Saturday, May 27, 2017

Any word on the Losertarian total?

On November 5, 2008 there was a discussion on a message board about the results of the election and how the Libertarian Party and other third parties performed.  Someone started it with this:
Will they break 0.5%?

What about Alan Keyes?
I responded with:
Medved uses that word and also the Constipation Party for the other one. It actually bugs me that he has such contempt for third parties. I'm not really a third party kind of guy, but I did vote for a third party Senator in 2006. People must vote for their values and as the Republican party loses theirs I can partially understand why they choose others.
According to the FEC, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party received 0.4% of the vote and Alan Keyes of America’s Independent Party received 0.04%.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Predict the winning pollster

On November 3, 2008, the day before the election, a message board had a discussion about predicting the best pollster.  I wrote:
I was going to start a separate thread, but I'll just post this here.

There will likely be more polls later today and even tomorrow, but I just wanted to post a last overview so we can see how accurate the polling was.

The liberal http://www.electoral-vote.com/ is predicting 353-185. He was wrong in 2004.

The conservative http://www.electionprojection.com/ has the same numbers. He was correct in 2004.

Rove is predicting 338-200: http://www.rove.com/

RCP shows Obama ahead by 7.4%.

Here are the separate polls:

Marist 11/02 - 11/02 Obama +9
FOX News 11/01 - 11/02 Obama +7
NBC News/Wall St. Journal 11/01 - 11/02 Obama +8
Rasmussen Reports 10/31 - 11/02 Obama +6
Gallup 10/31 - 11/02 Obama +11
Diageo/Hotline 10/31 - 11/02 Obama +5
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 10/31 - 11/02 Obama +7
IBD/TIPP 10/30 - 11/02 Obama +5
CBS News 10/31 - 11/02 Obama +9
CNN/Opinion Research 10/30 - 11/01 Obama +7
GWU/Battleground 10/29 - 11/02 Obama +6
Pew Research 10/29 - 11/01 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 10/29 - 11/01 Obama +11

Here are some of the key state polls, also from RCP:

Colorado Obama 5.5
Florida Obama 1.8
Indiana McCain 1.4
Missouri McCain 0.5 (This is sort of the bellwether state and has only been wrong once since 1904: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether#United_States for a list of similar states)
New Hampshire Obama 10.6 (Kerry won in 2004, Bush in 2000)
Nevada Obama 6.2
North Carolina McCain 0.6
Ohio Obama 3.2
Pennsylvania Obama 7.6
Virginia Obama 4.3

The odds are really bad and the 2004 predictions were much closer. I am still hopeful that as in 2004 the state polls are exaggerating the Democrats lead and also I hope there will be people who get into the booth and realize they cannot possibly trust Obama. Dick Morris thinks a high proportion of those who claim to be undecided will go for McCain, because if you haven't jumped on the bandwagon then you're not going to.
Someone posted a link to a article called "How accurate is the 7-Eleven Presidential Coffee Cup Poll?":
As Election Day fast approaches, pundits, pollsters and politicians are weighing in with their statistics. Yet 7-Eleven, that little store on the corner catering to everyday Americans, may have the hottest poll in the land.
Someone else responded with:
That reminds me -- I don't remember seeing/hearing anything about the Halloween mask "poll."
I wrote:
I'd say it's far off this year:

http://www.7-election.com/

As far as Halloween, I heard that Palin was more popular than Obama. I just did a quick search on it and it appears Obama masks were more popular than McCain.
Someone responded with:
Yeah, President Obama is a scary thought, ain't it?

I shall vote, and stand athwart the tracks of history, shouting "STOP!"
Then I wrote:
I found an interesting post from a blogger who thinks McCain will win.
Someone posted a link to a poll:
About a third of Obama voters want change. Two percent are voting for Obama because he is qualified/experienced.
And said:
Two Percent?, Two Percent!?
I responded with:
And yet apparently that's a negative for Palin.
Someone wrote:
Just for the record, Final Rasmussen, 52 to 46, a 6 point win for Obama. 1% minor party and 1% remain undecided.

So I'll go with a 52/46 win for the O-man -- God save us all.
I responded with:
Good job! What do we owe ya? So why did you expect this outcome?
Then he said:
He was very accurate in 2004 and he had a very steady result for the last month.
Then he posted a link on the most accurate polls:

1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

In the final result Obama won the popular vote 52.9% to 45.7% and the electoral vote by 365-173.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

From male infertility to artificial insemination

When I got married I was still a virgin.  My wife’s pastor and gynecologist both told her to stay on birth control for a while after getting married.  I’m not a big fan of birth control but I supported her decision.  After three months of marriage she stopped taking the pills. 

