Obama will win the election on Tuesday

Keep in mind this is not an endorsement because I do not endorse candidates.  That said, I believe President Obama will win re-election on Tuesday.  I have digested more polls than I care to recall and read oodles of political information from organizations all over the ideological spectrum.  Based on that, signs point to the president winning. Many national polls have it very close, but we do not elect the president through a general election.  We elect the president through the Electoral College. The polls are close in Ohio (a key state) but most show Obama ahead by between one to five points. Even the polls on FOX show Obama with a lead there.  It would take a miracle for Romney to win if he loses Ohio.  I suppose a miracle could happen, but I don't see it.

Will Obama win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote?

Mercifully, the presidential race comes to a close on Tuesday. All the pontificating will end, and most of us will go back to living normal lives without candidates trying to convince us how great they are. However, this experience has included more than candidates.

For example:  Polls. I am sick of polls. Each day, several organizations release polls telling us how the race is going in various states and across the nation as a whole. It is all a bunch of noise to me because news organizations rarely release information about the methodology used to create these polls. Still, the possibilities indicated by them are intriguing.

Perhaps the most fascinating possibility is the chance one candidate will win the popular vote and the other the Electoral College. To be elected president, a candidate must win 270 votes in the Electoral College. In a sense, it does not matter who wins the popular vote because 270 is the magic number.

Because of Mitt Romney's popularity throughout a big chunk of the country, some pundits are floating the real possibility that he could win the popular vote, but President Obama still win the Electoral College.

Our country is incredibly polarized when it comes to politics, and if this happens, the roof might blow off. However, we must not forget that this very scenario happened only 12 years ago.

Tennessee's Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the electoral vote and became president. Democrats cried foul, and the climax of the election was unique to be sure because of the problems in Florida.

Those poor folks in Florida demonstrated how easy it is to mess up an election. Because of their errors, many claimed the presidency was stolen from Gore. However, this was not the case. The bitter irony for Gore is that he would have won if he had simply won his home state.

In the aftermath of all that, there were cries from a lot of people to do away with the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote. Of course, most of the people who said that were Democrats upset about the election while Republicans steadfastly defended the current system.

However, if Romney won the popular vote but lost the election, there would be a complete role reversal. Democrats would get the White House while Republicans would be on the outside looking in. Do we really believe Republicans would go gently into that good night?

Not hardly. I am sure many of them would cry just as loudly as Democrats did in 2000. Some of the Democrats would be in the awkward position of supporting a process some denounced only a decade ago.

In addition to this, there is one other possibility that is even spicier. Apparently, there is at least one scenario in which Obama and Romney could tie with 269 electoral votes each. In this case, the House of Representatives would select the president and the Senate would choose the vice president.

Because of the parties that control those bodies, Romney would likely be selected president and Joe Biden vice president.

This may not reflect well on me, but I would love to see this scenario play out. After the shrillness of the campaign, it would be a fitting way to bring it all to a close. Both sides have beaten the other to a bloody pulp the last few months. This has occurred to the great annoyance of many citizens.

What better way for election night to end with neither candidate being able to say they won? I think it would be tremendously symbolic, but then again, not all people like to live through history being made.

Obama and Romney both provided memorable campaign lowlights

Election Day is now only a little more than one week away, and for some, it cannot come soon enough. Of course, it has already come and gone for people taking advantage of the early voting period.

For those people, they can kick back and turn down the noise associated with the election process. They have a unique opportunity to enjoy some peace and quiet until the votes are counted.

There are many races on the ballot, but the big one is for the presidency. Regardless of who a person votes for, I think it is important to remember that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney appear to be decent and intelligent men who are trying to offer their services to the country. They both have many positive qualities.

Despite this, both men have made substantial missteps during the campaign, resulting in situations that have left us shaking our heads.

For the president, his primary misstep has been the whole tone of his campaign. It has been vastly different compared to 2008. Back then, he swept up the nation with optimism in a campaign that promised "hope" and "change." Our nation was in a big mess then (as is the case now), but his campaign in 2008 had an idealism that is rare in national politics.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case with his current campaign. This year's effort has been marred by negativity, negativity, and more negativity. When talking about negativity, I am not referring to his criticizing of Romney's political record. That is fair game. I am referring to the unseemly personal attacks that are nothing more than cheap shots.

