Defining The Election of President-Elect Barack Obama

In no small terms, the election of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States is indeed a historic moment in the history of the United States, in terms of our nation, after electing a Caucasian male to the office of President, ushering in an African-American into the highest office.  Numerous voters and pundits have painted the 2008 Presidential election to be unique in to such elections as Ronald Reagan in 1980 and John F. Kennedy in 1960, in so much as the election cycle was infused with a transcendental candidate.

I would argue that, while the 2008 election possessed uncommon qualities not typical of most Presidential elections, it was not the candidates themselves that created the interest in the 2008 election, but the national conditions that transformed this election into one perceived as important.

Atlas Shrugs Keeps On Truckin’

I have to credit Atlas Shrugs for their effort.  Their hate and scorn are unimaginably infinite, and they are endlessly determined to destroy that which they do not like.  There is no boundry they will not cross to achieve their goal whether it be ignorance, racism, or lies.  It’s the kind of hate that animosity that tears down all sense of ethical or moral behavoir.  One goal is to be achieved, and no cost is high enough for them to stop in their quest to destroy Barack Obama.

In their first post following the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, they attack the US Muslim group CAIR for congratulating Obama on his victory.  It all presumes that all Muslims are evil people who are not entitled to the same voice and rights in this country as other people.  Atlas Shrugs and it’s readers want to marginalize and, ultimately, reduce all Muslims in this country into powerless peasants.  It’s been evident for some time and this only reminds us that to Atlas Shrugs and it’s readers, “All Muslims are terrorists.”  They would have been better suited to have lived in the 11th century, so they could partake in the Crusades.

Read the comments section.  You’ll be truly disgusted.  I know I was.  There is nothing that Obama can ever do to quench the heinous spite they have for those living in and supporting their own country.  It was not with such appalling abhorrence that I wanted to make the first post on my blog concerning Obama’s victory.  This is just confirmation that the right wing nuts and PUMAS are going to continue their self-righteous war against Obama.  Expect to see flimsy court cases springing from claims of massive voter fraud and the conspiracy theory that Obama is not POTUS eligible.

Congratulations Barack Obama on your historic victory.  May I give you a proper hand shake tomorrow with a more uplifting post.

Live Blogging Election Night

1:26 EST: That lost steam.  Obama wins.

8:13 EST: NBC News is projecting Pennsylvania to be won by Obama.  PA was a huge battleground state where McCain spent a good portion of his campaign time and money into during the latter stages of the race, essentially putting his hopes in PA.  NBC has also called NH, IL, MA, CT, NJ, DC, and MD for Obama, while giving McCain OK, TN, and SC.  That puts the electoral votes at Obama: 103 McCain: 34.

7:43 EST: Fox News calls West Virginia for McCain.  Electoral votes: McCain 13.  Obama 3.  West Virginia went Republican in the last two elections, so no surprise there.

Redskins Lose; Obama Wins?

Since 1936 when the Washington Redskins were known as the Boston Braves, this franchise was been the predictor for the winner of the Presidential election.  Every time the Redskins won their last home game before a Presidential election, the incumbent party retained the White House, while a home lose was a predictor that the incumbent party would lose.

This streak kept up from 1936 till 2004 where the Redskins lost 28-14 to the Packers, but George W. Bush and the Republican party won a second term.  But for that one exception, the Washington Redskins seem to know something we don’t.  Last night, on Monday Night Football, the Redskins were routed by the Pittsburgh Steelers 23-6, and given the overwhelming historical evidence, can we say that Barack Obama will triumph at the polls today and unseat the incumbent Republican party and John McCain?  Sporting a 94.4% accuracy rate in 17 Presidential elections, the Redskins are hard to argue with.

(Note: Correlation is often mistaken for causation due to our tendency to “connect the dots” across history.  We need a narrative to understand the random, non-linear nature of our world, and one of the side effects is mistaking correlation for causation – in this case, more specifically, confusing coincidence for prognostication.)

