As I first woke up this morning my first thought was, "Did that really happen yesterday? Was Barack Obama overwhelmingly elected President of the United States?" The answer was of course yes. I think it may be fair to say that I am still sort of in a state of shock, not fully aware of the reality of the situation. Just a year ago I would have given no better than a 20% chance that Barack Obama would be our 44th president. Not only did Obama win the election, but he did so quite convincingly. The electoral vote count as of now sits at 349-163, which does not account for North Carolina (where Obama has a miniscule lead) and Missouri (where McCain has an even smaller lead).

So, the time has come for the final predictions. It's hard to believe that the election is really tomorrow, given the fact that I've been following the race now for more than a year and a half. Never did I think it would ever come. All the waiting has finally come to an end though, which means only one thing. Put your cards on the table and see what happens. While I am feeling fairly confident that I'll win the hand (Obama will defeat McCain), I'm not sure whether it will be by one pair of cards to another or a royal flush to a pair. Here's what I have:

Obama: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, RI, VT, VA, WA, WI

McCain: AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY

If all goes as above, Obama would win the Electoral College 326 to 212. I'll take it a step farther and say that the popular vote margin will be 51.3% to 46.6%. I wish I could give a more substantive explanation as to why I see the numbers coming out this way, but after months of tracking and examining, this is how I see it. Obama is going to win the critical swing states of North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Nevada. McCain will on the other hand capture Florida, and some of the other smaller states running close in the polls such as Montana and North Dakota. Obama will have a strong win, but not the landslide that some have suggested. There will be a mandate for change, and Barack Obama will come out on top.

Now that my national predictions have been set, its time to take a more in-depth look at two states I have been closely tracking over the past two months: South Carolina and Virginia. Let's start with South Carolina, the easier of the two.

South Carolina

John McCain: 54%
Barack Obama: 44%

I would be shocked if John McCain did not win my home state. The only time that South Carolina has voted for a Democrat for president in the past 40 years was Carter in 1976. I don't see this trend changing. That being said, I think that the final count will be closer than it traditionally is. In 2004, the state voted for Bush by a 58-41 margin, a strong significant victory. Let us not forget however that South Carolina was arguably the most important primary victory for Obama, aside from Iowa. Obama won the state with 55 percent of the vote, followed by Clinton at 27 percent. Obama won 80 percent of the African American vote and solidified his place in the primary race. Despite this strong support for Obama (especially among African Americans). Despite the fact that African Americans account for nearly 30% of the population, Obama will not enjoy strong enough support among white voters. Obama will capture victories in certain areas of the state (mainly metropolitan regions such as Charleston and Columbia), but the rural areas (mainly in the upstate) will go overwhelming for McCain.

Furthermore, Lindsay Graham will retain his Senate seat against a weak and relatively conservative contender in Bob Conley. The three highest positions in the states government are all currently held by Republicans (Gov. Mark Sanford, Senator Graham, and Senator Jim DeMint). Nothing in my mind seems to suggest that South Carolinians will experience a Democratic wave and choose to elect Barack Obama. Obama will be forever thankful for what South Carolina did for him in the primaries, but they won't be there on Tuesday.


Virginia

Barack Obama: 50%
John McCain: 47%

This is a really tough one to call, but signs seem to suggest that Obama is going to capture this critical swing state. While his lead has diminished to some extent over the past couple of weeks (which was as high as 8% at one point), I feel like Obama will be able to hold on and capture this critical early state. With a victory in Virginia, Obama will start the night off strong and drastically improve his chances of an electoral victory. Virginia has recently experienced a Democratic transition. Tim Kaine was elected governor in 2005 and Jim Webb was elected senator in 2006. Furthermore, Mark Warner is up over 25% over his Republican challenger for Senate. While these other elections are not tell-tale of how Virginians will vote for president, they suggest that they are either dissatisfied with Republican candidates or want to elect a Democrat. This may just be the first time in over 40 years that Virginians elect a Democrat for president.

