269: The Number of the (Political) Beast
Do you remember the good old days? I find myself thinking back on them this morning. I’m talking about way back during the first week of September in ‘ought eight. Given the way political time flies, that would be roughly the same period when disco was huge and you just knew that your new bell bottom jeans were going to look fabulous. The Republicans had just finished their convention and the surprise pick of Sarah Palin had tossed the public into a frenzy. The polls shifted hard in McCain’s direction and Palin’s popularity immediately peaked among cheering supporters who were not yet sure how to pronounce her name. Friends of mine in the GOP enthusiast camp were all but declaring the election over and John McCain was on his way to the White House.
Fast forward through the political eons which followed and the picture changes yet again. We’re on the verge of either a massive economic collapse or a scam (depending who you ask) and the latest big poll from ABC and the Washington Post shows Obama surging to a 52-43 lead over McCain. Later today, the next NBC – Wall Street Journal poll is expected to show similar results according to Chuck Todd. So should the Obama faithful begin writing eulogies for the sad demise of McCain’s presidential aspirations? If you’re doing that for either side before Nov. 3rd, you may want to look into some medicine for dementia. What will the picture look like two weeks from today? (At time which, given the nature of political temporal compression, should be roughly when your semi-autonomous robotic servant is bringing your flying car ’round from the garage to take you on holiday.) By then we’ll have seen two debates, we might have some action taken on the bailout, and for all I know there could be bombs falling on Tehran.
Either way, the smart money still seems to be on this being a very close election, at least in the electoral college. How close? At least according to a few estimates, it may be closer than even the most skeptical might imagine.
President Obama, with Vice President Palin? President Biden? President Pelosi? Call them the “Doomsday” scenarios — On Nov. 5, the presidential election winds up in a electoral-college tie, 269-269, the Democrat-controlled House picks Sen. Barack Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Republican Sarah Palin his successor.
The more savvy among you may be scratching your head right about now and saying, “Wait a minute… 269? I thought you needed 270 to win.” Right you are. But several highly plausible scenarios currently playing out would result in neither candidate making it to the magic number. The poll monitoring site 538.com, while not finding it highly probable, sees an 8% chance of the tie happening. If McCain takes Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Indiana, with Obama holding down Pennsylvania, Michigan and Colorado, then a split in New Mexico and Nevada brings us to 269 each.
Last night I was was talking to Rick Moran and Stephen Green (you can listen to a replay here) and the Vodkapundit described this scenario as making Florida 2000 “look like a tea party.” And it’s true. If you think a disputed vote count in one state caused turmoil, think of the burden carried by this year’s winner if we have to go to emergency election rules. The House of Representatives will decide the winner of the presidency, but each state delegation gets only one vote. Even constitutional experts, however, are unsure whether the founders intended for the current Congress to make that decision, or the incoming members who will be sworn in early in January. The Senate then gets to pick the Vice President. If it’s the current membership, is it that far fetched to think that Joe Lieberman (who supports McCain) would flip to vote with the GOP forcing a tie, and then Dick Cheney comes riding in to cast the tie-breaking vote and puts Palin in place as Obama’s vice president?
If this happens, I’m going to try to corner the market on bumper stickers which read “****** is not MY president!” and just fill in the name after January. Questions over Bush’s election in 2000 will look tame by comparison. Interesting times, my friends. Interesting times.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “269: The Number of the (Political) Beast”
[...] post by WP-AutoBlog Import 154547 Add to del.icio.us Digg This Subscribe to RSS feed Leave a [...]
It's a race between two unknown quantities, at the end of the day- throw in a wild card from the Great White North and a bunch of lobbyists and a heaping teaspoonful of racism/sexism and you have what amounts to a hopscotch race. It's not about who runs faster or farther but stumbles more.
I predict 40+million viewers Friday night.
I too would not be shocked if the first debate pulls at least half the audience the superbowl gets, and I find that encouraging. More shocking, I will go out on a limb and predict that the VP debate (which is normally a non-event for ratings) will get higher numbers than even the pres debates.
If Obama was Prez and Palin VP I'm sure Obama, being the student of the Constitution would take McCain's advice and follow the Constitution's original intent and restore the office of the VP to be a largely ceremonial position…
Seriously though…. it seems the only candidates that count in this election are Obama and Palin… they are the ones energizing their respective parties so it makes sense to have a “unity” executive branch. Obama talks about unifying the country and this would be a good way to do so. He can make lemonade from lemons… It's not as though the GOP can complain about Palin as VP… after all they did choose her….
Jazz,
what surprises me most about this (and generally every) election is the degree to which polls change as the election goes forward. I always ask myself “why?” when the party platforms haven't changed, the framing ideology is unchanged. All that seems to move public opinion is the lower-level, limbic-structure target commercials and attack-ads that, given their effectiveness, leave me with the impression that we are creatures motivated by primitive instincts and gut-level certainties. And to me that's a sad impression, as true as it might be.
Do you ever really ponder how scary and tenuous is our collective reasoning? Should I just “loosen up” and consider this all just somehow “fun?” It's hard to consider it “fun” (as some of my friends do) when I think that my country will choose its leadership with a degree of consideration that hasn't stepped much forward from when I was a high-school student voting for “most popular” or “most handsome.” What else could explain the huge swings from Palin's popularity surge forward to backward, or Obama's recent gains?
Having Dick Cheney cast the deciding vote in the Senate for McCain/Palin would just be icing on the cake.
Liberal heads would explode across the country.
J. West: “Dick Cheney. Hero. Patriot.” I can visualize the lib temper tantrums already!
Jazz, were your GOP friends really that cocky? That's outdoing a lot of Obamaniacs earlier this year.
Also, if this is another close race and the electoral vote is not the same as the popular vote, will there be more demands for changing to direct election of the president and vice president? If McCain wins the popular vote and Obama wins the electoral vote and the White House, will the predictable lefties suddenly be absent with their complaints? Will they suddenly “discover” the virtues of and defend the Electoral College?
Stockster: The VP role is not merely ceremonial (in early days it was subject to being adversarial — what if McCain won this year as President and Biden or Pelosi became the next Vice President?). It ought to be like the first officer on a ship, executive VP of a business, the nation's “super-governor” (#1 domestic affairs official with whom the governors of state should interact).
How are things leading up to the first debate? Like this (note late effect of economy)
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08…
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08…
I'll be on the road in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri on Friday and hope to hear the debates on the radio while near the end of the journey.
Your points illustrate why it is imperative for democrats to take their sweet time in resolving this financial crunch. The longer it goes on for, the better the poll numbers for Obama. Period.
If they actually get some brass ho-hos and stand up to the GOP and pass Trickle-Up economics that immediately benefit the voters and put the tycoons on the waiting list for funds to come through (instead of the exact opposite scenario), they not only will stave off the second coming of The French Revolution, but they will stroke the fur of the voters so nicely and in such the right direction that that kitty will purrrrrrr purrrrrr purrrrrrrr right up to the day we cast our overwhelming votes for the democratic nominee.
The GOP really is in a headlock this time. I'm not saying we should get cocky. What I am saying is that we should grab the opportunity while it's here and run with it all the way to the Oval Office and onto Capitol Hill.
Two Problems:
The CONSTITUTION says that the HOUSE OF RFEPRESENTATIVES break the tie.
It is more complicated – each STATE – gets one vote. The Senate has NOTHING to do with it.
Second Problem: It is the NEW CONGRESS that votes.
Right now, the majority of states are DEM and it would likely stay that way.
In the event that a delegation is split (like AZ) they can vote 1/2 vote for each side.