“Judah Benjamin” Concedes Barack Obama Is A US Citizen

The infamous “Judah Benjamin” admits in a post at the TD blog that:

I have always claimed that he was a citizen of the USA by birth. I have always said that I believe he was born in Hawaii. I have stated that I do not believe he has ever lost US Nationality and indeed I cannot account for his present name, the contents of the factcheck.org COLB, or a number of other points, if he has.

I do believe that he should have lost US Nationality, under the Law of Indonesia and International Law, but I cannot, myself, see any way he could have under US Law as it stands today. I do not believe that either the Sarah Onyango tape or the API tape are to be believed in, or relied upon, though I am prepared to be persuaded.

He goes on to specify that his reasoning for Barack Obama being POTUS ineligibe is based upon his interpretation of Article II of the United States Constitution:

Article II is absolute. It does not allow for wiggle room, to qualify an individual MUST be a Natural Born Citizen. Unfortunately there is, currently, no Statute definition of what that term means and so, since the issue has now arisen it now needs to be adjudicated and then legislated. I may be convinced that Article II is clear and utterly straightforward but most people don’t seem to get it. Likewise the position of dual, or in Obama’s case quadruple, nationality needs to be addressed because in strict Statute Law it simply doesn’t exist and it seems to clash with all US Law on Naturalization and with the Constitution. It does, you know, read the Oath of Allegiance. However you cut it the Supreme Court ought to make, and has a duty to make a determination, not simply weasel out of it on grounds of Standing.

While admitting that Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen” under all applicable US law, he goes to state what a POTUS ineligible Obama elected as the President of the United States would mean(referencing Edwin Vieira, Jr and the post he made):

Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to consider the words of Dr Vieira very carefully. If Barack Hussein Obama II, or Barry Soetoro if you prefer his other Legal Name, is Ineligible to hold the Office of President of the United States he can never preside over any Administration. In Legal terms therefore, should he gain Election by the Electoral College and then proceed to Inauguration there would be no Legitimate Federal Government, of any Branch, that is if I follow Dr Vieira’s argument correctly. At that point the United States of America would, in effect, cease to exist among the Community of Nations. Unlike 1861 the Union would not be broken, it would be utterly dissolved upon the Winds of Time, as if it had never been.

I have said this is a Crisis as grave as that which smote the Union with the Election of 1860 and the disaster of the Confederate Secessions. If Dr Vieira is correct, and I bow willingly before his great knowledge of the Law and Constitution, this Crisis is far worse. The Civil War never actually threatened the utter Legal extinction of the Union. Even had the Confederacy triumphed, as with God’s good Grace it did not, there would still have been a Union, albeit reduced in size and influence.

At the end of his post, his closes with:

But what do I know? I’m not a Lawyer, my Doctorate is not a JD, I’m just a Historian.

Here we have one of the major players in sparking the entire Barack Obama internet controversy openly admitting that Barack Obama is indeed POTUS eligible given all standing legalities.  And his own basis for reasoning is based on the intrepretations of the Constitution by a anonoymously proclaimed historian.  Yet, he persists to speculate that under his unprofessional opinion of what Article II means, that the United States of America would cease to exist comparing it as more grave then the Civil War.

“Judah Benjamin” openly misled the readers of the TD blog into believing Obama was not POTUS eligbile on standing US law, and is now inciting anarchy under the amatuer, imaginery interpretation of Article II.  The readers of the TD blog are rabid, foaming at the mouth anti-Obama proponents who have shown a history of lapping up every word coming from Judah, TD, NoQuarter, Techdude, Polarik, and Atlas Shrugged as the gospel truth.  In spite of the discrediting of Techdude and Polarik by known, verified forensic experts(along with the refutation of attempted legal standing that Obama lost his US citizenship previously), and Judah’s own admission that Obama is a “natural born citizen”, they continue to offer up wild speculation centered around Obama.

