) Joe Lieberman. Joe Biden’s score is even less liberal than Obama's – 74.
He brought up the talking point about Obama being the most liberal Senator. "More liberal than Bernie Sanders?" I asked my buddy. Unlike most right wingers, he's smart enough to know Sanders is a socialist and smart enough to evade the question.
I thought the Republicans have been pulling this "fact" out of their research library (aka their behinds), but it's actually based on something like a truth - The National Journal rankings.
Others agree with me:
Carpet baggers:
“But before anyone takes the National Journal rankings at face value, it’s worth noting how very flawed the methodology is. Indeed, it was misleading in 2004, and it’s equally misleading now.
Taking a closer look at this year’s results, Obama and Joe Biden were both considered more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders. This, alone, should make one wonder about the reliability of the rankings.”
Mother Jones:
“In years past, when Obama voted as many times as a normal senator, he was the 10th and 16th most liberal senator. That is likely a truer representation of his politics. Does anyone really think Obama and Joe Biden are more liberal than Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders (a socialist)?”
Instead of relying on a little magazine, how about relying on how liberal groups rate the Senators?
Electoral Vote combined the rating of 8 liberal groups (ACLU, NAACP, League of Conservation Voters, Children's Defense Fund, etc.), to see what the liberals themselves had to say about it.
Obama comes out FOURTY SECOND out the 100 Senators!!! There are only 8 democratic senators who are more conservative than Obama (all the Republicans are, though some are almost as "liberal" as Obama). Obama has almost the same liberal score (80) as independent (and nearly Republican VP) Joe Lieberman. Joe Biden’s score is even less liberal than Obama's – 74.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
What? Not emotional?
Juan Williams was not impressed and didn't think it was an emotional speech. Complete sell-out to Fox.
Is Fox sold out? The morning after Hillary Clinton's great speech I turned on XM CNN from 8:00-8:01, lots of clips and follow up commentary from the previous night about how there's no question there's unity. I flip over to Fox at 8:01 to see what they had to say.
From 8:01-8:17 (I missed about 30 seconds when I took too long to return during a commercial break), they mention "Clinton" exactly once, around 8:12, I think, in one sentence with one clip, the worst one. The one about the "Sisterhood of the Travelling Pantsuits ... thank you to my supporters", which is pretty much the exact opposite of her overall message - support of Obama. It took KARL ROVE (who came on with Giuliani) to say that she gave a great speech.
Is Fox sold out? The morning after Hillary Clinton's great speech I turned on XM CNN from 8:00-8:01, lots of clips and follow up commentary from the previous night about how there's no question there's unity. I flip over to Fox at 8:01 to see what they had to say.
From 8:01-8:17 (I missed about 30 seconds when I took too long to return during a commercial break), they mention "Clinton" exactly once, around 8:12, I think, in one sentence with one clip, the worst one. The one about the "Sisterhood of the Travelling Pantsuits ... thank you to my supporters", which is pretty much the exact opposite of her overall message - support of Obama. It took KARL ROVE (who came on with Giuliani) to say that she gave a great speech.
Class lacking at CNN
The Anderson 360 guy, who's only on because this is his time slot on weeknights on CNN (my DVR tells me), asked Paul Begala about the speech and he spewed out how great it was - it was inspiration, epic, etc., etc., and finally said it was one of the greatest speeches.
Anderson Cooper says, "Well, it looks like you drank the Kool Aid."
I'm like "What an idot"!!!
Until he says, "David Gergen, what did you think?"
David Gergan has been the White House chief of staff for Reagan, and was in Nixon's White House, I think Carter's and Clintons. I'm like, "Oh, he's gonna get it now."
"Well I guess Paul andI are drinking from the same cool aid bottle. ... As a political speech, it was a Masterpiece."
Taxi drivers in Time's Square were hanging out their windows looking at the Jumbotron.
Anderson Cooper says, "Well, it looks like you drank the Kool Aid."
I'm like "What an idot"!!!
Until he says, "David Gergen, what did you think?"
David Gergan has been the White House chief of staff for Reagan, and was in Nixon's White House, I think Carter's and Clintons. I'm like, "Oh, he's gonna get it now."
