They generally analyze polls and their historical accuracy to make predictions and assign probabilities to election outcomes.  This site became famous in 2008 by predicting Obama’s win months before the election.  Even four weeks out, when things were tenuous, they called it with 80-90% probability, i.e. 90% chance that Obama will prevail.

You’ll enjoy reading their statistical analysis if you are super-wonky like us, and we will provide election commentary here.

Great interactive chart by New York Times on the vote.  Click the tabs to change views of the chart.

That the President chose to host the “beer summit,” as it is being called, further proves his character and focus on bringing together people, even those who may feel maligned by another party.  In a million years, one would never imagine a President of the US weighing in on this situation in such a way.  For so many years, former President George W. Bush retained a non-diplomatic attitude toward many parties.  “You’re either with us or against us” was the attitude he maintained.  This alienated many of our most sympathetic supporters and allies around the world.

With these skills, one can see how Barack Obama was a successful community organizer in Chicago.  The meeting of an understandably furious Professor arrested in his own home on charges later dropped, and the unapologetic police officer, would have been suggested by hardly anyone.  The President has shown us all, worldwide, the importance and character of “being the bigger person.”  The prospect of this attitude and conduct is exciting when one thinks of how it could be applied in the 2 wars in which the US is quagmired, and how it could be applied to other conflicts and differences around the world.  No wonder he’s a great leader.  Barack Obama might become one of the best Presidents yet when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy.

Professor Gates has taken the President’s lesson to heart.  Today he sent flowers to the woman who made the initial emergency call.  No resentment, and an expression of gratitude for her engagement in the situation.

Frank Rich‘s outstanding editorial in Saturday’s New York Times eloquently points out the hypocrisy of many of the Republican Senators’ comments when compared with their actions.

US Senator Lindsey Graham is a hard-working accomplished American.  He served as a judge advocate in the Air Force for six years and is the only U.S. Senator serving in the Reserves.  However, his bitter-single-old-white-man comments during the Sotomayor hearings fell flat among Americans:

“…this wise Latino [sic] comment has been talked about a lot.  But I can just tell you one thing: If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over. That’s true of most people here.”

Senator Graham: yes of course, and justifiably so.  Your ethnic, racial, nor gender group do not have a history of underrepresentation in the US courts, government, business, highest-income levels, or just about anything else.

For the sake of argument, let’s accept Senator Graham’s challenge and re-phrase Judge Sotomayor’s statement as if he had said it:

“I would hope that a wise Anglo-Saxon man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”

Clearly, this does not make sense as there would be no need to “hope.”  The US Supreme Court has been dominated by Anglo-Saxon men since its inception.  Most of them have done a good job, but there would be nothing to “hope” for as we have already seen their results.  Moreover, the lives of Anglo-Saxon men are widely communicated in our society.  They get the most media coverage and most of the famous people in the US are Anglo-Saxon men.  Unlike Latinas, there is no shortage of publicity, media coverage, or attention given to their accomplishments, lifestyles, needs or concerns.  Judge Sotomayor’s statement was not discriminatory in any manner, she merely pointed out that she has a perspective never yet represented on the Court.

In her same speech, Judge Sotomayor points out, “Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.”  In other words, it is hard to provide justice without a Supreme Court that has had similar experiences to the people it serves.

Sen. Graham goes on to point out the few, limited, critical remarks of Sotomayor given anonymously by lawyers that have appeared in her court, chiding her that “maybe these hearings are time for self-reflection.”  Not realizing how accurately this comment applies to himself.

Frank Rich also talks about Tom Coburn, US Senator from Oklahoma, who has been providing counsel to Senator John Ensign of Nevada.  Yes, you know why John Ensign sounds familiar. According to Fox News, “Ensign’s mistress’ husband…said that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and others originally had urged Ensign to pay [her family] ‘millions.’”  Now the case may go to the FBI.

But back to the hearings….  Tom Coburn, advisor to the adulterer, lectured Sotomayor.  Funny how he doesn’t address Sen. Ensign this way.  According to Rich, he finds Sotomayor’s views “extremely troubling.” “There’s nothing in Sotomayor’s history remotely as troubling as Coburn’s role in the Ensign scandal,” says NYT’s Rich.   And the GOP wonders why it is losing female and Latino voters.  I’ll bet the RNC winced at that exchange.

Interestingly, Ensign and Coburn are both part of the lynch mob that resulted in millions of dollars of taxpayer money to be spent on President Clinton’s impeachment.  An impeachment that was brought about by actions similiar to those of Sen. Ensign.

August 18, 2009 is this year’s primary and several positions for elected office in Seattle and King County are open or hotly contested.  Endorsement meetings host all candidates to speak, as well as a second, and stretch the monthly LD meeting beyond their usual 1.5-2 hours.  At the time of this writing, the 34th LD Democrats have moved into double overtime and are still going at 11pm.  The executive board of each LD meets ahead of time and makes endorsements.  However, the full membership still gets to hear the speakers and vote.  To receive an endorsement, a candidate must receive 2/3 of the votes.  Quite difficult in the primaries, with fields of up to 5 or 6 candidates.  As a result, all the votes go to a second round, with a run-off of the top two.