During sexual intercourse I cannot feel an orgasm or an ejaculation.  Sometimes I have trouble getting an erection.  On my birthday my wife had an appointment with her gynecologist.  He gave her some pills to stop her irregular period and give her a normal cycle.  He also suggested that I go to see an urologist if I wasn’t producing any sperm.  I visited the urologist and he thought there wasn’t really a problem, only that I wasn’t getting enough friction during sex because my young wife was producing enough natural lubricant.  He said he normally checks the prostate but he didn’t think it was necessary in my case and he said my testicles looked normal.  However, he did give us some helpful advice.  He suggested that we try masturbation before penetration and it was a good suggestion because penetration is a lot easier with an erection and it helped me to get erections more often. 

My wife stayed on her fertility pills for about 4 months but decided to stop using them after that.  After she stopped, her period was a lot closer to a normal cycle although there was still some fluctuation and the time between when the hormone peaks and when the egg is released was a little shorter than the normal 14 days which apparently can lead to miscarriages.  She was on and off the fertility pills until conception and she didn’t always tell me the exact dates.

After trying to conceive for a year my wife said that her gynecologist suggested artificial insemination as an option.  However, I wanted to have my sperm tested before trying any artificial methods.  Around 16 months into the marriage I went to a reproductive lab to have my semen tested.  They gave me a sample cup and led me to a room with a sink.  Unfortunately I wasn’t able to produce a sample.  They gave me an extra sample cup and said I could try at home.  I still wasn’t able to produce a sample so after 12 days I got a refund.  The instruction mentioned something about using a condom for a sample.  

A week later I went to my primary care clinic and some labs were ordered to check my testosterone levels.  About two weeks later I gave a blood sample and the results came back after 4 days and showed low levels.  I was at 187 ng/dL where the normal range is 348 to 1197.  A nurse practitioner said that testosterone supplements can actually make it more difficult to conceive so he suggested I talk to a fertility specialist before trying anything. 

Around the same time we had an appointment with her gynecologist and he said that I had to do a semen analysis first before artificial insemination could be tried.  He told my wife to come back the following week for a blood test and I went back to the reproductive lab to pick up a sterile condom.  She got her results back which suggested low levels of progesterone and so the doctor put her back on the pills that help with the irregular period.  My wife helped me a few times to try and get a semen sample with either the cup or the condom.  Finally on her birthday we were able to get a sample with the condom. 

Now it was my first time using a condom and so she helped me to put it on but my erection wasn’t really hard so we weren’t able to get it on all the way and some of the semen sample spilled out on the bed.  When you do an at home sample the lab wants you to bring it in within an hour and we just made it on time.  The lab said my sample was not properly sealed and I’m not certain of what they are referring to but they were able to get enough fluid with a syringe to run an analysis. 

The results came back showing that no sperm was detected and that I may have a problem with the vas deferens.  One month later I went back to the urologist and he was surprised to see me again because he thought my issue had been resolved.  I told him about no sperm being detected and so he checked my testicles and my prostate and said they both seemed normal.  I then took another blood test to check my testosterone levels.  He told me to come back in after the results were ready with my wife and the semen analysis report to discuss our options. 

12 days later my wife and I went to a urology appointment.  My testosterone results were low at 285 with 348 and higher being normal.  He said that my sexual inexperience could be causing my erectile dysfunction and that it should resolve eventually.  He also gave us the name of a reproductive endocrinologist and I got an appointment.  19 days later I visited him and he gave me a prescription for Clomid to boost my natural levels of testosterone.  I also had four vials of blood taken for genetic testing.  My insurance company requires prior authorization for the medication, which is frustrating to me.  9 days later I was able to pick up my Clomiphene Citrate pills.  I called the pharmacy line for the insurance company and they said the prior authorization was approved and they had already sent the information to my local pharmacy.  Next, I called the pharmacy and they said my medication was ready so I picked it up.  I also placed an order for FertilAid online. 

I started taking a half pill per day of Clomiphene the next day.  I started taking 3 pills per day of FertilAid two days later.  After 9 days I talked to a genetic counselor about my results.  Fortunately I don't have any genes that cause Cystic Fibrosis, but I am a recessive carrier for three other diseases: Phenylalanine Hydroxylase Deficiency, Pseudocholinesterase deficiency, and Smith-Lemli-Opitz Syndrome.  The next day I had my blood taken again to check on my levels of SHBG and Albumin.  The doctor had actually requested 6 labs, but I had already done 4 of them.  9 days later I had my blood drawn again to check the testosterone.  I got my results back the next day and it showed I was at 737, which is the normal range, although I don't really feel any different. 