According to the latest Rasumssen polls, Obama is winning every age group in Virginia except for 65 and older. Voters 29 and younger are supporting Obama at nearly 60%. Although Virginia does not have an African American population significantly higher than the country, Obama enjoys support among this demographic of close to 90%. More importantly however is that McCain holds a slim margin of 5% among white voters, who would traditionally be expected to carry strongly for a Republican candidate in the south. These polling numbers collectively suggest that Obama may be able to pull off a slim, hard victory. If voter turnout is high, Obama's chances of winning Virginia greatly increase. When the night is over, the nation will see that Virginia, the purple state, has turned into Virginia, the newest member of the blue states.

It's been suggested since the introduction of Joe the Plumber: Barack Obama is a socialist who wants to "distribute the wealth." My gut reaction (which I realize says a lot about me and my political views) is "so what." Beyond whether or not I think there is anything wrong with socialism, I shouldn't have to waste my breath to say that Obama is not a socialist, and neither are any of his policies. Such a suggestion is simply patently absurd. Barack Obama doesn't believe that the government should absorb everybody's money and wily nily redistribute it arbitrary ways (the ignorant understanding of socialism). What Barack Obama believes in is some sense of economic equality through fair and effective means. He believes that we as Americans have not necessarily an obligation, but at least a collective interest, in caring for each other and not exacerbating social and economic disparities. It's not healthy for the economy and not good for the country if the economic divide continues as its current pace. Obama wants the government to take some responsibility for the wellbeing of its citizens. Is that not reasonable? We spend trillions of dollars on national defense and the military, but the moment that someone suggests that millions of dollars should be spent on health care, they are all of a sudden socialist?
What message does it send to future generations when we suggest that caring for each other and a little bit of wealth equality is politically or morally wrong? If Obama's policies make him a socialist, then the entire United States is already socialist. Redistributive programs such as Social Security and Medicare are deeply engrained in our political system. Yes, you can say that they have their faults, but where would we be without a little bit of government intervention and support every once in a while. What do we call the bailout of Wall Street? Or is it ok if the redistribution of wealth is going to the big corporation, rather than the middle class?

I hope McCain didn't hand out Halloween candy on Friday night:

Big news this morning on Meet the Press: Colin Powell, former Secretary of State under GWB, has formally, and emphatically endorsed Barack Obama.

Last night in the debate, John McCain had his last shot at salvaging his slipping Presidential campaign, but he failed. Sadly for Republicans, his biggest failure was not on policies but on personality, demeanor, and attitude. As I've said before, McCain is a cranky, angry old man who is trying to claw his way back into the race.

With this in mind, I would now like to explore some of my observations and thoughts about the 3rd Presidential debate:

I honestly believe that John McCain won the first half of the debate, when it was focused on the economy. This was Barack Obama's issue to win, but he failed to clearly articulate his plan and show how John McCain's would make the economic crisis worse. Obama continues to reiterate that 95% of the population (below $250,000/year) would have lower taxes, but he never seems to take it a step farther and say what that actually means. Although it got old and repetitive, I feel as though McCain's repetition about Obama's tax policy (be it true, or not) actually resonated with the average viewer. McCain was able to play to the common belief of the "tax and spend" Democrat.

I think McCain had something with "Joe the Plumber," but he didn't employ it to his greatest potential. I wonder if Joe the Plumber = Joe Six-pack. Was this McCain's way of drawing paralles to Palin's statements in the VP debate without using the loaded term "Joe Six-pack." The problem with Joe the Plumber is that he is middle class, and the reality is that no matter how you twist it, McCain's plan would not save him taxes and would give him worse options with the all important issue of health care. McCain's failed to portray Joe the Plumber as the kind of middle class American that would actually support his policies. By the end of the debate, the term Joe the Plumber no longer resonated with the viewer because he or she had now heard it about 20 times. Of course it doesn't help the day after that Joe has been all over the media and not been the save all answer that McCain had hoped for.

