I was never too good at math. But I think Hillary's campaign is worse.

A brief recap. On today, March 9th, in the year of our lord 2008, 9 Democratic primaries remain in this election season. According to CNN, Barack Obama has 1,527 delegates, and Hillary Clinton has 1,428. This has Obama in the lead by 99 delegates. Close race, no? Anyone's race, right?

Well. Not really. The numbers are deceiving for two reasons. First, these include superdelegates. They can change their minds at any point up until the convention. So let's get rid of them, and take another look. Obama 1,328, Clinton 1,190. Obama ahead by 138. So what, you say? That's not that big of a lead. She can still make it! FIGHT TO THE CONVENTION! DFKGDJSK! RAHHCVHDFK!

Well, again, not really. Democratic delegates are distributed on a proportional level. So even if you don't win a state's primary, you still receive some delegates, roughly equal to the percentage of the vote you earned. Basically, no one really loses big, unless it's a blow out. For example. Hillary Clinton won Ohio 54%-44%. A ten percent lead. But in terms of delegates, she got 71, and he got 59. A net gain of 12 delegates for her. Not the crushing win it would seem.

All Democratic contests split this way. What does this mean, you ask? Since Mr. Obama would 11 straight contests, with a minimum lead of 17% (and a maximum lead of 82% [!!! Thank you U.S Virgin Islands!]), he netted a lot of delegates. 5 or 6 here, 8 there, etc. This added up. Now he has that 138 delegate lead.

How does Hillary catch up? By winning. A lot. Big. Take a look at this link. That's slate.com's delegate counter. The top bar allows you to set percentages for the primary season as a whole, and the individual ones for each individual contest. Let's do some analysis of it.

Get that top bar. Keep dragging it over towards Clinton. The others will move with it. Keep dragging until it says on the bottom "Clinton has the pledged delegate lead, but will need at least "X" superdelegates to reach 2,025." See the percentages there? Shocking, isn't it?

For those too lazy/stubborn to do this, the number is 62%. Senator Clinton would need to win every remaining contest with on average 62% of the vote in order to regain the pledged delegate lead. Sixty-two percent.

But that's not gonna happen. In fact, we're sure of it. Obama has already won Wyoming, which happened yesterday. He won 61%-39%, making a 7-5 delegate split. Oops. There goes her delegate lead already. Now let's go to the rest of the contests.

Mississippi is this Tuesday. Obama is favored by varying amounts. Let's be conservative and give it to him with 51%-49%. It's likely he'll win significantly more than that, but let's just make it a Clinton dream scenario.

Furthermore, Obama is favored in Montana and South Dakota as well as North Carolina. Let's give them to him again with 51% of the vote, even though this is even more unrealistic. Obama has done exceedingly well in many a)mid and mountain west states and b) caucus states. Boom. He's ahead big. Try re-adjusting and then adding our modifications again.

If you don't want to, I'll tell you. Her percentage has moved up to 67%. She then needs to win 67% of all remaining primaries to beat Obama's pledged delegate leads. Certainly, this is an absurd assumption. Many states show them running neck-and-neck, and even states with one of them leading certainly don't show Sen. Clinton with 67% of the vote. Too bad she's only broken 65% in one state, Arkansas. And she couldn't even do it in her home state of NY.

You think that's bad? It gets worse. Even if, IF, somehow she pulls off this nearly impossible feat, she's not done. She somehow has to convince around 420 superdelegates to support her. 52% of all superdelegates. And that's not the way things are going lately. According to DemConWatch's Superdelegate Tracker, the trend is clearly towards Obama.

Not looking too rosy, eh? Even if she manages to do ALL THAT, she still has a vastly divided Democratic party to deal with. Combine that with her continued underperformance in general election matchups, and well....prepare for 100 more years of Iraq.

Of course, she could always try to win by using Superdelegates to overturn pledged delegates and the will of the people. But that wouldn't be too Democratic, would it? Well, neither is endorsing John McCain.

So Senator Clinton, from me to you, drop out. You're just wasting your time, your supporter's money, and our chances of getting a Democratic president. You had your chance, and people chose hope and change over fear and lies. Now fade away gracefully so we can rid the party of the Clinton menace forever.

The end.

P.S if you read all this, thank you.

Check this out.

Check out these babies.






Encouraging, ain't it? But when you look at the actual polls, they give an even further story.