However, this approach has been effective to a certain degree. For several months, the president had effectively turned Romney into just another rich guy who would not talk about his taxes and did not care about the middle class.

At the first presidential debate, this changed as much of America got a good look at Romney for perhaps the first time. After that, Romney surged in the polls. Many attribute the surge to Obama’s poor performance in that debate, but it was likely that voters saw Romney in a way that did not fit the image projected by the president's campaign.

The president, on the other hand, has come across as just another politician who will do what it takes to get elected. It is always a red flag when an incumbent does not run on his record, and Obama has done a lot of this.

Just like Obama, Romney has made big mistakes. His most unfortunate one was his infamous "47 percent" comment. He was caught at a private function stating that 47 percent of the public were going to vote for President Obama anyway because they were dependent on the government and viewed themselves as victims.

He implied the people in this group were a bunch of slackers who did not want to take personal responsibility for their lives, and it was up to the government to take care of them.

His statements were a textbook example of how over-generalizing complex issues can result in ridiculous statements. Defenders of Romney claimed it was unfair that the statements were recorded undercover at a private event. However, it is important that these comments came to light.

Comments like these are examples of what politicians say behind closed doors when the prying eye of the media is not there. Candidates often change their tune depending on who their audience is, and these comments were mean and condescending.

To his credit, Romney has admitted he was wrong, but children often say the same thing when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

The perfect ending for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

To be elected president, a candidate must win 270 electoral votes. Based on what is being reported, there is at least one scenario where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney could end up tied with 269 electoral votes each. 

This may not reflect well on me, but I wish this would happen. As shrill as this entire campaign has been, it would be a fitting climax. 

If that happened, the House of Representatives would choose the president and the Senate would choose the vice president. Because of the parties that control those bodies, it means Romney would likely be chosen president and Joe Biden vice president. The result would be a MADHOUSE!!!!! A MADHOUSE!!!!!

Who could ask for anything more?

Withering civility in a testy political season

We are only a few weeks away from the presidential election, and civility continues to erode when it comes to discussing the important issues of the day.

This is not happening just among the candidates running for office, but among people like you and me. On the bright side, it is good that people are feeling so passionately about the issues, but the end result of this passion is that we appear to be becoming more polarized than ever.

Let us look at the candidates in the presidential race. We are definitely seeing an overload of negative campaigning and attempts to make the other look like a royal idiot. Some negativity is acceptable, but the key is balance.

When it comes to negativity, it is perfectly okay for candidates to criticize the records of their opponents. For example, it is fine for President Barack Obama to be critical of Mitt Romney’s stances on issues and other parts of his political background. Equally, Romney has the right to go after Obama’s track record as president and be critical when appropriate.

However, where they both go wrong is when the attacks get personal and try to reduce the other to nothing more than a cartoon figure. For months, the Obama campaign has painted Romney as a rich guy who does not pay his taxes and does not care about the middle class.

On the other hand, the Romney campaign has played the same game by trying to reduce Obama to nothing more than an empty suit who is aloof and really has nothing of substance to say.

This lack of civility was also on display during the vice presidential debate. Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly laughed and sneered as his opponent Paul Ryan tried to make his points. Seriously, did Biden really think it would be effective to laugh while a serious discussion about Iran’s nuclear capabilities was taking place? It was another low moment in a campaign of lows.

Of course, this lack of civility has a trickle down effect. We see it take place through the mainstream media every day. Conflict is the mother’s milk of the 24-hour news channels where opponents verbally duke it out in a vain attempt to make points.

I really do not understand how this became such a popular technique for the networks to use. The conflict often overtakes the points trying to be made. Because of this, viewers are turned off and the words spoken by those people often come across like the braying of donkeys.

The trickle down effect also flows down to the general public. I recently read a story on the Cable News Network’s web site that stated one-fifth of the people who use social media have ended on-line friendships simply because of political disagreements.

