I just read someone making a comparison.
It's been 40 years since King was assassinated in 1968. It's only been 30 years since Harvey Milk was assassinated. Maybe in ten more Milk's martyrdom will mean something.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
parsing the LA Times
Astrid posted this article. I claimed it is bullshit. Since I am on a roll, I will not demonstrate why this is so.
What does any of this have to do with marriage? This author is now and will continue to present an image of "rich white gays." Who are these people? I don't know them. And why does she insist on discussing whether this issue should be a "priority" or not? Voting yes or no on a question on a ballot does not require it to be a priority. It just requires recognizing the rights and humanity of other humans. There were twelve propositions on the CA ballot this year. When a person enters a voting booth, he or she has three options for these questions--vote yes, vote no, or do not vote. 52% of Californians who chose to vote, chose to vote yes. 70% of black Californians who chose to vote, chose to vote yes. What does any of this have to do with priorities? Other measures included the folliwing: High speed trains, confinement of chickens, children's hospitals, parental notification for underage abortions, non-violent criminal code, renewable energy, etc. This proposition clearly stated "Eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry" (emphasis added). Clearly it was someone's "priority" if they're voting to eliminate rights
Again, she states--"why it should matter to use above everything else." IT SHOULDN'T matter to you above everything else. But that doesn't mean you have to vote to eliminate other people's rights! To answer her question, YES. That homeless gay man with HIV and addicted to crack would benefit from the right to marry. YES. How would his life had been different if he had been seen as an equal? If he hadn't internalized shame? If his family hadn't told him he was inferior? But, she is presenting an extreme case. Marriage won't solve all of this person's problems. To look less extremely, perhaps the 70 year old black woman wouldn't become infected with HIV because her husband is "on the dl?" Perhaps young black women wouldn't continue to be decimated by HIV if their men were given options, if society recognized them as equal?
Yeah, able to vote to help chickens live better lives. This author is so offensive. What white gays are singularly focused? Does she think there is no "spectrum of an entire community" for gays? Are there no gay convicted felons? Are there no gays addicted to drugs, homeless, owning small businesses, living in projects? She is generalizing and stereotyping beyond belief. And how is marriage a luxury? These straight poor black people of whom she speaks have the right to marry. It is not seen by them as a luxury. It is something that is there, from birth, as an option, or as a dream. Even those convicted felons can get married to the person they love, and what is more important than love?
It's only pitted against the church because the church chooses to oppose it. There are plenty of churches that embrace this concept. Even President elect Obama's undeniably black church supports same sex marriage. The Gospel of John is the Gospel of Love. And for a community so recently removed from Loving v. Virginia, this argument fails to convince. One of the Rev. Dr. King's closets friends in the battle for civil rights was a gay black man, Bayard Rustin.
Ok. Point taken.
She's even more racist than the side I am presenting. This mythical "white gay" of which she speaks is a total product of her stereotyping.
This is a total non sequitor. What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand? It will not bring about equality for everyone, but it will present gaiety on an equal level as heterosexuality, and it will lead to the solution of many of the problems facing gays. How does driving while black have anything to do with gay marriage? It doesn't. They are totally separate issues. This woman is bitter. The conflation of these two issues indicates to me that she has a major chip on her shoulder and that she cannot bear to see advances for other people. We can work to fix racism and heterosexism, but we needn't conflate the two.
She hates herself. "Including with this black lesbian?" So did she vote Yes on 8? Sounds like it. Bitter. Bitter. Bitter. Everyone needs a scapegoat (and I fully recognize that in my emotional ranting the other day I was scapegoating). What are the white gays supposed to "get?" That they don't deserve equality because another group has yet to achieve it? And what does she mean that the gay community should "demonstrate the capacity and willingness to change?" Gays voted 73-27% for Obama. Gays are some of the more progressive voters in the electorate. So to what is she referring?
And when she talks about driving while black, does she really think this doesn't exist for the so-called "white gays?" Gays are murdered and beaten every fucking week of the year. On election night in DC a man carrying a rainbow flag was attacked. In your own state, a non-white gay, Lawrence King was brutally murdered in his 8th grade classroom because he was gender non-conformist. Another non-white gay, Michael Sandy, was brutally murdered for being gay. Just because mainstream media has chosen not to tell us about any of these cases since Matthew Shepard ten years ago DOES NOT mean they don't exist. They literally happen every week. So if she thinks the "white gays" have it so good, I think she should open her eyes and stop being so bitter.
