A Prediction: Obama 353, McCain 185

For the heck of it, a prediction for today…

McCain Likely Wins:

• Alabama [9]
• Alaska [3]
• Arizona [10] (though in a closer race than expected)
• Arkansas [6]
• Georgia [15] (also in a close race, with high African American turnout)
• Idaho [4]
• Kansas [6]
• Kentucky [8] (with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell winning, too, but barely)
• Louisiana [9]
• Mississippi [6] (though African American turnout will be high here, too)
• Montana [3]
• Nebraska [5] (all five votes including the Omaha district; Obama will come close but not win it)
• North Dakota [3]
• Oklahoma [7] (sadly, Jim Inhofe will also win re-election against a good young candidate in Andrew Rice)
• South Carolina [8] (though here, too, African American turnout will make the race closer than expected)
• South Dakota [3]
• Tennessee [11]
• Texas [34]
• Utah [5]
• West Virginia [5]
• Wyoming [3]

Obama Likely Wins:

• California [55]
• Colorado [9] (a pickup for the Democrats this time around)
• Connecticut [7]
• Delaware [3]
• District of Columbia [3]
• Hawaii [4]
• Illinois [21]
• Iowa [7]
• Maine [4]
• Maryland [10]
• Massachusetts [12]
• Michigan [17] (wasn’t the race even here in early October?)
• Minnesota [10] (and here, too?)
• Nevada [5]
• New Hampshire [4]
• New Jersey [15]
• New Mexico [5]
• New York [31]
• Oregon [7]
• Rhode Island [4]
• Vermont [3]
• Washington [11]
• Wisconsin [10] (and also here?)

At this point, Obama has 257 and McCain has 163 electoral votes, not counting (what many perceive to be) the seven probable tossup states (Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). Here’s how I think these seven will pan out:

1. Florida: The media has been reporting for weeks that Obama’s GOTV operation there is strong (as it is nationwide), and likely stronger than McCain’s. Economic trouble has hit Florida as hard or harder than anywhere else (see, for example: hundreds of thousands of brand new but unoccupied condos spanning the coastline from Tampa to Miami, daily racking up debt). The Latino vote there has begun to move, too. Republicans will likely lose their 2004 hold on the Latino vote nationwide, and people will point to south Florida (particularly Miami) as a case study. Obama wins it, barely, 51-49.
2. Indiana: Having spent a summer a few years back (which, yes, isn’t that much time) traversing Indiana, I’ll venture a guess that it will likely go McCain’s way. The polling puts the race there as a tie, and yes, the economy is bad enough that there have been the awkward but promising signs there–literally, in people’s yards–of “Rednecks [voting] for Obama,” but the demographic layout of the state, I think, hasn’t yet changed in the way other states this cycle have. Indiana remains a heavily rural state, save for Indianapolis. Really, all the college towns like Evansville, Anderson, and West Lafayette don’t even count as truly urban, even though they are where Obama will get his votes outside of Indy. But Obama will make it close by picking off some of those votes in the rural areas, simply because of the mood of the country this time around. McCain wins, 52-48.
3. Missouri: For the first time in a long time, I think Missouri will go with the candidate who will lose the election. Save for St. Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia, Missouri leans Republican. To win as a Democrat, you have to at least be somewhat conservative or be seen as center-right (see: Claire McCaskill circa 2006). I think both McCain and Palin campaigning there multiple times in the final three weeks means they know it is close, that they are in the lead, and that they’ve absolutely got to win it. And I think they do, though it won’t help in the long run. McCain, 51-49.
4. North Carolina: My home state. Hasn’t gone Democratic in a Presidential year since Carter in ‘76. I think this will be the first year it does, though some polls still have Obama behind but within the margin of error. African American turnout has been (for early voting), and will be, high. Obama will win the big urban areas (i.e., the Triangle, the Triad, and Metrolina/Charlotte). The only real question will be, I think, at the east and west extremities of the state. Can Obama win Fayetteville, and make inroads going east toward the coast where it’s fairly rural save for Wilmington and Greenville? And can he make inroads west of the foothills in cities like Boone, Hickory, and Asheville? I think he does, though he may not win those areas outright. And thus in the end, he does just enough to win the state by somewhere around 125,000 votes, 50.5-49.5. In down ballot races: Hagan and Perdue win, though Perdue only narrowly after a late charge these past two weeks from McCrory, by having done enough to cut into McCrory’s advantage around Charlotte while also winning the rural extremities of the state. And Larry Kissell will beat Robin Hayes in District 8 this time around, too. And, though it may be too close to call, one can only hope that coach Roy Carter will pull the upset and send Virginia Fox packing in District 5 up here in the Dash.
5. Ohio: This is the one state, I think, where the Republican GOTV machine has kept pace with that of the Democrats, though Obama’s approach to such an operation this time around (i.e., bringing in principles of community organizing) is revolutionary and has given him a natural advantage over McCain no matter the specific state. Another close race, but I think this time Obama wins it, not in the least because this time thousands of voters (both minority and Democratic) in urban areas like Columbus and Cincinnati–people who were wrongfully disenfranchised by Republican precinct managers four years ago–will get the opportunity to finally cast a ballot, because the Democrats aren’t backing down and have rightfully won a few court cases to make sure all voting rules are adhered to without manipulation. Obama, 52-48.
6. Pennsylvania: I don’t know why McCain kept coming to Pennsylvania these past few weeks. Forget his campaign’s internal polls. Everyone–and I mean everyone–has had, for a few weeks now, Obama up by everything from 3-5 points to 10-15 points. Yes, Pennsylvania is very, very rural outside of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and other (small) cities like Allentown. And McCain, I think, very well may make it close. And Ed Rendell has had panic attacks every few hours that Obama hasn’t been stumping there the last two weeks. But I think the Obama campaign knows what they are doing (particularly organizationally), and if they were that concerned, they would have definitely had Obama spend more physical time there. I think winning the urban and suburban areas will be enough for Obama to offset the losses he will have in the center, rural part of the state. Obama wins, 53-47.
7. Virginia: Not much to say here, except that I think Obama will win enough votes in “real America” (i.e., southwestern Virginia)–though he’ll still lose many of its districts to McCain overall–to net him the state as a whole, particularly with the high numbers Obama will get in northeast and eastern (i.e., urban, suburban, “not real America”) Virginia. Obama wins, 51-49.

So that’s how I see it shaping up. Overall, Obama wins the tossup states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virgina. McCain will hold Indiana and Missouri. Obama wins, then, 353-185.

Now watch me be wrong (but, hopefully, not too wrong). Obama ‘08!

[/political, Chuck Todd-like prognostications]

The Hard-Knock Life of an American Evangelical

As if there weren’t enough things about evangelical Christians that make it look like they’re living on a different planet than the rest of America, there’s this, a description of what Salon reporter Mike Madden experienced–and heard in conversation with congregants–after attending Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church on Sunday, the day after the nationally televised Civil Forum held there:

The church is in Orange County, still a pretty conservative place, and conversations with members this weekend left no doubt that McCain would win most of the congregants’ votes. Warren’s flock doesn’t seem particularly preoccupied with abortion or gay marriage, unlike the far-right Baptist churches of the South and the Midwest. But they like McCain, mostly because of secular concerns like taxes.

“We are one of those people that make over $250,000 a year, and I don’t agree that that makes us rich,” said Melinda Sacks, who runs her husband’s law office in San Clemente, referring to Obama’s answer at the forum that put her in the “wealthy” category. “Even with that kind of income, we struggle to pay everything we have gotten ourselves into.”

What a great statement by Sacks. That Christian humility just shines right on through. Sacks helps her husband run a law office in California and they make $250,000 a year, yet that doesn’t make them “rich” because even at that income level they still “struggle to pay everything” that they’ve gotten themselves into.

