dashboard periodically fetches the market price of Intrade’s state-by-state election markets, which represent the probability, as assessed by the Intrade traders, that a given candidate will win a given state. From those probabilities I compute the overall probability of various scenarios and color the map appropriate shades of blue and red. I also provide some dials and knobs (sliders) actually, to allow you to play some real-time “what if” games with the results.
Jerry Sanders, Republican Mayor of San Diego and former Chief of Police, made this statement a year ago September, explaining why he would not veto a council resolution supporting marriage equality, even though he’d run on an anti-gay-marriage platform.
Even up to the day before the press statement, when the resolution was passed, Sanders still fully intended to veto it.
He changed his mind and chokes up while explaining why to the cameras and reporters.
He mentions that his daughter is gay, as are members of his staff, and he found that he couldn’t veto the resolution and tell them “they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.”
“In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana”
Words well said, and worth listening to on the eve of the election.
My enduring thanks this election cycle to Nate Silver.
Due to his fabulous (and aptly named) fivethirtyeight.com Web site (your home to all you would ever need to know about the political polls for the 2008 Presidential election), I may now be able to remember how many electoral college votes there are
five thirty eight 538
and, with simple arithmetic, how many votes Obama/McCain need to win ((538/2)+1)=270.
If you haven’t visited before, hie thee immediately over to fivethirtyeight.com and check out Nate’s prognostications and his reasoning behind them.
Writing about the Esquire endorsement and the very lucid (and chilling) view ESQUIRE has of a McCain presidency, Andrew Sullivan writes in the Atlantic, Yes, something profound is at stake on Tuesday..
“Everybody my age, they’re dying off. … these young people … they are really a united people [the volunteers] and that’s what this country needs right now.”
In 2001, Chicago Public Radio interviewed then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama about civil rights. Over the weekend, someone posted excerpts of the interview, edited to misrepresent Obama’s statements. The item is now catching national attention.
The clips are taken from an interview that aired in January of 2001. Then State Senator Obama is one of three legal scholars interviewed for a show about civil rights. Over the weekend, someone pulled excerpts of the show and posted them to You Tube—and today, the posting caught fire on political blogs, the Drudge Report, and Fox News.
The 4 minute spliced collection of clips portrays Obama as advocate a redistribution of wealth through the power of the Supreme Court. That folds in with some allegations by the McCain Palin campaign.
The twist here is that, when heard in the context of the whole show, Obama’s position is distinctly misrepresented by the You Tube posting. Taken in context, Obama is evaluating the historical successes and failures of the Civil Rights movement—and, ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources.
And from there go to other 2048- titles on YouTube: There was a country! There was an environment! There was a unity! There was a freedom! There was a dream!
There is still a future!
This is an election like no other and YouTube is having an influence that no one would have imagined four years ago. Some stunning creative work online.
The background music and shooting technique put me in mind of V FOR VENDETTA. I don’t know why.