Judah, the amateur lawyer, and anyone who pontificates the destruction of the United States should be subject to Title 18, Section 2385 of United States Code:

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…

If anti-Obama proponents want to take the ethical high road and say that Obama should just release his documentation as a public service, they should also consider the ethical implications of incitement and libel defamation.  In the future, I would suggest to “Judah” to not chose a forum to express his views whose owner consistently made accusations he now claims run contrary to his own.

For a purported historian, Judah certainly loves to wander in the realm of “What-Ifs”.  I’ll leave you with this gem of a quote in which Judah previously imagined civil disorder in the event Obama was elected:

I don’t say it will happen but it could and it has. In 1861 they didn’t have gunship helicopters, or 6,000 rpm rotary cannon, etc, etc. What can a gunship do to an urban neighborhood? I know the answer, if you don’t, you don’t want to. Remember, if it happens, either way around, it was Barack Hussein Obama II and the DNC who caused it.

Palin’s Wardrobe and The Problem of Campaign Money

Much has been made about the RNC spending on Sarah Palin’s wardrobe which has totaled $150,000.  The story has elicited the predictable angry reaction from the Democrats and Obama supporters.  It’s become another piece of partisan fodder that marks all presidential campaigns.

The number is meaningless without any form of context.  Amid all the reporting of Palin’s wardrobe spending, no research has gone into past campaign spending in this area.  Without knowing how much Obama’s campaign has spent on similar items or without historical spending figures for previous presidential candidate’s, the number has little value because it has no frame of reference.  It’s quite likely that all campaign’s budget an amount for their candidate’s wardrobe and other related expenses.  The question really becomes was Palin’s expenses exponentially greater then others.  Personally, I’ll reserve judgement on the money spent on Palin’s wardrobe.

What can be said about this story is that voter responses are reactionary and misplaced.  Consider the amount of money campaign’s spend on advertising and the overall net effect that advertising has on the outcome of an election.

The typical presidential campaign largest expense is advertising.  For instance, Obama has raised an estimated $600 million this year and is set to break the record set on campaign advertising set by George W. Bush in 2004.  That number Obama is going to exceed is $188 million.  Obama is spending $10 million dollars alone on a 30 minute infomercial set to air just before election day.  McCain is spending an equal proportion of his campaign budget on advertising albeit not nearly approaching the total dollar amount.  There is nothing outrageous or noteworthy in the quantitative value of Obama’s spending on advertising as it’s equally proportional to all recent presidential election campaigns.

However, consider the qualitative effect on the outcome of an election based on the quantitative spending of a candidate.  In a paper by Steven Levitt, he shows that campaign spending has very little effect on the outcome of an election.  Previously, research had shown that incumbent spending had minimal qualitative effect on an election outcome, the amount a challenger spent had tangible implications.  The major flaw in all previous research, as Levitt points out, is that they never accounted for the quality of the candidate.

The crux of Levitt’s argument is that the level of appeal a candidate possess’ directly influences his ability to raise campaign funds.  Hence, campaign spending is the product of a candidate’s quality with voters, and not vice versa.  In order to account for the appeal variable, Levitt examined thousands of Congressional elections in which the same two candidates faced each other multiple times.

Levitt discovered that when able to control the candidate quality variable, in almost all cases increasing campaign spending did not effect the outcome of an election.  A losing candidate who spent twice as much money in his second contest between the same opponent could expect a similar percentage of the vote within 1%.  Likewise, an incumbent who spent half as much money in his second contest against the same challenger could count on the same outcome within 1% point.

This is not to say that campaign spending and political advertisements do not have an effect on the outcome of an election.  Psychological research has shown that while a voter with a predisposed affective state towards a candidate will filter his cognition and subsequent behavior when exposed to political ads(a pro-Obama supporter is likely to react to a pro-Obama ad positively while negatively to a pro-McCain ad), the effect is far more pronounced when the candidate is a known quantity.  When a candidate is unknown to a voter, he is more likely to evaluate the contents of an advertisement divested of his party affiliation, ideology, partisanship, and affected state.