A person could make the point that a friendship must not have been very meaningful if it was ended because of a political difference, but I have seen relationships severed for a lot less than that.

The bottom line is our nation has become more and more polarized in recent years when it comes to political issues. We choose sides and become enemies if people have the audacity to see issues differently than we do.

It is a crying shame that it has come to this. It used to be that the deepest relationships we had with people were ones where we could sharply disagree but still have dinner afterward.

However, it is not too late. We can all step back from the ledge we are looking over if we become a little less focused on ourselves and more on other people. This is an old recipe for happiness, but it still works.

Our current menace

During the summer, I enjoy driving around and enjoying the beautiful countryside. We have several places around here that are particularly scenic. Because of this, people who enjoy nature should consider themselves blessed to be living in this area.

It is more difficult to do this in cities. After all, there is not a lot that can be done to dress up a large metropolitan blob. However, in smaller communities, it is possible to have development while maintaining natural beauty.

Still, achieving this balance can be particularly challenging right now. This is because a local election is right around the corner, and the signs candidates put up to ask for our vote should be considered a form of urban blight.

I understand why they do this. Any means necessary must be used to get their names in front of prospective voters, and this is a way commonly used in this part of the country. Since the signs are often clustered together in high traffic areas, it is difficult for any of them to stick out and gain our attention. There was one that achieved some notoriety in Manchester recently, but that attention had more to do with what it said about a candidate instead of seeking a vote.

Still, candidates use this method. Until the prevailing conventional wisdom about their effectiveness changes, I am sure they will continue to use them as a way to reach us.

However, there are other ways they could communicate with us, but for some reason, many choose not to do so. Social media and other Internet venues are ripe with possibilities when it comes to getting local candidates in front of voters, but it seems many are unable or unwilling to embrace this approach. Candidates on the national and state level do this, but locally, not so much.

This is too bad because the opportunity is there. There are a few local officials that have web sites or Facebook profiles, and the ones I have seen allow those people to get their positions across to citizens in a way that is unfiltered by the local media.

There are pros and cons to this. Our local media is a watchdog that should be challenging all representatives on their positions and actions. If information is unfiltered, voters have to be careful that they are not falling for a bunch of propaganda.  After all, during an election year, some candidates will tell us what we want to hear so they can get our vote.

Despite this danger, the potential is there for effective dialogue between candidates and the public. More and more, voters feel alienated from the process. They feel their voices are not being heard which adds to the cynicism many feel.

Candidates who are willing to reach out to voters through these methods have a real opportunity to separate themselves from the pack. Frankly, candidates who do not use on-line resources are being lazy and are not showing they can adapt to the changing times. Is this a quality we want to see from a candidate? I will let voters answer that question themselves, but the answer is obvious.

By suggesting these alternative forms of communication, I am not suggesting that traditional methods of campaigning be abandoned. Despite their ugliness, the roadside signs do have their place.

But we live in a new age and candidates must show an ability to think outside the box. If they cannot embrace new ways to campaign for our vote, what does this say about their ability to try fresh approaches when dealing with our local problems?

Again, the answer is obvious. Hopefully, more will soon use these outlets.

Republican race far from settled

After months of build up, the Iowa caucuses finally took place last Tuesday as Republicans began the process of choosing who their nominee will be for the 2012 presidential race.

Whew! The hype leading up to Tuesday’s caucuses was as bad as the hype will be when the Super Bowl takes place in a few weeks. Since last summer, GOP candidates have risen and fallen in the polls like the temperature.

First it was Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, then Newt Gingrich, then Ron Paul. The only constant has been former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who has been toward the top of the polls since the beginning.

It is almost as if the media and the Republican Party have been trying to manufacture a compelling race between two candidates. Romney is obviously one of them but the other changes by the week.

Now that the Iowa caucuses have happened, there has been a lot of talk in the mainstream media about certain candidates having momentum and others being in trouble. This may be so.

However, there is one fact everybody must keep in mind at this point. Only one GOP candidate since 1972 has won the Iowa caucuses and gone on to win the presidency. Just one.

So, what does this mean? It means a lot of twists and turns remain in the Republican campaign. As that factoid proves, an early win in Iowa does not guarantee a win in November or even the party nomination.