No-on-8's white bias
The right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights.
By Jasmyne A. Cannick
November 8, 2008
Iam a perfect example of why the fight against Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, failed to win black support.
I am black. I am a political activist who cares deeply about social justice issues. I am a lesbian. This year, I canvassed the streets of South Los Angeles and Compton, knocking on doors, talking politics to passers-by and working as I never had before to ensure a large voter turnout among African Americans. But even I wasn't inspired to encourage black people to vote against the proposition.
Why? Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.
What does any of this have to do with marriage? This author is now and will continue to present an image of "rich white gays." Who are these people? I don't know them. And why does she insist on discussing whether this issue should be a "priority" or not? Voting yes or no on a question on a ballot does not require it to be a priority. It just requires recognizing the rights and humanity of other humans. There were twelve propositions on the CA ballot this year. When a person enters a voting booth, he or she has three options for these questions--vote yes, vote no, or do not vote. 52% of Californians who chose to vote, chose to vote yes. 70% of black Californians who chose to vote, chose to vote yes. What does any of this have to do with priorities? Other measures included the folliwing: High speed trains, confinement of chickens, children's hospitals, parental notification for underage abortions, non-violent criminal code, renewable energy, etc. This proposition clearly stated "Eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry" (emphasis added). Clearly it was someone's "priority" if they're voting to eliminate rights
The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?
Again, she states--"why it should matter to use above everything else." IT SHOULDN'T matter to you above everything else. But that doesn't mean you have to vote to eliminate other people's rights! To answer her question, YES. That homeless gay man with HIV and addicted to crack would benefit from the right to marry. YES. How would his life had been different if he had been seen as an equal? If he hadn't internalized shame? If his family hadn't told him he was inferior? But, she is presenting an extreme case. Marriage won't solve all of this person's problems. To look less extremely, perhaps the 70 year old black woman wouldn't become infected with HIV because her husband is "on the dl?" Perhaps young black women wouldn't continue to be decimated by HIV if their men were given options, if society recognized them as equal?
Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote.
Yeah, able to vote to help chickens live better lives. This author is so offensive. What white gays are singularly focused? Does she think there is no "spectrum of an entire community" for gays? Are there no gay convicted felons? Are there no gays addicted to drugs, homeless, owning small businesses, living in projects? She is generalizing and stereotyping beyond belief. And how is marriage a luxury? These straight poor black people of whom she speaks have the right to marry. It is not seen by them as a luxury. It is something that is there, from birth, as an option, or as a dream. Even those convicted felons can get married to the person they love, and what is more important than love?
Second is the issue of civil rights. White gays often wonder aloud why blacks, of all people, won't support their civil rights. There is a real misunderstanding by the white gay community about the term. Proponents of gay marriage fling it around as if it is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase for issues of fairness.
But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity -- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.
It's only pitted against the church because the church chooses to oppose it. There are plenty of churches that embrace this concept. Even President elect Obama's undeniably black church supports same sex marriage. The Gospel of John is the Gospel of Love. And for a community so recently removed from Loving v. Virginia, this argument fails to convince. One of the Rev. Dr. King's closets friends in the battle for civil rights was a gay black man, Bayard Rustin.
Then there was the poorly conceived campaign strategy. Opponents of Proposition 8 relied on an outdated civil rights model, engaging the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People to help win black support on the issue of gay marriage. This happened despite the warnings of black lesbians and gays that it wouldn't work. While the NAACP definitely should have been included in the strategy, it shouldn't have been the only group. Putting nearly a quarter of a million dollars into an outdated civil rights group that has very little influence on the black vote -- at least when it comes to gay issues -- will never work.
Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park -- the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification -- to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either.
Ok. Point taken.
There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven't been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).
She's even more racist than the side I am presenting. This mythical "white gay" of which she speaks is a total product of her stereotyping.
Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?