It seems beyond words that someone making $250,000 a year–and particularly an evangelical, who should (in theory) know better after reading those red-letter sections of their New Testament–would, with a straight face, try to claim they are not part of the financially well-off (or, one might say, “elite”) in America. A quick breakdown in graph form by Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, put together particularly in response to McCain’s incomprehensible statement at the Forum that “rich” in America is having $5 million or more, helps to illustrate this:

As one can see, Obama’s definition of who is “rich” in America is quite, well, logical and reasonable.  McCain’s, clearly, is beyond absurd, and a cover for what he really wants to do as President, which is make sure his big business and oil company friends continue to get Bush’s lucrative tax breaks that they’ve had for for the past few years (and, one could say, since at least the 1970s and the global emergence of multinational corporations). Mrs. Sacks and her husband, making $250,000 a year, fall squarely in the top five percent–and really, more like top three percent–of Americans in terms of how much bacon they’re bringing home each twelve months. In light of this, Mrs. Sacks’ comment reveals, at the least, an ignorance of and cultural disconnect from what the rest of (middle income) America is living like.

But it’s not only Sacks’ seeming ignorance that most stands out. It’s her frank admission that she and her husband “struggle to pay everything [they've] gotten themselves into.” Now, granted, living in California–and particularly Orange County–isn’t a walk in the park financially. But Mrs. Sacks and her husband run a law practice. Last time I checked, lawyers are some of the best paid professionals in America, and most have the ability to live very secure lives financially. No matter what state they live in, if they play their cards right, they aren’t going to be “struggling to get by” like the majority of individuals or families whose total income falls below the $100,000 mark might be. Even at firms in small towns, they’re some of the wealthiest people around.

Now, this isn’t meant as a hit-job on the profession of law. But clearly, Mrs. Sacks has some issues to deal with here. The fact that she and her husband “struggle” at the income level they’re at reveals a lot about what kind of people they are. If you “struggle” to pay bills and reach financial sustainability at $250 grand, then it’s time you stop paying that $600 a month bill to the local Mercedes dealership and that other $500 for the Lexus, and that $350 every time you get the urge to buy another pair of Coco Chanel’s shoes. Put simply, there is no logical reason that Mrs. Sacks and her husband, at $250,000 a year, should not be able to live sustainably, and even end up with money to spare. The fact that they can’t do so highlights what has become typical of many Americans: living lives beyond one’s means while lacking the financial intelligence that would otherwise alert you to your folly or–as it seems in the case of the Sacks household–doing so even while knowing (and thus, not giving up or cutting back on) all that you’ve “gotten yourself into.”

What tops all this audacity off, sadly, is that Mrs. Sacks is an evangelical Christian. If it were a random person on the street, one might dismiss their commentary as coming from just another self-centered jerk. But a random person Sacks is not. Evangelical Christians in America already have enough of a stereotype–though it’s a well-deserved one–to overcome: biblicist, anti-intellectual, illogical, uninformed about current events (which, granted, mirrors many Americans in general) and, most importantly, spiritually individualistic and self-centered, which can be traced back to the Puritan and revivalistic heritage of Protestant Christianity in American life. They’re the kind of people who illustrate more than any other what it means to consume–gas to take their five-kid families in Suburbans to soccer and ballet, processed food for their church BBQ missions fundraisers, building materials for their super-size sanctuary additions–in inordinately large quantities, while their time to “give back” is a week of their youth building houses during the summer in Mexico that’s topped off by a post-building trip to Cancun. Their sermons deal with how they as individuals can have a more intimate relationship with God, as the relationship is seemingly always on the rocks because of their inability to control their innate infidelity. Their songs talk about what God means to/does for/is/will always be for them.

And once again, according to Mrs. Sacks, it’s about her (with the irony being that her own pastor wrote a book about five years ago whose first statement proclaimed that it wasn’t all about her) and her inability to pay for a life which, seemingly, God had blessed her with more than enough ability to pay for–if it hadn’t been for probably getting a little greedy for the top-dollar goods along the way. That line from an evangelical worship tune about how all of God is “more than enough” (minus, again, the self-referential response “for all of me”) somehow seems suddenly appropriate.