5 days later I had an appointment in the urology department of the University of Utah Hospital.  Two doctors came to my appointment.  Both of them examined my testicles and said there is definitely a vas deferens.  The first doctor also measured my testicles and said they are in the normal range.  Although, they weren't previously measured, he suggested that the medication could have caused them to get bigger.  He also said that a new semen analysis might be a good idea.  The second doctor said that he wanted me to have a procedure done that is known as Testicular sperm extraction (TESE).  He also said that there is a hormone/chemical/protein that can be checked to see if the body is producing sperm.  A high number means it is not, but he said my number is low which is good.  Based on what the doctors said, it seemed like three possibilities: 1) I am back to normal because of the medication 2) There is a problem with the plumbing so the sperm can't be ejaculated properly. 3) The body is not producing sperm.  The last one seems unlikely.

Two weeks later I had the TESE procedure and the doctor said he found sperm in my testicles.  Four weeks later I did an at home semen sample into a sterilized collection cup.  I received my results in the mail after 12 days.  I received a digital copy on the night before, but I wanted to wait until I got my paper results before logging in.  The good news is that my sperm count is high, but the bad news is that the quality is poor.  The sample had a decreased motility, borderline viability, and low morphology.  Artificial insemination might be the best method, but I'm going to ask my doctor about it.  I also paid $527 to store my sperm sample from the TESE surgery for the full year of 2017. 


My doctor wrote me back with this: "We have seen your semen analysis results. There was no obvious cause for lack of sperm on your previous semen analysis just as there is no obvious cause for sudden return of sperm to the ejaculate. This semen analysis has an excellent number of moving sperm (>160 million progressively motile sperm with goal >20 million progressively motile sperm). That is great! The only abnormality here is decreased morphology which may not prevent pregnancy. With these results, you should be a great candidate for artificial insemination or even natural conception. You could also consider banking a few samples of motile sperm. This banking could be used for future insemination whereas your current tissue storage would have to be used for IVF." 

8 days later I finished the Clomiphene.  Four days later I finished the FertilAid pills.  I restarted the disgusting FertilAid pills after 20 days because my wife asked me to.  A month later I had my blood drawn again to check my testosterone.  11 days later I had a urology appointment.  My testosterone is low again at 175.  My doctor gave me a new prescription.  He also said that low testosterone can lead to bone problems.  I picked up my prescription of Clomiphene Citrate the next day and took half of a pill. 

We went to a gynecology appointment two weeks later, but I was unable to produce a semen sample.  The next day I was able to provide a sample at home and we did our first session of artificial insemination.  20 days later my wife took a urine test at a hospital and got a positive result for pregnancy.  We can now obey the command in Genesis 1:28 to "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth".  40 days later she had her first doctor's appointment.  He gave her a sonogram of the baby which is about the size of a strawberry and did some blood tests and gave her the due date, which is earlier than I expected.  I didn't realized that the 40 week period is calculated based on last period rather than conception.

8 days later I had to get blood drawn to check my testosterone levels.  Three days later I had a DEXA scan, which stands for Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry.  The scan is used to check bone density levels, because hypogonadism can lead to osteoporosis.  It only took about 5 minutes.  A week later I had a urology appointment.  My testosterone is at 618 which is good.  My bone density is at -1.7, which is the midpoint between healthy and osteoporosis.  The urologist recommended I start taking a supplement called Citracal-D3 to boost my calcium and vitamin D levels without causing kidney stones.  He also wants me to meet with a primary care doctor, and to get another scan in 6 months. 

Two days later I met with a primary care practitioner to discuss the bone density results.  He told me to take calcium and vitamin D pills, but I think I'll stick with the ones the urologist recommended.  He also said jarring exercises like running or weightlifting can help bone growth.  I also did some blood tests.  Today I got my results and everything was normal.  My wife had another appointment and the baby is now about the size of an apple.

