A lot of people have been asking me what's going to happen, whether Hillary has a chance. I find it difficult to refuse any opportunity to pontificate, but this time an illustration does the job:
Image courtesy of pollster.com. Weighs about a kilowordage.
Quite separately, what do I hope will happen? I quite like old Hillary, and there's a part of my brain that's clamouring for the mercy rule. She doesn't deserve to slog out a hopeless cause, so a quick kill would be a great relief. That happens if Obama takes OH and TX, which I think he will.
The moderate in me favours the scenario where Hillary takes OH and RI, but not TX or VT. That pushes the contest forward, though the result is effectively certain — see Figure 1.
But of course I'm a hopeless radical, and therefore I'm unable to resist the longshot scenario where HRC takes OH by 5, and TX by 1 or 2 (with RI giving her a treble; tiny VT being out of the question). Because while things are starting to get vicious, this contest is only working in the Democratic Party's favour. Nobody gives a shit what John Mac is doing right now — there's a great festival of health care and informed foreign policy debate going on. Would that it might continue.
Last night I dreamed the sun went out. All over the world, and in the town where I was, we sat and absorbed the news. Observable and scientific ramifications slowly dawned on us. It was about to get very, very cold. The stars were already incandescent, the moon was lost. Nothing could be grown ever again, and the atmosphere was already depleting. Soon, basic services -- electricity, gas -- would cease, as their operators grimly awaited the fate we all shared. The end was inexorably nigh.
The feeling was far worse than the fear of my own imminent death: the entire legacy of
humanity, everything I had loved and stood upon and striven towards, was suddenly abrogated. All things became pointless.
Our course was clear: we went to the pub, and drank our rapidly cooling beers in
the dark.
Well, today is my 30-and-one-half birthday, and next week I leave Australia's territorial waters for the first time. I'm spending 3 days on a junket in Austin, Texas for SXSW. Then I fly to JFK airport, New York — the city I've spent ten thousand words describing in variousessays — and check into the Chelsea Hotel (yes, that one) on March 10th for ten nights.
On St Paddy's Day, I'll be drinking and singing in Boston.
But the rest of it? I haven't really planned anything. Being a free software advocate, I thought I might try open-sourcing my New York itinerary. Where should I go? What should I do?
I know this blog doesn't have a huge readership anymore, so this exercise might be a flop. But if you could, help me fill in the blanks. I probably need to finalise this by Saturday.
The plan so far:
Mar 10: Texas to NYC.
Mar 11:
Mar 12:
Mar 13:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 16:
Mar 17: Lucky Star bus to Boston, 7am, St Paddy's Day (drinking venue suggestions welcomed)
Mar 18: Return to New York, 8am, and sleep
Mar 19:
Mar 20:
Mar 21: NYC to MEL.
Notes:
I'm there to see America, not prop up her economy. Let's keep this cheap.
Somebody get me the hell to Katz's for a pastrami on rye!
How did I do? Why thanks for asking! Click on the image below for a comparison — my prediction on the left, the apparent final result on the right.
I didn't see the caucus states of Alaska and Minnesota ending up in the Obama column. He might still get up in New Mexico, in which case I misjudged that too. In the other 20 states I picked the outcome, and occasionally nailed the margin. Massachusetts and Arizona were not as close as I imagined, and I under-estimated Obama's support in the predominantly caucusing Mountain region. That goes some way to explaining how I think Obama won the day in both states and delegates.
What about my other prediction though — that any win for Obama on delegates would be a famous victory? The US media has not yet tallied the delegate counts, and they might come up with marginally different numbers by factoring in the district-level results. But the verdict is already delivered: it's a draw. This is based largely on Clinton's solid numbers in Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, and I don't expect they'll revise it as the delegates are known. So I was wrong on this count. But that's good. The media has been hostile to Hillary's front-runner status, and this is a realignment that better reflects the reality of a race between two well-matched candidates.
With 15 hours until the first polls close in the States, these are my final predictions. About seven states have no reliable, recent polling data — in these cases I've tried to go on demographics and media/advertising exposure, but my numbers could be, you know, way out.