The benefit of political advertising lies primarily with introducing the public to a candidate in order to establish an affected state.  But once the candidate becomes a known quantity and the affected state is established, political advertising begins to exceed a redundant saturation level where in the size of the effectual target audience reduces.  The more that people are informed and have formed an opinion on a candidate, the less efficient advertising becomes.  Research has shown that the more familiar a voter is with a candidate the less effectual advertising becomes.  Advertising yields the highest return with voters who are unfamiliar with a candidate.

Under this presumption, it can be said that political advertising is an offensive tool for a campaign but progressively becomes a diffusive element towards success.  The implication here is that as a candidate gains wider appeal across the linear chronology of a campaign, the efficacious value of his campaign money increases.

Considering in conjunction that a candidate’s financial resources increase synchronously with his appeal and a candidate’s appeal accumulates alongside the campaign ad hoc, a candidate is more likely to expend a greater amount in advertising in the latter stages of his campaign.  So, a candidate is spending his greater percentage of funds on advertising at a time when they are least effective.

Yet, the wardrobe of Sarah Palin, which is an image advertisement, draws noticeable media coverage and voter outrage while candidates allocate the largest proportional of campaign funds at a time when of the least consequence evokes relative silence.  Even doubly perplexing is that Palin, being an unknown and unfamiliar to the voter base, benefits the most from image and issue advertising when compared to Obama, McCain, and Biden.

Of course, Palin’s created her own self-attack advertising campaign through her repeated issue gaffes.  Respectively, she is becomes a known candidate carrying a negative affected state among voters.  That affected state has established the groundwork for voter behavior in response to her wardrobe expenditures.  Examining political advertising critically, $150,000 expended at a time when it’s most effective as compared to $10 million(Obama informercial) outlayed at a time of least effectiveness, I have to call into question the informational cognition voters exhibit towards politics.

How To Be President of the United States of America

So, you want to be President of the United States of America?  Well, I’ve got your sure fire ticket to the Oval Office.  Run for President against an incumbent party that presided over either an unpopular war and/or an economic recession.  Getting on the ticket is your problem.

I alluded to this previously in a post and the issue resurfaced in the comments section for a post at The Blog At The End of the Universe.  I thought it would be appropriate to track every major war and economic recession the United States has had post industrial revolution and how the subsequent Presidential Election evolved.

Pre-Industrial Revolution elections don’t qualify for one reason – exposure.  The US economy prior to the Industrial Revolution was a localized economy centered around agriculture.  It was not dependent upon trade or capitol investments.  When one area of the country would enter into a recession, it did not predicate other areas to suffer likewise.  In addition, the populace was not readily connected to ongoing wars and economic downturns occurring in other parts of the country and world.  Simply, our economy and the population was not exposed to the ill effects of the economy and war.

The Industrial Revolution is widely considered to have fully transformed the US economy into a capitalist based one by the 1830-40s.  It is here we will look at every major US war and recession, and what occurred during each Presidential Election during these events.

Recession 1837: Widespread bank failures due to speculation as to the strength in US paper currency sends the country into a 6 year recession.  Democratic President Martin Van Buren presides over the beginning of the recession and loses in 1940 to Whig candidate William Harrison.  Incumbent loses.

Mexican-American War: In 1845 President James Polk orders US troops into Mexico and begins a war that lasts until 1948.  Democrat Polk loses his reelection bid to Whig Zachary Taylor.  Incumbent loses.

Recession 1857: Democrat President James Buchanan is in office when the a railroad bubble in the United States bursts causing massive bank failures.  The Republicans win the Presidential election in 1860.  Incumbent loses.

American Civil War: Democrat Abraham Lincoln uses military force to prevent the South from seceding.  War last until 1864 with Lincoln unifying the country and Lincoln is reelected.  Incumbent wins.