In the Obama matchup:



Look at that. Some things I noticed:

-SUSA gave McCain NJ on the Obama map, even though they tie there. Seems odd considering NJ has been consistently blue for 20 years now.
-TEXAS is competitive, according to the polls. Yeah, I have no idea how that happened. McCain takes it by 1%, making it firmly up in the air.
-McCain also wins Florida and Nebraska by 2 and 3 percent, respectively, making them also effectively swing states.
-Virginia is a tie they gave to Obama. I'm not so sure about that, but VA turning blue is my big hope for this year.

Conclusion: This map, if it holds to November, could contain a much larger Obama victory than it appears to. Obama could get as many as 367 (!) electoral votes, or as few as 246, with 8 states within a 3% range. McCain is favored in 3, Obama in 5. McCain would have to win at least 2 out of his 3 to beat Obama, while Obama simply needs to hold the ones he has on the map.


Now to Clinton:



-Michigan they gave to McCain, even though the vote is tied. I don't know, I have a hard time imagining Hillary losing MI.
-New Mexico, which is firmly in Obama's column, is tied for Hillary, but they gave it to her anyway.
-Washington state is given to McCain on the map, but is within 2 points in the polls. Firmly undecided.
-For all of Hillary's supposed strength in PA, she only wins by 1%. Tossup for sure.
-Tennessee! Wow. Hillary is tied with Big Mac there. That'd be a nice flip if we can swing it.

Conclusion: Hillary's map makes a few more assumptions for both her and McCain. I'd say that matchup is still a tossup, with Hillary favored, in my book at least. She could get as many as 315 or as few as 255, with 4 states within a 3% margin. A much more static matchup.


Overall? First, I think SUSA is being a little irresponsible handing out EVs for states well within the margin of error. A third category would be nice. But secondly, it shows that this election, regardless of who we nominate, is Democrat favored. I think you were as shocked as I was when you saw Texas, Tennessee and Virginia could all be competitive. This is our election to lose. Let's not fuck it up again, eh?

I'm changing my middle name to Hussein.

I’m changing my middle name to Hussein.

Yes, you heard me. Nicholas Hussein Pisano. Kinda catchy, no? Really rolls off the tongue, so to speak. Why, you ask? Because it’s silly to be afraid of a name. But we all knew this was going to happen. People would look at Barack Hussein Obama and say “OMG TERRORIST!!!!11 IM SERIES!!” But that’s just stupid. Completely expected, especially in a country that voted for George Bush for president not once, but twice (well, probably only once, actually. Those stuck up punks in black robes made him president the first time), but not surprising.

What do you do about it, you ask? He can’t change it. That would be interpreted as a rejection of his roots and a dignification of the whispering campaign against him. No, that won’t do. Stop using it, and lash out at people who do? Once again, no good. But then it came to me.

We have to get as many people as we can to change their middle names to Hussein.

How about it, Gruberama Readers? You’re a savvy bunch, on the cutting edge. You don’t want to be left behind when this bandwagon leaves the station, I’ll tell you that much.

But seriously. It’s just a name, and like everything, loses it’s power over time. I’m sure people almost had heart attacks when the first toilet was shown on television (on ‘Leave it to Beaver’ episode entitled “Captain Jack”, first aired Oct. 11, 1957). But they got used to it. Probably a bad analogy. But regardless. If people keep saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama’, by the time it actually counts in November, it won’t matter anymore. By that point, anyone still unwilling to vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama wouldn’t have voted for any Democrat anyway. And what do we call those people, class? Ignorant, backwards hicks who hate gay people and freedom!

No, but seriously. Republicans. Take some time off. Rethink things a bit. Or perhaps think things, as there may be no thoughts in your head to re-think. The Republican party is going the way of the Whigs. I’d jump off that sinking ship before it’s too late and call yourself an “independent” or “libertarian”.

Speaking of Libertarians. If you’re a libertarian, I want you to do something for me. Go outside, walk to the nearest main road and throw yourself in front of a bus, you idiot. Libertarianism an inherently selfish and irresponsible set of principles. While socially it may be appealing to some (or most) of we liberals, economically, it could not be farther from desirable. They basically eschew any responsibilities people might have to others in favor of "letting the free market handle it". In other words, let’s let Exxon regulate themselves. Walmart and them and all the other big corporations will eat in to their bottom line voluntarily to provide a living wage, benefits, and an 8 hour work day. Laughing yet? Me neither, it’s a terrifying idea. Social security? Who needs it? Welfare? Get a job, you lazy bastard. And while we’re at it let’s close vital cabinet level departments. These are the opinions espoused by the Libertarian party and their number one stooge, Dr. Ron Paul. Oh yes, and Dr. Paul wants to return to an economy-crushing Gold standard backed dollar. Good one, Dr. Paul. I’ll be over tomorrow with the tools so you can start mining for it.