I've definitely factored in an Obama surge, expecting he will pick up a lot of the undecideds. So if you're looking for a way to contextualise my prediction, I would say it's slightly (but reasonably!) optimistic for Obama.
The two states to watch, I believe, are the ones where I've indicated a dead heat: Missouri and Arizona.
These states will report results well into the day, so if you're looking for early indications, watch the two eastern strongholds for Hillary: New York and New Jersey. (Update: actually, Missouri begins reporting at 12noon, and New York not til 1pm — so disregard the whole 'early' thing!) If Obama is a couple of points higher than my predictions after at least 30% of the vote is counted in these states, the surge is bigger than I expected, and he might well carry the day in delegates. If several points lower, the day is Hillary's — although how the US media will spin that is anyone's guess. She could win by anything up to 150 delegates and they might call it a photo-finish. Obama only needs one more delegate than Clinton for a famous victory.
My calculator for predicting the outcome of Tuesday's Democratic primaries is now available: Super Tuesday Calculator.
Play around with it. There's some good poll data available at Pollster.com. Send me your predictions (using the "Share" link) or leave them in the comments. I'll be posting mine here closer to the date.
I have a nerve ending somewhere, probably in my brain, that is hypersensitive to certain spellings and sayings. There's always a few on my hit-list. "Irregardless" is an evergreen, but several others are less clearly wrong and more a matter of taste. I am going to list a few in the hope that you might never subject me to them again.
begrudgingly: yes, it's a word according to some authorities. But just say "grudgingly", please.
quite the: as in, "I had quite the weekend". You know you sound like a dickhead.
I beg of you: no, just beg me. And get down on your goddamn knees.
dependant: (see also, independance, etc). Again, it's a word. But it's a noun, and only in British-English anyway. The noun you might be thinking of is "dependency". But usually you're looking for the adjective anyway.
I think that will do for now. We'll see how we go with those four.
(And though you might contend that I'm falling off the crest of the wave of change, I would counterpose that this is simply a proper crusade against a sub-trend of unintentional linguistic recidivism. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just telling you to stop.)
Patriotism often dismays me. Sometimes it angers me. There is also a thread of it I believe in, which holds out that our best hopes lie in the love of homeland. Belonging to something good means that we can venture out and do good, without the sanctimony of altruism. Rather than hide and shrink away, clutching at the skirts of our imagined betters.
I am no enemy of England. I love their losing streaks in sport, and their unparalleled capacity for good humour. But there won't be many times in my life I rejoice like the day Australia claims its place among equals in the game of nations.
And not because I'm suffering delusions that much will change. We'll still be a small country of 20-odd million people, confronted with challenges made no easier for our formal autonomy. Still I reckon this change in legal status will lend wind to our backs, let us aspire to something more than we've done so far. Our ability to influence the oscillations of our region will increase. Our debate, our art, our cogency, our empathy — each of these things will gain room to emerge from their chrysales. Not immediately: imperceptibly, but significantly.
This is the core of my politics. The rest is padding.
I wonder if that's why I'm so moved when I listen to Barack Obama. I sat on the fence for a long time, but perhaps a few weeks ago it occurred to me that I'd never heard a politician so clearly articulate my standpoint. It is one thing, and an important thing, for politicians and bureaucrats to take action and get things done on our behalf. That's much of the reason we take time to elect them. But it's another and better thing to have a figurehead with a vision, who can put fire in the bellies of a nation, and by raising their spirits give the people room act in their combined best interests.
It's easy enough to believe in a promise. For those of us inured to modern politics, it's even easier to suspect a dissemblance. That's good and proper, but this time I think the former is the better route. Now's your chance, Americans. Yes you can.
Some people say I should give up my bachelor lifestyle. You know, lock in the good thing I got, embrace the bliss of co-location, sink my money in a mortgage, get with the procreation program. But from here, on this buzzing summer evening with only an imported beer and some badly deformed papadums to interrupt my quiet reverie? Those folks seem more loco than ever.