I think that Obama won the health care debate, but he didn't maximize on his opportunities. All Obama had to do when criticizing McCain's plan was state the simple fact that the average family pays $12,000 in premiums per year, which is only marginally covered by the $5,000 tax credit that McCain suggests is the answer. Just by stating some of the numbers, Obama could have shown that a family at the poverty level (around $30,000) is currently asked to spend a third of their income on health care, and McCain's plan only covers a marginal portion of this. Obama was able to come across as more adept at talking about health care, but it seems as though he missed some of the obvious points that could have made it clearer to the American people.

The one blatant error that I caught was McCain referring to the fact that Obama failed to approve Justice Breyer. Does McCain not know that Breyer was nominated back in 1994 during Clinton's first term? Maybe McCain meant to say Miers, but even that seems inexcusable. Whether or not it was a simple slip up or a true error on McCain's part is unknown, but if nothing else is makes him appear distant and out of touch to anyone who knows their Supreme Court history.

I enjoyed the question about Roe v. Wade. I think this was the first time that either candidate has been forced to address this issues that so many people have strong feelings about. Although this would not be near the top of the agenda for either candidate, it was nice to see them both have to articulate their views on a deeply polarizing issue. I think Obama hit it out of the park.


The most interesting thing that everyone was looking for in the debate was whether or not McCain would bring up William Ayers. As promised, he did. Not only did he bring up Ayers, but the debate took an unnecessary tangent that failed to move the political discourse forward. I think Obama responded like he should have. He stated the fact and the absurd reality that he was 8 years old when Ayers was a "domestic terrorist." Should we investigate what some of McCain's friends did when he was 8 years old? It was a pure waste of time in the debate. My only hope is that we can move past these charges and focus on the issues that the American people deserve to hear about.

McCain's greatest weakness last night was his physical and verbal bitterness. While he may have held his own for the most part on the issues, he came across a desperate angry man. His facial expressions were priceless as if he was simultaneously the wise grandfather looking down on his ignorant grandchild and the whiny little six year-old who wanted his candy back. His attacks on Obama were often not even substantive; they were personal. He talked condescendingly as if his plan was right because he said so and Obama was just flat our wrong. There was no room for debate or consideration; McCain was right, Obama was wrong, and there was nothing else to be said. McCain should no better. As much as they probably should not, body language and perception by the audience can often be more influential to than the actual policies that one articulates.

Final thought: I think McCain had a better closing statement than Obama. While this is true, I don't think he delivered anything along the lines of "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" I think this was McCain's best debate, possible Obama's worst, but Obama still managed to eek out a victory. I don't expect the polls to change much following the debate. If all goes as it appears, Obama will win by around 6 percentage points on November 4th.

I have been absent for nearly 2 months now, but I have made a triumphant return to Art Star. While away I have been keeping a blog for my "Election 2008" class. Please visit my blog called The Politics of Hope and let me know what you think. I will now be copying my posts from there onto Art Star.

The Prime Minister of Iraq has essentially endorsed the long term plan for the country being set forth by Barack Obama, namely a troop withdrawal timetable of 16 months.


"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

What more proof do we need that Iraq no longer wants our military running around the country? Wasn't the goal after all to remove Saddam and the terrorists from the country, begin to repair the infrastructure that we blew to smithereens, and then allow the Iraqis to take control of their democracy? Oh wait, I forgot to mention that whole oil thing...

Anyway, I believe the time has come for us to start honoring the wishes of the Iraqis and respectfully remove ourselves...There's only one man who has the common sense to see this.

If I’ve learned one thing in my life, it’s the fact that people love to constantly poke fun at my home state of South Carolina. I constantly feel the need to defend the fact that I’m from South Carolina, which can quickly get old, but nonetheless I see where the criticism comes from. We have some pretty stupid people in South Carolina, who do things just begging to be picked up by the media. Let me begin:

There was a recent uproar about an advertising campaign in London targeted at attracting gay tourist to my wonderful state. Similar advertisements were used for five major U.S., but residents of those cities have not had the same public outcry as South Carolinians.


Granted the campaign may be a little blunt, but what astonishes me are the reactions of my fellow South Carolinians. A teacher at a high school in the state stepped down out of opposition to the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance at the school, saying the following,

“Our sex education curriculum is abstinence based. I feel the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High School implies that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes.”

It’s things like this that embarrass me.