Update 1 (March 2, 2019) - I'm glad to learn that the conservative Christian website Got Questions endorses artificial insemination.  I've heard that the Catholic Church and other conservative churches oppose fertility treatments and think conception should only happen through sex between a husband and wife.  However, infertility can be a sign of other health problems that need to be addressed.  There are examples of infertility in the Bible.  If a man died without children, then his wife was supposed to marry his brother to carry on the family line.  There are also examples of men using mistresses when their wives were infertile.  I exchanged e-mails with this conservative Lutheran woman in New Mexico.  She wanted us to date and seemed like a good woman and we even had a long phone conversation, but I wasn't ready to try another long distance relationship so we stopped communicating.  Anyway, if I had married her I wonder if I would have any biological children.  I think Christians are sometimes too eager to declare that adoption is always a good thing.  I agree if the birth parents are neglectful, or abusive, or druggies, or if the children are orphaned or to avoid an abortion.  However, it seems like adoption is sometimes just for convenience.  If you give a child up for adoption and then have more children, you could have just raised the first child with his or her siblings.  Before a child is put up for adoption, both the father and the mother should consent to it.

Update 2 (September 21, 2019) - My wife got pregnant for the second time, but it didn't last.  We tried sex for 3 months but that didn't work so then we had to do artificial insemination twice.  The first time I ejaculated quickly, but there were only a few viable sperm.  The second time it took me about 80 minutes to ejaculate and about half of the sperm was viable and it worked.  She used an at home pregnancy test and got a positive result.  However, at her first doctor's appointment no heart beat was detected and it appeared that the fetus had stopped growing at 5 weeks.  Then her period returned making her follow-up appointment unnecessary.  When my wife first told me that there was a problem, I thought that the baby was still alive but there were major health problems.  I then started wondering if the option of abortion would be brought up and how we would respond to that.  Normally I am opposed to abortion so I'm surprised I even thought of it.  I guess it's the difference between theory and reality.  My wife and her dad both say that a person is dead when there is no brain activity and that a baby should be considered alive when brain activity can be detected.

Update 3 (December 28, 2019) - My wife's third pregnancy ended in miscarriage, 7 1/2 weeks after her last period and 5 1/2 weeks after insemination.  She had an ultrasound and the gestational sac was visible, but appeared empty.  She started bleeding before her next appointment and it was probably due to a blighted ovum.  We did artificial insemination twice and both times my sperm sample was good.  I was able to ejaculate in a timely manner the first time, but for the second time my wife had to help me which was fun.  Her male doctor performed the first one and a female doctor performed the second one.

Update 4 (January 17, 2021) - During the first month only 25% of my sperm was viable and we tried artificial insemination (IUI) on the first day of ovulation and it did not take.  In the second month I was unable to ejaculate in time for the appointment.  In the third month we tried on the second day of ovulation and the doctor said there was a lot of good sperm.  My wife had a period 15 days later and we decided to pursue IVF.  The following week we had to get some blood drawn.  10 days later, I took a generic Viagra pill and with my wife's help I was able to ejaculate into the specimen cup.  I felt hot on the pill and it was easier to get an erection.  Four days later we both started taking Azithromycin tablets.  18 days later I took some more blood tests.  A week later my wife had the egg extraction surgery and the doctor was able to retrieve 8 eggs.  The next day we found out that 7 of the eggs were mature and 5 of them were fertilized.  Four days later we found out that 1 embryo was healthy enough to be frozen; and 2 would wait for another day to see if they were still growing, and the final 2 didn't make it.  The next day we found out that 2 of the embryos were viable and they were sent off for genetic testing.  8 days later we found out that both embryos had good test results and we learned the sex of both of them.  26 days later an embryo was implanted into my wife.  She had blood tests 9 days later and her pregnancy hormone was high.  A week later she had more bloodwork and everything was normal.  Two weeks after that she had an ultrasound showing that the baby was alive and healthy and we got the due date.  I let my parents and siblings know.  90 days later we went to another ultrasound which showed that the baby is healthy.  The next day we posted the good news to Facebook.

There have been some court cases involving embryos between a divorced couple.  Davis v. Davis in Tennessee where the ex-wife wanted them implanted and the ex-husband wanted them destroyed and he won the case because she was capable of doing future IVF treatments with a new husband.  J.B. v. M.B. in New Jersey where the ex-husband wanted to implant the embryos into his new wife, but the ex-wife wanted them destroyed.  The couple previously had a child together which may have been conceived naturally and the court ruled that the embryos could not be implanted.  A.Z. v. B.Z. in Massachusetts where a couple had twins through IVF, then the wife had another embryo implanted without telling her husband but it did not lead to pregnancy which left one more.  The husband filed for divorce and wanted the embryo destroyed.  The court ruled in his favor saying that forced procreation was unconstitutional.  Kass v Kass in New York where the ex-wife claimed the embryos were her only shot at genetic children, but they already had an agreement saying the embryos would be donated to research and the court upheld that agreement.  Probably because of previous cases like these, my wife and I had to sign a written agreement.  We both believe that divorce and the destruction of viable embryos are sins.  In the event of divorce, she gets to implant them.  If I die, she gets to implant them.  If she dies, they will be donated to another couple.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Why did Obama win the 2008 election?