This is a total non sequitor. What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand? It will not bring about equality for everyone, but it will present gaiety on an equal level as heterosexuality, and it will lead to the solution of many of the problems facing gays. How does driving while black have anything to do with gay marriage? It doesn't. They are totally separate issues. This woman is bitter. The conflation of these two issues indicates to me that she has a major chip on her shoulder and that she cannot bear to see advances for other people. We can work to fix racism and heterosexism, but we needn't conflate the two.
And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1.
Maybe next time around -- because we all know this isn't over -- the gay community can demonstrate the capacity and willingness to change that America demonstrated when it went to the polls on Nov. 4. Black gays are depending on their white counterparts to finally "get it."
Until then, don't expect to make any inroads any time soon in the black community on this issue -- including with this black lesbian.
She hates herself. "Including with this black lesbian?" So did she vote Yes on 8? Sounds like it. Bitter. Bitter. Bitter. Everyone needs a scapegoat (and I fully recognize that in my emotional ranting the other day I was scapegoating). What are the white gays supposed to "get?" That they don't deserve equality because another group has yet to achieve it? And what does she mean that the gay community should "demonstrate the capacity and willingness to change?" Gays voted 73-27% for Obama. Gays are some of the more progressive voters in the electorate. So to what is she referring?
And when she talks about driving while black, does she really think this doesn't exist for the so-called "white gays?" Gays are murdered and beaten every fucking week of the year. On election night in DC a man carrying a rainbow flag was attacked. In your own state, a non-white gay, Lawrence King was brutally murdered in his 8th grade classroom because he was gender non-conformist. Another non-white gay, Michael Sandy, was brutally murdered for being gay. Just because mainstream media has chosen not to tell us about any of these cases since Matthew Shepard ten years ago DOES NOT mean they don't exist. They literally happen every week. So if she thinks the "white gays" have it so good, I think she should open her eyes and stop being so bitter.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
responding to response
as yet another caveat, I am quite aware of the math. I am quite aware of the broad criticism of the MANY people who are saying the things I have said. I am aware of it all. That does not, however, mean I don't have an instant response filled with feelings like those I have aired. Andrew is urging figuring out why things happened this way and then doing what is necessary to educate, persuade, etc. Who wants to educate and persuade to get what everyone else takes for granted?
Responding to Astrid
Astrid,
On Facebook you wonder when the LGBT peeps will stop embarrassing themselves about this stuff. I wonder, in return, who is embarrassed? I see anger, I see mobilization, I see resentment, but I do not see embarrassment.
I think I did a very good job of writing many caveats into my initial post. See my acknowledgement of "base racistness" or of a strong Id or of the unhealthiness of these sentiments. Whether they are unhealthy or not, however, they are real. They are real. Acknowledging such feelings is the only way not to act upon them. On the other hand, acknowledging reality is the only way to change it. I will not accept hyper liberal or PC positions that do not allow you to point out reality just because reality exposes racial differences.
I agree with you that the No-on-8 campaign was "shitastic." It was run by the HRC pussies who hate themselves as much as their opponents do. They had all sorts of rules--don't mention the word gay. Don't mention the word marriage. Don't mention the word constitution. They're pussies who do not trust people to accept them when they are real, because they do not and cannot accept themselves.
Along with being shitastic, you state that the campaign was completely white-centered. You're probably right. Why is that, though? Why were non-whites not involved in the campaign as much as they could/should have been? Why was the campaign not adequately targeted at non-whites?
There is alot of history to this. Who was there in the 80's? Who was demonstrating with ActUp and lobbying congress or storming meetings? Who was there at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1965? Who has been suing for full marriage equality? The whites. This is a major problem. There is alot of racism in this community, on both sides. People need to be able to better work together, and non-white people need to do a more visible job of being out and demanding rights.
Your hyperbolic statement accusing me of telling people to move to the back of the bus is absolutely ridiculous. Mormons and black people and 52% of Californians told L-G people to move to the back of the bus, told them that they are less important than chickens, told them that their full humanity should be denied. That is the reality and we have the right to be angry and resentful and point out reality. If my caveats were not clear enough, that's my fault, but your response made no attempt to consider them.