Crazy, isn’t it? Now you understand, if you’ve ever said to me you liked something about Ron Paul, why I gave you that look. You know, the “you’ve got to be fucking with me” look. But you never are. And I have to explain what I said above, and am greeted by a blank deer-in-headlights response and mumblings in the affirmative.

Ugh. Libertarians.

Over and out,

Nicholas Hussein Pisano.

My Big Fat Democratic Clusterfuck

Well, folks. There it was. We have seen Hillary Clinton's swan song,
and the bird has come down in flames. Turns out it just couldn't sustain a direct hit from an Obama artillery shell. Quick recap of the basic rules of political debating.

Rule number one: FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK, DO NOT FUCKING REFERENCE SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE AS AN EVIDENCE OF MEDIA BIAS. HOLY GOD. Does anyone watch Saturday Night Live anymore? I didn't think so. But seriously. You come off looking like a whiny little baby.

Rule number two: Don't argue semantics with a candidate who gives better speeches than you. Period. What I'm now referring to is a question given to Barack Obama regarding a recent endorsement he received by Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, a radical Islamic group. Farrakhan has made anti-Semitic statements in the past, and naturally his praise and endorsement of Obama raised some eyebrows. I mean, what kind of campaign wouldn't reject an endorsement from a radical, anti-Semitic, homophobic black nationalist? So Hillary Clinton was right to jump on him, right? Well, not really. Turns out he did in fact reject Farrakhan's endorsement
almost immediately, and in his press release he made it clear he did not seek the endorsement and would not accept it, along with denouncing his views. But apparently to Sen. Clinton there's a significant difference between "denouncing" and "rejecting" Mr.
Farrakhan's support. This coming from the wife of a man who asked what the definition of "is" is. Come on. To the crowd's amusement, Obama “conceded" the point, say he would denounce and reject Farrakhan's support, if it really mattered or was a difference. One might say Obama was being a little anti-semantic there (rimshot). I'm here all
week, folks.

Rule number three: It is NOT presidential to stumble repeatedly while trying to say a foreign leader’s name, and dismiss it with a “whatever”. When asked about the upcoming Russian elections, Mrs. Clinton just could not seem to get out the name of Russia’s probable next president Dmitry Medvedev. Uck. That alone is a little iffy. But I’m in a good mood. She can have that one. But what followed just plain pissed me off. It went a little something like this.

CLINTON: Mr. Med-Medeved-Medeveded-whatever....

Whatever!? WHATEVER?! Come on. We’ve just had 7 years of a president who was bright enough to ask “Is our children learning?”. To use another Bushism, we seem to have misunderestimated Sen. Clinton’s flippancy towards the next leader of a country quietly yet certainly slipping back in to totalitarian rule. Ready on day one, eh? I suppose it’s technically not Day One yet.

I could go on. But I won’t. This is getting embarrassing.

We're gonna win!

I mean...what? This will be a tough fight ahead, don't count your chickens, et cetera, et cetera... Hey, lets look at some cool maps!

But first: A disclaimer. These are based on a combination of conventional wisdom (a dem IS gonna win CA, no matter who it is), current state matchups, and a little bit of my opinion here and there. I've tried to be as non-biased as possible. These are just a current snapshot of what the general election might look like if it happened to day, and I don't claim for them to be anything more than that. That said, I've never been wrong. Never. Take that one to the bank.

I've only matched up the two Democrats with John McCain, since Mike Huckabee has not a chance in hell of winning. He doesn't believe in evolution!! COME ON. Who the hell voted for this guy? Even Ron Paul has his racist internet lackies. Fucking libertarians. But I digress.

First, a little electoral college background. You need 270 to win. Anything more is just gravy. Every 10 years, electoral votes are re-proportioned based on that year's Census data. Sadly, the 2000 census was not kind to us Democrats. Republican strongholds like Texas and Georgia got 2 more votes, while Connecticut , Illinois, and Wisconsin, traditionally democratic states, lost one vote, and the extremely safe blue state of NY lost 2 votes. Basically, it became harder for Democrats to win.

This first map is my projection of Barack Obama vs. John McCain

Red state for McCain, blue state for Obama, tan states are my Undecided states.

Based on recent polls, Obama wins. Even without winning any of the tossup states, he has his 270 electoral votes. Bam, winner. He picks up the swing states of Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico. New Mexico is the most iffy, since John McCain is from a neighboring state, and they poll about even there. However, I gave it to Obama based on the extremely popular Democratic governor Bill Richardson (who is hinting he may endorse Obama in the days to come, even as a prominent former member of the Clinton administration).