There is a message board that I visit and a school teacher from New York gave his analysis of the 2008 election, which I thought was informative.  I asked the questions on November 5, 2008 and he provided the answers.  I think the main reasons Obama won are that Bush was unpopular, people were excited for a black President, and Obama does sound inspiring sometimes.
Why was Obama elected?
Why is Bush so unpopular among Obama's voters?
Why did red states turn blue?
Why did people vote for him, while disagreeing on issues, or not even knowing the issues?
Do most people want us out of Iraq?
Do most people want more government involvement in the economy?
Do most people want us to have discussions with our enemies?
A)Why was Obama elected? He got more votes. Why?
1) More money. Much, much more money. I'm not sure the excess cash gave him the victory, but it surely increased his margin.
2) Overwhelming support from the black community (and I can't blame them)
3) More articulate and attractive than his opponent.
4) Strategically smarter than his opponent (politically, anyway)
5) Not in Bush's party, and Bush is terribly unpopular.
6) Unashamed media bias, with detailed reports on the financial history of Joe the Plumber, but nary a word about the daily stupidities uttered by Joe the Biden.

B)Why is Bush so unpopular among Obama's voters? Depends on the Obama voters.
1) Black voters are convinced Republicans are racist (and we have not done near enough to fix this problem)
2) Young voters are against the war (see #6), and think a black president is a cool idea.
3) Bush is conservative, Dems are liberal.
4) Bush shed his white collar, Harvard educated background to embrace the image of a Texas hayseed. They look down on anyone who refuses to bow to "coastal culture."
5) Bush is rhetorically challenged, which his opponents mistake for stupidity.
6) Bush does what he believes is right, and is at peace with those decisions regardles of the polls. This makes him appear distant, or ill informed, or uncaring, but more importantly, it kept him from effectively using the bully pulpit to build popular support for what he's done (I bet less than 1 voter in 10 knows Bush was greeted by adoring masses when he visited Africa).
7) I know of no President who did not wear out his welcome after 8 years (even Reagan, to a lesser degree).
8) Bush does not concede the superior enlightenment of the Europeans.

C)Why did red states turn blue? They were, mostly, swing states.
New Mexico switched because there are many hispanics, who were alienated by the Republican efforts to stop illegal immigration.  Virginia and North Carolina's demographics have been changing as northerners move down south. Also, they have a substantial black population (Wyoming, not so much).  Iowa? McCain hardly put up a fight.  Florida? Not sure. Hispanics would be my guess, but that state is going to be a bellwether for a long time. Expect it to go with the winner for the forseeable future.

D)Why did people vote for him, while disagreeing on issues, or not even knowing the issues?
Most people are ill informed. They have busy lives and concerns that may not leave them the time that some of us have to ask these questions and dig into the issues. And the issues themselves are often complicated, so that even the informed voters will have a hard time telling which candidate's ideas are really superior.

E)Do most people want us out of Iraq?
Bush failed by making Iraq about WMD's (something I strongly warned against, but he wasn't listening, likely because he was not in earshot). He failed to adapt quickly to insurgent strategies. He failed to remove Rumsfeld before the 2006 electon. And he still can't make the case for being there as well as I can (and he won't put me in front of a mic). And the media, I think, felt guilty about not challenging Bush more during the run up to the war, and, since many of them are left-leaning, saw this as their chance to "make a difference" as the media did in the 60s with Vietnam.

F)Do most people want more government involvement in the economy?
Like wolves stuck in a trap, they just want the pain to stop and don't much care if they have to gnaw off their foot to do it. The simple truth is most people don't have a consistent philosophical world view about government involvement. They just have a "what gives me more" mentality, and the outlook is usually short term. If the government is providing more, they will vote for more government.  That said, the majority of voters were against the bailout, but they did not have a candidate on their side.