Recession 1873: When the largest bank in the nation failed, the country was sent into a 6 year recession.  Republican Ulysses S. Grant was the President at the time.  In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the Presidential race in what is widely considered the most contested race in American history.  Losing the popular vote and electoral vote to Democrat Samuel Tilden, the Republicans disputed the award of 20 electoral votes for Tilden.  Eventually the Electoral Commission was formed to resolve the dispute as inauguration day was quickly approaching.  With one more Republican on the commission then Democrat, Hayes was deemed the winner.  Incumbent wins or did he?.

Recession 1893: The railroad industry takes a downturn causing investment to plummet sending the US into a recession until 1896.  Democrat Grover Cleveland was in office during the recession and in the 1896 election Republican William McKinley wins.  Incumbent loses.

Recession 1907: Late in 1907, the economy begins a long contraction.  It persists until 1908 seeing production, imports, employment, and immigration all decrease.  Bankruptcies increased to the second highest level of all time.  Republican William Taft has the unfortunate luck to take office as soon as the recession hit.  By 1912, Democrat Woodrow Wilson was residing in the Oval Office.  Incumbent loses.

World War I and Recession 1918: Democrat Woodrow Wilson promised not to send America into the war raging in Europe.  In 1917, he sent troops overseas and officially declared war on Germany.  Following the end of the war, inflation in Europe drastically effected the US economy causing a recession that lasted for several years.  Wilson lost his bid for a third term in 1920 to Republican Warren Harding.  Incumbent loses.

The Great Depression: 1929 sees the stock market crash and the worst economic recession in American history grips the country.  Democrat Franklin Roosevelt unseats the Republican party in 1932.  Incumbent loses.

World War II: Democrat Franklin Roosevelt enters the US into war against Germany and Japan after being provoked with the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Franklin dies in office and in 1948 his successor Harry Truman wins the election.  Incumbent wins.

Korean War and Recession 1951: Mired in a stalemate in Korea and high inflation, Democrat Harry Truman loses to Republican Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Incumbent loses.

Recession 1957: The US sees it’s first budget deficit in history and it continues to grow threw the next several years due in part to the downturn in American exports.  The Republicans lose control of the White House in the 1960 Presidential election to Democrat John F. Kennedy. Incumbent loses.

Vietnam War: While the US had some presence in Vietnam since 1959, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson escalates the war with large troop deployments and an official resolution to conduct combat operations in 1964.  The war becomes a polarizing issue in the country.  So unpopular, Johnson decides not to run for reelection in 1968, and the Democrats lose control to Republican Richard Nixon.  Incumbent loses.

Recession 1973: Rising oil prices caused the country to spend the latter part of the decade suffering from high inflation and interest rates along with low economic growth.  Democrat Jimmy Carter was in office for the majority of the economic downturn, and in 1980 lost his reelection bid to Republican Ronald Reagan.  Incumbent loses.

Gulf War and Recession 1990: While President George H. Bush’s approval ratings were at an all-time high following the resounding success of the Gulf War, he could not escape the recession the country found itself in 1990.  Bush lead early polls against Democrat Bill Clinton, but as the economy worsened Clinton closed the gap.  He eventually defeated Bush in the election.  Incumbent loses.

Iraq War and Recession 2001: Following the attacks of 9/11, Republican George W. Bush sent American troops into Afghanistan and Iraq.  The military scored quick tactical victories overthrowing both governments.  Victory was declared.  The economy also entered a minor recession due to the attacks and the dot-com bubble burst.  Republican Bush won reelection in 2004.  Incumbent wins.

Iraq War and Recession 2007: The Iraq war under President George W. Bush drags on for years and becomes widely unpopular.  The housing market crash ripples to Wall Street sparking a major crash.  Prior, the economy was slowly contracting and experts predict a recession to last at least into 2009.  Republican John McCain is trailing Democrat Barrak Obama in polls by as much as 10% with only two weeks until election time.  Undetermined.