Colorado I also gave to Obama. While it went republican in 2000 and 2004, Democrats have been pouring resources in to the mountain west, and are even holding their National Convention there. I went out on a limb and gave it to him.

Virginia is (or should be) the biggest surprise on the list. If there's a republican state in the nation, this is it. Or it was 10 years ago. In the past 8 years, they have elected two popular Democratic governors (Tim Kaine [one of my predictions for Obama's running mate] and Mark Warner [running for the Virginia senate seat held by John Warner, no relation]). They have defeated one popular Republican senator, George Allen (famous for his 'Maccaca' moment, where he called an opponent's dark skinned campaign worker the North African equivalent of nigger), in favor of a anti-war Democrat, Jim Webb. They are on track to elect another Democrat this year by a wide margin (the previously mentioned Mark Warner). They took control of the state legislature in 2007. 2008 is the year we turn Virginia blue. Primary turnout supports this, where Democrats turned out almost double of Republicans.

Florida is McCain's. He has the backing of an extremely popular Florida governor in Charlie Crist, and the electorate is tailor made for him (read as: lots of elderly, idiots, and racists...Fuck you Florida, you piece of shit. Let's sell you the fuck back to Spain).

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Missouri are all too close to call in my book. We'll see as time passes if anyone gains a distinct advantage.

Now let's take a look at Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain.

A far less rosy picture. Or perhaps it is more rosy, there's a lot more red up there. I don't really know. I hate adjectives. The next paragraph will use as few as humanly possible. Starting....now.

As you can see, it is considerably more difficult to imagine a Clinton win scenario. McCain has 260 electoral votes locked up, as far as I'm concerned, and he polls ahead of her in many state polls. She's closer in Florida, but is still behind, and McCain will most likely still win it. She loses Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Virginia, as well as Nevada, all states Obama wins. Democrats need BOTH undecided states to win in this scenario, according to current polls, whereas they don't need any in the Obama scenario, providing he carries all the states I gave him.

There you have it. We're gonna win. Or maybe not.

Note: The majority of polls I used are Rassumussen state polls, and can be found at the Rasmussen Reports website. Also, I used RealClearPolitics. There's a healthy smattering of SurveryUSA polls thrown in there too.

And so it begins.

This is gonna be a long'un.

As I sit here, one week and one day before the March 4th primaries, it is an exciting time. 4 primaries. 2 supposed "firewalls". 2 almost certain others. Four contests that will most likely decide not only the Democratic presidential nominee, but the next President of the United States of America. Let's talk about them.

Ohio: This is where it will all come down to. If Hillary Clinton cannot win this, she's done for, no matter what anyone says. This IS her base. Census data largely supports this. Let's take a look. Ohio has 13.3% of people over 65, slightly above the national average of 12.4%. This should give HIllary a marginal benefit, as she's won this group in the majority of contests. There is 12% African-American, less than the national average of 12.8%. Again, a slight advantage for Hillary as Obama has taken African-American votes on average about 70-30, conservatively. As well, since it is a widely "blue collar" state, another of Hillary's purported base groups. These combined should give Hillary a built-in advantage even before she comes to campaign.

And indeed it did. As recently as 2/6, she led by 21% in a Quinnipiac poll. This poll, taken in the immediate aftermath of the much hyped "Super Duper Tuesday" draw, shows a clear and apparently insurmountable advantage, with the primary less than one month away. Now let's look at a chart.

The purple line is Clinton and the orange line is Obama. That is an intimidating rise. Polls released as recently as today show him cutting the lead to 4 points, while others show him down by 11. Regardless, he has yet to lead, and this is most likely his most challenging hurdle going in to the Second Super Tuesday.

In terms of endorsements, Hillary has the backing of a popular governor, Ted Strickland (who has recently expressed doubts he could deliver the state for her. Expectations lowering, or more?). Obama has picked up endorsements from several mayors and representatives. Net gain to Hillary.

As is (or should be) obvious by now, Obama has the Mo. Big momentum. 11 in a row, most recently the new "Democrats Abroad" primary for ex-pat Democrats. You cannot underestimate it's importance.

One more thing to look out for. Check the balance of Republican primary votes vs. Democratic primary votes. Ohio was a vital swing state in 2004, captured by Bush 51-49 amid rumors of voting irregularities and voter purges. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have defeated George Bush 271-266. The numbers of Dem vs. Rep primary votes, if lopsided one way or the other, could point to either side's shot at taking the crucial state in November.

My final prediction: Hillary 53% Obama 47%.

More later.