G)Do most people want us to have discussions with our enemies?
Like many bad ideas, it sounds reasonable on first blush. I'm guessing, in normal life, if you disagree with someone, you don't jump them as they get out of their car. We are all taught at an early age to talk out our differences, that fighting is "bad" or at least a last resort.  The problems is that, I think, too many people assume our enemies share our values, and, more importantly, value peace.  I've long maintained that peace is a problem. Too many people want peace. Peace is not a goal. If peace is a goal, then you will give up anything to have peace, and that includes nuclear weapons in Iran and Iraq. To me, freedom is a goal. To have freedom I must have security from my enemies, security from my government, and the ability to protect myself. And that, in turn, brings peace.
Here is what another person on the message board had to say:
I’ve been trying to get a handle on what went wrong in this election, and have noticed that the overriding characteristic of this election cycle has been the sheer irrationality of the voters combined with the stunning realization that it hasn’t made any difference at all what information has come out about Obama, or what McCain has said on the campaign trail, or even what comes out of Obama’s mouth (“I want to spread the wealth around.”) — it just doesn’t make any difference.

The question becomes: “Have we seen this before?”
The answer, I believe, is yes: Jimmy Carter vs. Gerald Ford - 1976.

The same dynamics that applied to that election seem to apply in the extent case: voters are acting irrationally to punish an administration previously in power whom they felt betrayed them in some egregious way. Just as Ford was punished by voters for Nixon’s Watergate sins, McCain is being punished for Bush’s mishandling of the Iraq war, the financial crisis, and many other lesser perceived offenses.

It didn’t matter that Ford had nothing to do with Watergate, that he was an experienced, capable (if not inspiring) leader; it also mattered not that his opponent was an untested peanut farmer governor of the hick state of Georgia (apologies to all competent, educated Georgians), and a compulsive micro-manager, just as it doesn’t matter that McCain spent more time in the Hanoi Hilton than Obama has spent in the US Senate, that Obama has no record of achievement or major executive experience while McCain has a long, even bipartisan, history of getting something done in the US Senate, or that Obama has kept huge swaths of his history obscured from scrutiny and is almost surely a neo-Marxist in his political outlook.

It doesn’t matter, because in both cases — today, and 32 years ago — the voters went berserk and acted irrationally, immune to any evidence or rational arguments, bent on "punishing" a previous administration even if it requires shooting off their own foot to do so. If either Carter or Obama were caught in bed with a live boy AND a dead girl, it would matter naught, and thus, in the end, it doesn't, and didn't matter what McCain or Ford did.

Carter was a feckless clown, and basically incompetent as a president — leading his fellow Democrats, who seized control of Congress along with him, to impose policies that assured the US of another 4 years of stagflation, oil shortages, massive unemployment, and mandatory thermostat settings, while they decimated the US National Security capabilities, including, but not limited to turning the clandestine side of CIA into an adult version of the Boy Scouts.  Wouldst that Obama were only that bad.

The lesson here is that that this election was not about ideology; Obama's victory does not signify a radical change in the electorates' ideological preferences. It means that they thought Bush and the Republicans needed a thrashing, and that McCain was the most convenient club with which to clobber Bush, and Obama was more than happy to use McCain to apply the beating.
And here are more of my thoughts:

131 million people voted, which was a new record.  Obama received 52.9% of the popular vote compared to 45.7% for McCain.  The 7.2% margin was the largest since 1996, when Clinton beat Dole by 8.5% and that year Clinton received 379 electoral votes, which is slightly more than the 365 votes Obama won.  A higher popular vote percentage was achieved by the winner in 1988 when Bush received 53.4% of the vote against 45.6% for Dukakis.

If Obama had kept his campaign promise to work with the Republicans, then he might have turned out to be okay as a President.  He does deserve credit for having a great get-out-the-vote program and for being the first black President.  I hope this has a positive impact on the black community, both in their behavior and in their voting habits (so they aren't so much in lock step).

The polls were actually right, as opposed to 2004 when they exaggerated Kerry's performance.  This result disproves the notion that the first black President would be a Republican.  I find it disturbing that a man with his background could become President.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Obama's post-racial promise

On November 5, 2008, Shelby Steele wrote an article about the election:
For the first time in human history, a largely white nation has elected a black man to be its paramount leader. And the cultural meaning of this unprecedented convergence of dark skin and ultimate power will likely become -- at least for a time -- a national obsession. In fact, the Obama presidency will always be read as an allegory. Already we are as curious about the cultural significance of his victory as we are about its political significance.

Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long -- that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn't a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn't it imply a "post-racial" America? And shouldn't those of us -- white and black -- who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?

Answering no to such questions is like saying no to any idealism; it seems callow. How could a decent person not hope for all these possibilities, or not give America credit for electing its first black president? And yet an element of Barack Obama's success was always his use of the idealism implied in these questions as political muscle. His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America -- and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.