On Facebook you wonder when the LGBT peeps will stop embarrassing themselves about this stuff. I wonder, in return, who is embarrassed? I see anger, I see mobilization, I see resentment, but I do not see embarrassment.
I think I did a very good job of writing many caveats into my initial post. See my acknowledgement of "base racistness" or of a strong Id or of the unhealthiness of these sentiments. Whether they are unhealthy or not, however, they are real. They are real. Acknowledging such feelings is the only way not to act upon them. On the other hand, acknowledging reality is the only way to change it. I will not accept hyper liberal or PC positions that do not allow you to point out reality just because reality exposes racial differences.
I agree with you that the No-on-8 campaign was "shitastic." It was run by the HRC pussies who hate themselves as much as their opponents do. They had all sorts of rules--don't mention the word gay. Don't mention the word marriage. Don't mention the word constitution. They're pussies who do not trust people to accept them when they are real, because they do not and cannot accept themselves.
Along with being shitastic, you state that the campaign was completely white-centered. You're probably right. Why is that, though? Why were non-whites not involved in the campaign as much as they could/should have been? Why was the campaign not adequately targeted at non-whites?
There is alot of history to this. Who was there in the 80's? Who was demonstrating with ActUp and lobbying congress or storming meetings? Who was there at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1965? Who has been suing for full marriage equality? The whites. This is a major problem. There is alot of racism in this community, on both sides. People need to be able to better work together, and non-white people need to do a more visible job of being out and demanding rights.
Your hyperbolic statement accusing me of telling people to move to the back of the bus is absolutely ridiculous. Mormons and black people and 52% of Californians told L-G people to move to the back of the bus, told them that they are less important than chickens, told them that their full humanity should be denied. That is the reality and we have the right to be angry and resentful and point out reality. If my caveats were not clear enough, that's my fault, but your response made no attempt to consider them.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Alan B and Prop 8
Yesterday I attended the funeral of Alan B. This marked quite a juxtaposition of joy and mourning, as the night before I loudly celebrated with champage and air horns for the election of Barack Obama. Then I slept, and then I got up, headache and all, and went to the funeral.
It was a very nice funeral, and it was nice to see all the people I haven't seen in so long.
Alan was a great man, and the numerous speakers did a wonderful job of telling us about his greatness. His nepwhew did an especially touching and descriptive job of explaining Alan's odd politics, his knowledge of a little bit about everything (literally), his expansive collections of shirts, watches, boots, and knives, his lovingkindness, and his gentle nature. Brother Jack beautifully elaborated on Alan's heart-filled-with-love.
Alan tried to present himself as a tough guy. A George Bush loving, gun toting, Western man of America, but that he was not. He was gentle, and he was sweet, and he had a heart of gold, and he was so so smart, and he loved an argument, and he respected the positions of others if they could elaborate them without undue emotion. He loved the ballet and theatre and film and good food and especially good beer. He and I had some of the best arguments and discussions I've had. These discussions spanned from gun rights to criminology to national politics to the latest ballet we had both seen to beer recommendations and on and on. He was truly a great man.
It was not until his nephew spoke about his collections that I remembered something very special. Somehow, in learning of his rapid and unexpected death, I had forgotten about this. Two of the things that Alan loved the most were his shirts and his knives (and as nephew explained, not only did Alan collect them, but he knew the history of them--down to the history of the particular knot he used to tie a particular tie to match a particular pattern in a shirt, which matched his belt buckle and his boots. So as he told this story, I remembered that Alan gave me an entire bag filled with dress shirts that he was no longer wearing, and I still wear many of these all of the time. And on the last day I worked with him, he also gave me a pocket knife, which I still carry with me at most times. He would have been delighted to learn that it was in my pocket last week when I saw Barack Obama speak--I was mortified when I got home and realized it was in my pocket the whole time. Not only had secret service not found it when the checked me, but what would have happened if they had found it? Bye bye knife, and difficulty for me. He would have gotten a kick out of that.