I often wonder why so much emphasis is put on the Iowa elections. It is just one state of 50 that will be going through this process this year. Demographically, it is pretty generic and does not represent the cultural diversity of the United States.

Maybe its importance has more to do with our nation's short political attention span.

We live in an instant gratification society, so there is often a rush to declare a competition complete before it is complete. It is like this in all aspects of American life. It seems experts like to be the first to declare somebody or something the winner.

Especially in politics, the public seems to fall in line with this. In recent years, the public has viewed the election process as a necessary evil, and most want it over as soon as possible.

Still, it is a big mistake to take this approach. The electing of a president should be a marathon and not a sprint. However, we appear to be going the other direction when it comes to this.

The primary season has been watered down to a couple of months. This was not always the case. A generation ago the primary campaign continued into June where it climaxed with the California primary.

Despite how difficult it can be to remain focused on the presidential campaign, it is important to follow it. I can understand why people get discouraged though.

There is a lot of negativity to it. It seems when one candidate surges he or she is attacked with ruthless precision. And everything is fair game when these attacks begin.

It may be a skeleton from a candidate's personal life that occurred decades ago. It may be a slip of the tongue a person makes when under the glare of increased media scrutiny. It may be one bad decision that has nothing to do with a person’s qualifications to be president.

The bottom line is running for president is not for the faint of heart. Following the process is also not for the faint of heart.

Electing a president is like watching sausage being made. We may like the result, but it is brutal to watch.

It's time to pay attention to the 2012 presidential campaign

It is July, and the temperatures are sky high as we trudge through another summer. However, our thoughts need to be turning to the winter when the 2012 presidential campaign kicks into high gear.

Whether we like it or not, the major caucuses and primaries for the campaign begin about seven months from now. That is less time than the length of an average pregnancy.

Because of this, we need to begin pondering the race. On the Democratic side, President Barack Obama will likely face little meaningful opposition as he moves toward getting his party’s nomination.

The president is truly gifted when it comes to fundraising, and some experts predict he will raise as much as $1 billion dollars to spend against his Republican challenger. This alone refutes the long-time stereotype that the GOP is the only party of big money. The pockets on the Democratic side plunge plenty deep as well.

The race for the Republican nomination continues to take shape. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been anointed the early frontrunner, but I do not see how anybody can be a frontrunner at this point.

True, Romney ran for the nomination in 2008 and probably has the edge when it comes to name recognition. However, the Republican candidates have not been in front of a large audience in a meaningful way yet.

Also, there are some people who are considering running who have not made up their mind yet. So, let us ease up on all this frontrunner talk.

Another person getting some early recognition from Republicans is Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. She is a darling of the Tea Party set so it will be critical for her to appeal to moderate Republicans as well.

If her campaign continues to progress, it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media treats her with the blatant sexism it has with other women candidates in recent years.

The most obvious and dreadful example of this was how the media treated Hillary Clinton when she ran against Obama in 2008. While they tossed softball question after softball question to Obama, Clinton was peppered with serious policy questions like she was a hockey goalie.

I have no problem with our presidential candidates being placed under intense scrutiny, but Clinton got the heat applied to her way more intensely than Obama did.

Another example of sexism from that campaign was the treatment of Sarah Palin. Because of her looks and style, many tried to dismiss her as a lightweight. While she has many shortcomings when it comes to politics, the intensity of the early attempts to marginalize her was breathtaking.

For those reading this who believe it is too early to start focusing on 2012, my advice is to wake up. Our country faces monumental problems right now.

Unemployment remains above nine percent in many states. Energy costs are still unacceptably high. Prices have been slowly rising at the grocery store. When prices for fundamentals like food and gasoline are high, politicians need to be put on the hot seat.

The basic questions we need to ask ourselves are: On a personal level, are you better off than you were four years ago? On a national level, is our nation better off than it was four years ago?

The way those questions are answered should guide how a person votes. Then again, I am assuming most people reading this will actually vote. Voter apathy remains a demon, and the sad truth is most reading this will not vote.

Just what we need – four more years of whining from a constituency who can not be bothered to get involved.