Based on the historical link between war and recessions to past Presidential elections, two things become evident.  One, a wars perception has a direct effect on the incumbents party reelection chances.  A war which is perceived as necessary and victorious does not have the detrimental effect as a war that is perceived as unnecessary and a stalemate.  Two, an economic recession is assurance that the incumbent party will be unsuccessful in retaining the White House.

And so we enter the 2008 election with an incumbent party having presided over an prolonged and unpopular war in Iraqi alongside a potentially severe recession.  Judging from history, the Democrats are, in all probability, going to win this Presidential election.  It is common thought to dissect each and every election for their various unique circumstances, and to attribute these characteristics as to why one party or another won the race.  I contend that Presidential elections are an elementary exercise in war and economics with greater weight given to the economy.  For all the nuances we might find within this race, there are these two undeniable and basic elements that will shape the future of our country.  The debates, the vice presidential selections, the speeches, the policies, and the television advertising are all secondary parts that have a minimal effect compared to war and recessions.

The Presidential Race Not Immune To Randomness

I have sobering news for all of the political fanatics out there feverishly consuming every tidbit of news around the presidential race as confirmation or refutation for the support they’ve thrown beyond their respective candidate.  The presidential race will not be decided on the laundry list of pros and cons for each candidate that you’ve taken painstaking effort to lay out.  No, the presidential race will be decided by a randomness.

The presidential race of 2008 will be decided based on the crash of the housing market and the subsequent drop it caused in the nation’s economy.  For as much as the media and average citizens strive to transform the economic crisis into a politically derived problem, it is not.  I have previously made numerous posts concerning the reasons behind the economic crisis, and specifically attributed the error in management on the risk management models used by financial institutions.  The post illustrated how randomness poses a severe threat to these models.  The qualification for a random event is an event which cannot be predicted which precipitously qualifies the economic crisis as the consequence of a random event.

Just as the financial institutions risk management models did not predict a fall in home prices greater then 10%, political pundits could not predict the massive shift in the presidential race that the economic crisis would cause.  Prior to the first day the stock market plummeted nearly 800 points and the final realization that the economy was teetering, McCain was neck and neck with Obama.  Some polls showing McCain with a slight lead and others having McCain trailing by only a couple points.  Immediately after, McCain’s poll numbers began slipping, and as the nation became inundated with daily news that the economy was on life support, McCain’s numbers began to suffer from the war of attrition.

The economy became the center issue in the presidential race.  It thrusted itself to the forefront to become the deciding factor.  For political purposes, the affair was tailored by each candidate to suit their campaign in what amounted to an advertising campaign.  Voter perception leaned heavily towards Obama as being the one best suited to guiding the country back to economic health.  This voter acumen, as it turns out, resides without substance.

Considering risk management models bore the fertile blame for the financial catastrophe, how then can the politicization of the problem be justified?  It simply cannot.  However, it certainly has played a critical role in the shape of this presidential race.  Partisan advertising, voter ignorance, and media saturation loaned it the power necessary to become the deciding factor.

Barack Obama constructed an unwittingly genius advertising campaign while battling Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primary that was designed to link the presumptive Republican nominee to Bush’s economic policy.  Coupled with Obama echoing sentiments of economists, he painted a bleak economic picture.  In a speech earlier in the year, Obama said:

We are not standing on the brink of recession because of forces beyond our control.  This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership in Washington — a Washington where George Bush hands out billions of tax cuts to the wealthiest few for eight long years, and John McCain promises to make those same tax cuts permanent, embracing the central principle of the Bush economic program.

The Obama campaign as continued to connect the economic polices of George Bush as “failed” and inexorably tying McCain to those “failed” policies.  From a strategic standpoint, it stands as the center point for his presumed presidential victory.  Yet, it’s quite simply inaccurate in the sense that the term “failed” predicates that the economic policies of Bush/McCain caused the economic crisis.

