Whoops.

Haha, well, Obama is off to a terrible start. At least we can breathe a sigh that McCain/Palin isn't in the White House, but still, I feel my enthusiasm was misplaced. Onward to the hollow state...

THE MAP!

Sources:
http://www.270towin.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
http://www.pollster.com
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com

Final national average based on aggregate (pollster.com):
Obama: 52.0
McCain: 44.3

My guesses:

Final electoral college:
Obama: 378
McCain: 160

Battlegrounds, last poll averages, projected winner. Based on aggregates of both RCP.com and Pollster.com, which are aggregates themselves:

VIRGINIA:
Obama, +4.5
Winner: Obama

NORTH CAROLINA:
McCain, +0.4
Winner: Obama, based on early voting trends, plus the size of Obama's organization in NC.

PENNSLYVANIA:
Obama, +7.25
Winner: Obama by a mile. I heard a report on NPR detailing how Obama's field offices outnumber McCains more than 4 to 1 in PA, and how they operate in some capacity for 24 hours a day. McCain's were shutting down at 8pm in what his campaign detailed as a must win.

GEORGIA:
McCain, +3.5
Winner: McCain

MISSOURI:
Obama, +0.2
Winner: Obama. His field operation is "the largest in Missouri political history." I remember during the primaries reading that he had sent two young deputees down to Missouri to lay the groundwork there well before even the Iowa caucus. Hillary had no one there until after Super Tuesday. His steady, longterm presence in the state will turn out his supporters, while I'm guessing the Republicans will suffer a smaller turnout than the polls suggest. Maybe a five point differential.

INDIANA:
McCain, +1.3
Winner: Obama. The situation mirrors Indiana closely. Long standing organization. Massive get out the vote effort.

OHIO:
Obama, +2.5
Winner: Obama, see link above.

FLORIDA:
Obama, +1.75
Winner: Obama. Again it's the organization.

COLORADO:
Obama, +5.9
Winner: Obama

NEVADA:
Obama, +6.9
Winner: Obama

NORTH DAKOTA:
McCain, +0.7
Winner: Obama. Not only does he have more people there, the polls show a sharp McCain slide. Also see: LINK.

MONTANA:
McCain, +2.1
Winner: McCain

Final pitches:
Obama relates a motivating story about civic power. McCain talks about water rights in New Mexico.

snopes.com

LINK:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

Pretty awesome rumor collection. Some are benign (Obama can't hold a phone correctly) and some are pretty vicious (he's a jew-hating Muslim born in Kenya who is conspiring to overthrow the American government) Most are of course false.

Haass on Afghanistan

LINK:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/165648/

"The Taliban is gaining ground; security is deteriorating; drugs and corruption are rampant. More U.S. and NATO troops are needed, but any increase will need to be temporary, given rising Afghan nationalism. The chief priority should be training Afghanistan's Army and police. Regular talks are needed with those with a stake in the country's future, including Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and NATO. The government should be encouraged to meet with Taliban leaders willing to accept a ceasefire. Counterdrug efforts, while essential, should be targeted and low-key, lest an alienated populace grow more so."

Many of Haass's ideas are conventional and reassuring, but are counterintuitive when you consider the information gleaned from sources such as the HTT program and Nir Rosen's recent piece in Rolling Stone. Are we prepared to continue a half assed, nation building exercise in the heart of fragmenting Central Asia for another 30 years? If not, then we should leave immediately instead of continuing to insist that throwing cash at bridges, clinics, girls schools, and counter narcotics is going to lead to victory. Like William Lind might say, "Go Rome or go home."

Ugly

LINK:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/hussein-chant-at-palin-rally/

“I guess Obama was named after Saddam Hussein.”

Bobby Fischer

LINK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6WsuBZfr10

"A sample of his orange juice is flown to the KGB in Moscow for testing..."

Real interesting clip on the Spassky/Fischer match of '72. When can we set up these sort of political matches with AQ?

N.B. Some thoughts

LINK:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/10/24/global.markets/index.html

Money quote:

"Greenspan, who some analysts say did not do enough to control financial institutions during his two-decade tenure, made his comments in prepared testimony to the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee.

He admitted he made a mistake during his time as chair by presuming that lenders were more capable than regulators of protecting their finances, adding he was "shocked" when the system "broke down."

"I still do not understand exactly how it happened," he said."

Hell, from what I've seen on the net, no one understands how this event happened.

What I can gather though:

The financial institutions of the world have been aggregating at an accelerated rate since the 1980s. As Nassim Taleb recently noted on PBS, "It's much worse to have one large bank fail than ten small ones." The contracts of so-called financial tools such as CDSs or derivatives sometimes contain thousands of pages, written in the unpenetrable language of their astrophysicist authors. And people have invested heavily, overwhelmingly into these tools. The end result? A massively complex, closed network with very few, very large hubs that are prone to systemic failure due to feedback. The globalization and centralization of the world's financial and energy systems has created the perfect environment for total failure due to something akin to Taleb's famed black swans. The number and size of inputs available to add new energy to the system pales in scope to the system itself (the 800bil buyout looks pretty small compared to the 450 trillion in the derivatives market ALONE).

Also consider the following:

- The deleveraging of hedge funds (a $1.9 trillion market)
- The deleveraging of the American spender
- Massive debt in the USA ($59 trillion if you count unpaid commitments such as SS and Medicare)
- Increased military urbanization and corporatism in the USA
- The 'balkanization' of American life into isolated racial, economic, and religious subgroups. Thomas Barnett calls religion the "strongest social lubricant" in America, and I agree, but I don't think people move from ideology to ideology so much as they can't tell the difference between Vineyard and Presbyterian philosophies. Many people are swamped by their preferred medias (hey Washington Times readers!), live in communities that do not facilitate interaction, are disconnected from their food and energy sources. Government is deaf to these problems, as seen in New York City, where the ancient (by US standards) and resilient community (despite its problems) of Harlem is being transformed into a corporate business hub.The nation, as far as I can tell, is fractured, which might be part of the reason we've seen an increased radicalisation of the Republican party over the past generation.

Hoo wah!

(Just an opinion. The Thomas Barnetts/Tom Friedmans/globalization-as-salvation hockers of the world look rather Panglossian right about now. And I note TPMB has barely been following the crisis, instead choosing to post on such cursory topics as Chinese defense spending. He also tipped his hat to Palin in an attempt to be above the rabble of American politics, which I found startling and uncharacteristically generous. Tom Friedman is currently selling a green revolution as salvation for America, and based off two interviews I've seen about his new book, he believes that American life will be able to continue its routine. The work of James Kunstler and Matt Simmons has made me skeptical about green energy's ability to replicate the last 80 years of oil glut. Maybe its time to start seriously investing in cold fusion?)

EDIT:
The original post was written late at night after one too many glasses of Omar Khayyam at my favorite pub in Cairo. Cleaned up the language a bit and added links to a few specific posts instead of general websites. I didn't like the way the original seemed dismissive of the work of Friedman or Barnett. I have a lot of respect for Thomas Barnett specifically as a thinker and author, and there are many reasons why I buy all his books, watch for him on C-SPAN, and read his website daily.