---------------------------------------
And now on a completely different and less sentimental note, the passage of Proposition 8 in California is so disgusting and so upsetting and so depressing. I am trying hard not to allow my more base racist-ness come out of this, but I am very much aware of why Prop 8 passed, and I am very resentful for this. Gays were some of Obama's biggest supporters, working hard and voting to elect a black man (who, while being the most Gay positive candidate for president ever, did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to fight prop 8), but it was the black population of California (whose turnout was extra high because of Obama) who tipped the balance to enshrine discimination into the constitution of the nation's most populace country. Everyone is aware of this. Even Andrew and Savage have commented on this. It just seems to me that a community that just so recently endured and still today endures its own civil rights struggle would recognize the struggle of another, even small group. But I guess not. So go eff yourselves.
That's the sentiment that is inside me. I know its not healthy, but the Id is strong. Whites voted down prop 8. Latinos and Asians went about 50-50. Blacks went 70-30 to pass prop 8. So, again, go eff yourselves.
I saw a photo of a guy at a big protest last night wearing a t-shite on which he had written, "we're still here, we're still queer, so go fuck yourselves" hah.
This battle will be won. Soon it will be won in Vermont, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The Northeast will be the only part of the country that believes in equality. But from there it will expand. and Bigots will lose. My optimism is not wavering, but I am dismayed. And I am further dismayed by discussions at work with older guys who just don't seem to care. They don't care! They have no expectation of equality. They do not demand equality. They have so internalized society's homophobic sentiments that one even asked, "would you want to marry a man? I wouldn't." That is a problem. That is the problem that full marriage equality nationwide will solve. This man has no self-esteem, he sees himself as lesser than others, and he does not expect to be treated well. So sad.
This fight will be won, but I cannot deny strong resentments within my Id that are directed firmly at that minority group who would vote to strip the rights of another minority. So disgusting.
It was a very nice funeral, and it was nice to see all the people I haven't seen in so long.
Alan was a great man, and the numerous speakers did a wonderful job of telling us about his greatness. His nepwhew did an especially touching and descriptive job of explaining Alan's odd politics, his knowledge of a little bit about everything (literally), his expansive collections of shirts, watches, boots, and knives, his lovingkindness, and his gentle nature. Brother Jack beautifully elaborated on Alan's heart-filled-with-love.
Alan tried to present himself as a tough guy. A George Bush loving, gun toting, Western man of America, but that he was not. He was gentle, and he was sweet, and he had a heart of gold, and he was so so smart, and he loved an argument, and he respected the positions of others if they could elaborate them without undue emotion. He loved the ballet and theatre and film and good food and especially good beer. He and I had some of the best arguments and discussions I've had. These discussions spanned from gun rights to criminology to national politics to the latest ballet we had both seen to beer recommendations and on and on. He was truly a great man.
It was not until his nephew spoke about his collections that I remembered something very special. Somehow, in learning of his rapid and unexpected death, I had forgotten about this. Two of the things that Alan loved the most were his shirts and his knives (and as nephew explained, not only did Alan collect them, but he knew the history of them--down to the history of the particular knot he used to tie a particular tie to match a particular pattern in a shirt, which matched his belt buckle and his boots. So as he told this story, I remembered that Alan gave me an entire bag filled with dress shirts that he was no longer wearing, and I still wear many of these all of the time. And on the last day I worked with him, he also gave me a pocket knife, which I still carry with me at most times. He would have been delighted to learn that it was in my pocket last week when I saw Barack Obama speak--I was mortified when I got home and realized it was in my pocket the whole time. Not only had secret service not found it when the checked me, but what would have happened if they had found it? Bye bye knife, and difficulty for me. He would have gotten a kick out of that.
---------------------------------------
And now on a completely different and less sentimental note, the passage of Proposition 8 in California is so disgusting and so upsetting and so depressing. I am trying hard not to allow my more base racist-ness come out of this, but I am very much aware of why Prop 8 passed, and I am very resentful for this. Gays were some of Obama's biggest supporters, working hard and voting to elect a black man (who, while being the most Gay positive candidate for president ever, did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to fight prop 8), but it was the black population of California (whose turnout was extra high because of Obama) who tipped the balance to enshrine discimination into the constitution of the nation's most populace country. Everyone is aware of this. Even Andrew and Savage have commented on this. It just seems to me that a community that just so recently endured and still today endures its own civil rights struggle would recognize the struggle of another, even small group. But I guess not. So go eff yourselves.