The center of this recession and possible depression does not even remotely revolve around tax cuts.  Tax cuts putting money in the pockets of the poor, middle class, and rich has no bearing on sub prime lending practices or the flaws in statistical risk management models.  The concept is absurd.  In fact, it’s counter intuitive.  A middle class family receiving a tax cut would be more likely to take that money and use as a   on a home mortgage and would be less likely to enter into a sub prime, no down payment home loan.  Additionally, it’s clear that the wealthy, for whatever tax cut they might receive, are not consumers who are or were entering into sub prime mortgages.

The only credible accusation that can be made against Bush and his administration is government regulation.  But it’s difficult to conceive that the government, using the same risk management models and statistical information as the lending industry, would have been able to see what the financial sector could not.

Despite Obama’s inaccuracy, it was a strategic success due to voter ignorance.  Voters are not apt to critical thinking when examining the issues.  They display a preference for short and concise soundbites that can regurgitated on command.  We gravitate to linear paths and there is not a more straight path to making the connection between an administration that’s been entrenched for the last eight years, “failed” economic policies, and an economy entering a recession.  We are susceptible to the narrative fallacy and Obama beautifully catered to our ignorance for his own political gain.

The media onslaught that followed the stock market crash solidified Obama’s strategy.  There has not been a day in the last month that we have not heard more bad economic news.  Every time a voter read or watched a news piece on the economic crisis they made the connection in their mind between the state of the economy, those “failed” policies, and the message Obama has been preaching for months and months.

The fact of the matter is that no Republican or Democrat administration would have prevented the current economic crisis.  Short of the government heavily reducing the capitol requirements for lending and shifting the economy away from the debt based economy we have been operating on for nearly half a century, politicians were equal bystanders in the unfolding events that lead us to where we are.

So, it should be quite sobering to realize that if your voting for Obama or McCain primarily because you believe either candidate can bring the economy out by it’s bootstraps to know that you are casting your vote based on a random event.  It might even seem incomprehensible.

Randomness has the peculiar nature of being incomprehensible.  How can we understand that which we cannot predict, otherwise we would have already known it’s impending occurrence and been able to take steps to avoid said event.  Just as the statistical risk management models failed to predict the drop in housing prices, no one predicted that the decisive event in the presidential election would be, at it’s root, born from randomness.

How are we to feel knowing that the next leader of our country rode the wave of a random event into office?  I know I’ll be punching Obama’s name come November 4th for reasons divested of that random event, but it’s given me serious pause to come to terms with the fact that many other have been influenced by randomness knowing Obama’s poll numbers have reached double digits since the stock market crash.

Blogging’s Correlation To Crisis

I’d like to put forth the contention that the any increase or decrease in blogging is directly correlated to the occurrence or absence of crisis’.  In fact the birth of blogging can be attributed, to a degree, to the occurrence of a crisis.

Blogs have been around for nearly 15 years.  At its inception, blogs were considered to be online diaries or journals.  In 2001, blogs emerged as a news source.  Less a diary and more free form journalism.  I would put forth the notion that the events of 9/11 contributed, in part, to the explosion of blogs.  Following 9/11, the populace openly questioned the honesty of the government and mainstream media.  Questions were abound as to what the government knew prior to the attacks and whether they failed to act on possible intelligence.  Rather then turning to mainstream media who are regarded as the mouthpiece for those in power, people turned online looking for “outside” news sources.  Journalists took note of the demand and blogs became a wide-spread necessity.

The following Afgan and Iraqi War further fueled the expansion of blogging.  A highly unpopular presidency also contributed.  However, it is not so much the crisis event as it is the reaction crisis’ spur in the average person.  A crisis naturally presumes a high stress event.  A high stress situations in turn require an outlet for expression.  In addition, a crisis spans all cultural boundaries leaving us with a rare occurrence that connects us all.  It is our empathy for tragedy and conflict that brings us together, and curiously apart as well.