"Well I guess Paul andI are drinking from the same cool aid bottle. ... As a political speech, it was a Masterpiece."
Taxi drivers in Time's Square were hanging out their windows looking at the Jumbotron.
The Greatest Speech Ever
One of my kids came upstairs just after ended with his girlfriend. I said, "Did you see the Greatest Speech Ever?"
"The Greatest Speech ever?"
"Well, The Greatest American Speech Ever, er, maybe second?"
"OK, second, but what about George Washington's farewell speech?"
"Oh, yes, and then there's the Gettysburg Address"
"And didn't Roosevelt have one?"
"Yes, the uh, there's nothing to fear but fear itself."
Can you think of any others?
"The Greatest Speech ever?"
"Well, The Greatest American Speech Ever, er, maybe second?"
"OK, second, but what about George Washington's farewell speech?"
"Oh, yes, and then there's the Gettysburg Address"
"And didn't Roosevelt have one?"
"Yes, the uh, there's nothing to fear but fear itself."
Can you think of any others?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
My Technology Prediction for 2008
That's right, it's singular. I only have one prediction for 2008. I didn't publish it at the end of last year or the beginning of this year, because I just thought of it among the recent mergers:
Sun will buy SpringSource.
Maybe it will take until 2009, since Spring is still growing quickly and the more traction, the more $$$, but this makes too much sense not to happen.
Why would Sun buy SpringSource? The Spring team has been working hard for a long time, they could use a cash out at this point (I guess), so someone will pick them up. I thought BEA might buy SpringSource since it would allow them to change to a product+OS+services strategy from a purely closed-product one (with some OS contributions like XMLBeans). SpringSource is all about openness - anyone can plug their components into the container. Sun is showing the world that they are all about openness. What did Jonathan Schwartz say after the MySQL announcement?
--------------------------------------
The other advantage for Sun is that it will show that they are not letting their leading server technology - Java EE compete for favor against Spring, which is seems to be losing, if for no other reason than it's not latest and greatest anymore, and developers love latest and greatest. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong proponent of component containers and Spring (especially since now I don't have to have to use verbose, external XML). It's just that Spring wouldn't exist without Java EE. It would have taken a decade of dozens of teams to get it all working right - they are standing on top of the Java EE giants.
If Sun buys SpringSource, they will again be rulers of the server-side. Now if they could only get a container for the client side...
Sun will buy SpringSource.
Maybe it will take until 2009, since Spring is still growing quickly and the more traction, the more $$$, but this makes too much sense not to happen.
Why would Sun buy SpringSource? The Spring team has been working hard for a long time, they could use a cash out at this point (I guess), so someone will pick them up. I thought BEA might buy SpringSource since it would allow them to change to a product+OS+services strategy from a purely closed-product one (with some OS contributions like XMLBeans). SpringSource is all about openness - anyone can plug their components into the container. Sun is showing the world that they are all about openness. What did Jonathan Schwartz say after the MySQL announcement?
--------------------------------------
What happens to your commitment to PostgreSQL?
Josh says it exactly right on his blog - Sun wants to be the leading provider of datacenters. Not just MySQL datacenters. Exactly.
-------------------------------------------
They are churning into a services organization built around open source. I was consulting with a CTO some time ago and we discussed a feature of a product we were designing and I said, "Why don't we leave it out and you can make more money providing services?" His reply was, "I can make much more money on that same head if they are writing software." So maybe the margins aren't as high in services than product. Perhaps Open Source changed the parameters to that equation. Even if it hasn't, this is Sun's model, and it's better than dying by eating only off your own farm.The other advantage for Sun is that it will show that they are not letting their leading server technology - Java EE compete for favor against Spring, which is seems to be losing, if for no other reason than it's not latest and greatest anymore, and developers love latest and greatest. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong proponent of component containers and Spring (especially since now I don't have to have to use verbose, external XML). It's just that Spring wouldn't exist without Java EE. It would have taken a decade of dozens of teams to get it all working right - they are standing on top of the Java EE giants.
If Sun buys SpringSource, they will again be rulers of the server-side. Now if they could only get a container for the client side...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)