That's the sentiment that is inside me. I know its not healthy, but the Id is strong. Whites voted down prop 8. Latinos and Asians went about 50-50. Blacks went 70-30 to pass prop 8. So, again, go eff yourselves.
I saw a photo of a guy at a big protest last night wearing a t-shite on which he had written, "we're still here, we're still queer, so go fuck yourselves" hah.
This battle will be won. Soon it will be won in Vermont, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The Northeast will be the only part of the country that believes in equality. But from there it will expand. and Bigots will lose. My optimism is not wavering, but I am dismayed. And I am further dismayed by discussions at work with older guys who just don't seem to care. They don't care! They have no expectation of equality. They do not demand equality. They have so internalized society's homophobic sentiments that one even asked, "would you want to marry a man? I wouldn't." That is a problem. That is the problem that full marriage equality nationwide will solve. This man has no self-esteem, he sees himself as lesser than others, and he does not expect to be treated well. So sad.
This fight will be won, but I cannot deny strong resentments within my Id that are directed firmly at that minority group who would vote to strip the rights of another minority. So disgusting.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Where I stand
Election day is only three days away. I will vote as follows:
President = Obama/Biden
Delaware Senate = Joe Biden
Delaware House = Karen Hartley-Nagle (though she doesn't impress me much)
Delaware Governor = Jack Markell
Delaware Lieutenant Governor = Matt Denn
If I lived in Massachusetts I would vote on the ballot measures as follows:
Question 1 (Repealing the state income tax) = NO
Question 2 (Decriminalization of the possession of marijuana) = YES
Question 3 (Banning of dog racing) = YES
If I lived in California I would vote as follows:
NO on Proposition 8
We're buying champagne for Tuesday night. I hope we will need it!!!
UPDATE: If I lived in Oregon, I'd have to think really hard about voting for Gordon Smith. He's a good Republican, and I feel bad for him. He wouldn't be losing if not for the Bush backlash, and he has been heroic on many issues. Good luck Gordon.
President = Obama/Biden
Delaware Senate = Joe Biden
Delaware House = Karen Hartley-Nagle (though she doesn't impress me much)
Delaware Governor = Jack Markell
Delaware Lieutenant Governor = Matt Denn
If I lived in Massachusetts I would vote on the ballot measures as follows:
Question 1 (Repealing the state income tax) = NO
Question 2 (Decriminalization of the possession of marijuana) = YES
Question 3 (Banning of dog racing) = YES
If I lived in California I would vote as follows:
NO on Proposition 8
We're buying champagne for Tuesday night. I hope we will need it!!!
UPDATE: If I lived in Oregon, I'd have to think really hard about voting for Gordon Smith. He's a good Republican, and I feel bad for him. He wouldn't be losing if not for the Bush backlash, and he has been heroic on many issues. Good luck Gordon.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Landslide
I have been predicting a landslide for many months now. Unfortunately I have not documented it here, but those of you to whom I have spoken will remember my saying that this election would result in a landslide. I am nervous about writing this here, fearing jinxing it, but I'd like to make it public now. It seems a little less risky to say it given the recent polling and the outcome of the first debate. So here goes nothing:
Obama will win in a landslide. He will win all of the expected states, and he will also win Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, possibly West Virginia, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and there is some chance that he'll win Missouri.
So that's that. Blame me if it's jinxed.
Oh, and has anyone else wondered whether John McCain has had a stroke? He just seems incoherent and crazy. Perhaps that's how he has always been, but it seems like a bit of a personality change to me.
UPDATE. According to 270towin, my predicted outcome would result in a 375-163 electoral college win for Obama
Obama will win in a landslide. He will win all of the expected states, and he will also win Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, possibly West Virginia, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and there is some chance that he'll win Missouri.
So that's that. Blame me if it's jinxed.
Oh, and has anyone else wondered whether John McCain has had a stroke? He just seems incoherent and crazy. Perhaps that's how he has always been, but it seems like a bit of a personality change to me.
UPDATE. According to 270towin, my predicted outcome would result in a 375-163 electoral college win for Obama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)