All of these things boil together to form either a highly contentious or bonding unity across a wide area of people.  Our compulsion to express the opinions we’ve formed around a crisis drives us towards the easiest of all avenues – blogging.  We want to reach out across the world and let it be known how we feel on an unfolding topic.  Partly to fulfill our own personal need to be heard, but because a crisis possesses the appearance that decisive action must be taken.  And as a survival technique, we feel driven to herd as many others into out “decision” camp.

This is evident in the explosion of partisan, illogical political blogs that have sprung up as the Presidential election began and is reaching it’s peak.  In a sense, surrounded by numerous peripheral crisis’, the election has become the personification of their collective events.  Blogging has become the irrational mouthpiece for citizen politics.  Your either on this side or that.  Join us or the crisis we are faced with will devour us.

I am sure that once the election is over, the next president has been inaugurated, and passed his first 100 days in office, the blogging world will turn to the next major crisis.  The economy is a potential target if it devolves into a depression.  In short, the common blogger is drawn to the next crisis like a sheep offering little in the way of analysis, and instead just shouting from the bully pulpit.

Sex And Politics: Why Sarah Palin Never Had A Chance

Politics is ideally a noble pursuit of ideological goals in order to advance the sociological health of a population.  However, more often then not, it is a fallible human pursuit driven and influenced by our primal instincts.  And, in a sense, Sarah Palin fell victim to the most basic of human urges.

Sex is one of the strongest and most empowering of all our primal instincts.  The proliferation of the internet traffic directed towards sex sites and the brick and mortar success of the pornography industry all speak to our attraction for things which play to our penchant for sex.  It pervades almost everything we do, and the presidential election is no different.

Following the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice Presidential candidate, the country was introduced to a relative political unknown.  Naturally, the public turned towards the internet to learn of this newcomer.  Yet, in a Time article tracking internet search data after the Palin nomination speaks less about our ideological curiosity about Palin, but more about our natural, human, and primal reaction to an attractive woman.

Some of the more popular internet searches that included Sarah Palin was for “hot photos.”  The article also lists some of the other popular search queries as:

“Sarah Palin Bikini Photos,” “Sarah Palin Naked,” “Sarah Palin Nude.”

What interested many voters was not her political ideology or her political record, but her femininity.  A Vice Presidential candidate instantly became an objectified, sexually provocative female to a disturbing amount of voters.  it speaks to the power that sex has over our interests.

This put Sarah Palin in an untenable position.  She was not viewed by many as meeting the prototype politician.  It’s rare enough that a women appears on our national political stage, and it’s doubly so that one that’s even relatively attractive makes an entrance onto the scene.  So, she emerged as a curiousity.  Our curiosity and our internet queries solidified her as a sex object.

She would have been hard pressed to escape the pigeon hole she was trapped in immediately following her nomination.  We have an analogous tendency to label sex objects in our mind as being “stupid.”  To a high degree, she reinforced that conception with her media gaffes, her manner of speaking, and her non-complicated life style.  I suspect, even if she had presented any monochrome of sophistication, she would still suffer, albeit to a lesser degree, from our sexual objectification towards her.

A male politician displaying the same lack of experience and unsophisticated articulation would not suffer nearly to the same degree that Palin has.  She has, for many, become a point of contention that makes it impossible to cast a vote for John McCain.  Dan Quayle made as many public gaffes but didn’t cast the kind of shadow over George H. Bush, as Palin is over McCain.  He was the butt of many jokes, but not in equal measure to the constant dismantling of Palin.

Given our elementary nature, our inability to resist our most mammalian tendencies, Palin was born to lose from the outset.  Certainly, she fell into the preconceptions of the “dumb blonde”.  But I don’t believe she was ever afforded a fair examination.  For all our political hubris, we are just apish when it comes to politics.  The ultimate legacy that Palin will leave us with is that, at a time when we weren’t quite ready to send a female into the White House, she, by playing to our stereotypes and combined with our sexual bias, has set back the progress of women in politics.