Michael Gerson: Barry Lynn, “Professional Secularist”

To the left is Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, known primarily as the principal speechwriter for President Bush. Among his other notables, Gerson is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a contributor to the newsmagazine Newsweek.

Gerson posted an article yesterday in the politics and religion section of Newsweek entitled “Democrats and Faith.” In it, he basically argues that presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s problem with voters, concerning issues like his newly unveiled program that would provide government subsidies for faith-based organizations’ work that is non-religious in nature–similar, but as his advisors note, distinctly new and different from that of President Bush–is not with religious voters.

Obama’s problem with the program–and an increasingly larger problem with his campaign–Gerson notes, is instead with those voters who subscribe to what he calls “orthodox secularism—a belief that government funds should never benefit religious groups, even in the provision of secular social services.” This voter is, furthermore, what Gerson calls “the anti-fundamentalist,” and makes up a group of voters within the Democratic party that (according to some) now rivals organized labor in size.

The conclusion of Gerson’s piece, as is obvious from his political and religious leanings, is favorable toward Obama’s new faith-based initiative. (Characterizing Obama and the program he unveiled with the phrase “morally rooted,” along with implicitly mentioning Bush’s program as a natural predecessor from which Obama “adopted the best” of its strategies and made them “[his] own,” tends to reveal Gerson’s perspective.)

What most sticks out in the piece, however, is Gerson’s hasty characterization of Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as a “professional secularist.” Frankly, neither of those words particularly fit as a description for Lynn. Nor do they even come close to doing so. Most notably, “secularist” is an interesting word to choose to describe a man like Lynn, who is himself an ordained United Church of Christ (UCC) minister.

Indeed, “secularist” is instead, as is commonly recognized today, a word usually reserved to describe those of a non-religious, rather than religious, persuasion. This is not only a poor, but patently misleading, choice of words to describe Lynn. Especially when paired with the adjective “professional” which, taken in context in its modification of “secularist,” seems to only serve as a word chosen and used by Gerson in an intentionally but yet subtly derisive–and ultimately unneeded–manner, to describe a man with whom he likely already has basic disagreements as it pertains to faith’s role in the public square.

Regardless of whether what Gerson wrote was a commentary or actually supposed to be a moderately objective piece of reporting (and it seems to waltz back and forth across that line, as with most material published by Newsweek, Time, US News, and the like), the characterization of Lynn was out of line–primarily because it is a blatant misrepresentation of not only Lynn but also Americans United that masquerades, instead, like an accurate one. If Gerson would have simply done a thirty-second Wikipedia search (or, even better, visited the “About” section of AU’s website), he would have found out that it’s actually an organization founded by (and still today made up largely of) Protestants, not “secularists,” in 1947, who were themselves afraid of Catholics (like Al Smith in the 1928 election) taking over various levels of the federal government (particularly the Presidency) and instituting a theocracy.

Gerson, as is clear with his commentary yesterday, represents what has always been a large problem in the media: its coverage of religion. Religion gets covered for its political implications, most importantly. If it gets covered by someone with biases like Gerson who doesn’t try in the least to check them at the door, then people get drastically misrepresented as to who they are and what they stand for. And if not concerning how it affects election turnout, religion gets covered for nothing but its human interest entertainment quality–non-religious journalists who have little to no previous knowledge of any religious faith, like Sally Quinn (also at the Post), get paid to write (and ask others to write, as is the case with its On Faith forum) about how they individually “feel” about certain religious traditions, but not in a way that educates and informs in a manner where actual respect for those various religions (and the way they affect culture and current events) is gained though learning about their history or beliefs with any depth. Miseducation and misinformation about religion–not just Christianity, but Judaism and especially Islam–is furthered, rather than corrected. (Most media outlets, for example, still describe the Catholic conception of the Eucharist as a “symbol,” which is just plain wrong. Somewhere, someone should be able to get in a sentence about what “transubstantiation” means, and that it doesn’t mean the elements are simply a “symbol.”) Until journalists actually begin to educate themselves about religion, educating readers will still be a far-off hope.