I could talk as well about the legislative approval of Christian license plates that proclaim, “I Believe,” but that might get sticky and I can’t find the quote I was looking for by Andre Bauer, our Lt. Governor. I’m all about freedom of speech and proclaiming one’s religious convictions, but such an action presupposes that Christianity is and should be the religion of the state. I guarantee a proposal by atheists or Muslims to have plates of their own made would never get approved.

So instead, I’ll just present to you our wonderful Governor, Mark Sanford, who has been considered a potential vice presidential candidate and looked like a bumbling idiot on CNN on Sunday. It kind of reminds me of Miss Teen South Carolina.


Why can't we hear about the great South Carolinians like Jim Clyburn, the House Majority whip.

In light of the 4th of July, which I spent on the Mall in DC with my parents, I've been thinking about what it means to be patriotic. The word patriotism is one that is thrown around all too much, especially when talking about the Presidential campaign and the two leading candidates. The suggestion that either candidate is not patriotic has got to be one of the most absurd things that I have ever heard in my life.

First, I want to say that Ross White is an amazing human being, a talented progressive thinker with unlimited potential, a very close and dear friend, and most of all - a good sport.

Second, I want to say that I don't personally believe in the practical application of reparations because I am a pragmatist and fully realize the impossibility and problematic nature of the United States Government applying any reparations policy.

However, Art Star is a space that has been created for the exchange of ideas, information, and to build a community of young artists, thinkers, and influential people.

Yesterday I wrote a column that was meant to be pure entertainment called My Top Ten Guilty Pleasures, and #10 was reparations. I knew that it was a spicy topic and would possibly offend some of our readership as I acknowledged.

However the value of making controversial statements is not from the pure "shock" value, but from the ensuing dialogue about the issue.

In the comments section of my column, Ross and I had a debate which turned on whether or not a white person would learn anything about slavery from picking cotton for a day?

I said yes they would, and he said no they would not.

So, I challenged him to a bet that we would let our readership (and whoever else cares) decide via this really neat new idea called prediction markets.

Using the Inkling Marketplace we will pose the question and you, the reader, decide how right or wrong each of us are (we both believe that we insult everyone's intelligence by making it a yes or no answer).

If "the world" decides that yes, a white person would indeed would learn something from picking a day's worth of cotton, then Ross White will pick cotton for a day, and post footage from that and reflection on his experience in a youtube video.

If "the world" decides that no, a white person would not learn much from picking a day's worth of cotton, then I will issue a public apology to any white people I have offended in a youtube video.

Now of course I don't want to apologize and Ross doesn't want to pick cotton but that is what makes it interesting.

Over the next week or so we will both make posts elaborating, and nuancing our positions.

However, tomorrow we will introduce how YOU will decide and let the betting begin.

We encourage for you to comment on our bet and the issues, because although we both realize the inherent silliness in making a white person pick cotton, both Ross and I strongly believe that our countries ongoing conversation about race, history, discrimination, equality, and fairness are very important and isn't a "black" issue, or a "white" issue, but an American issue.

I return again this week to a Supreme Court decision: the 32-year old gun ban in DC is a violation of the Second Amendment.

While I am a little behind mentioning something about this, I feel like it warrants being acknowledged.

I have been appalled by the reaction of dear old Prez Bush and John McCan't in the wake of the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Boumedine vs. Bush. Johnny boy went so far as to call the decision "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."


How can anyone with even a single grain of decency and respect for human rights suggest that it is lawful to hold someone (and potentially even torture) for an indefinite amount of time? Even more so, how can the Supreme Court of the United States affirm the right to a writ of habeas corpus by only a single vote?


Where have we gone as a country when our President and potential-President show no respect for the idea of civil liberties and the notion that "we are all created equal." Go ahead and throw your terrorism arguments out there, but the fact is that terrorist attacks worldwide have increased since we invaded Iraq and began this glorified mission to save the world.

I could ramble on forever about this, but I'll leave it to the experts to say more eloquently.

Mr. Bush, I hope that when you and your subservient staff members decide to travel overseas they get it and tell you why you are being detained.