Obama 15 votes, McCain 6 votes.
Dixville Notch has not voted Democratic in a presidential race since 1968.
A sign of things to come?
|
I have logged 15 polls since my last daily update but I just logged the first one that moved any state to a new category. A new Rasmussen poll moves the five poll average in Missouri (11 ev) back to the Obama side of the fence. The same caveat as usual, either way the state is too close to call. We’ll see when the actual results start coming in. But for now, a new status update. In order to show any sort of McCain win scenario, I’ve added a “SuperBest” scenario, where a candidate gets not only all of their strong and weak states, and all of the swing states, but also all of their opponent’s weak states. McCain can still win if he manages that. :-) Summary: McCain SuperBest: McCain 300, Obama 238 Current “everybody gets their leans”: Obama 349, McCain 189 Obama Best Case: Obama 406, McCain 132 (Note: For election day only, I’m logging polls as soon as I find them anywhere, even if they have not yet been logged at pollster.com.)
(via DCW) The first polls (other than Dixville Notch, which we should have results from in about an hour) close at 23:00 UTC. That is a little under 19 hours from now. Those are partial states though. The first moment entire states will be closed is 00:00 UTC. At that point Georgia (15 ev), Virginia (13 ev), Indiana (11 ev), Kentucky (8 ev), South Carolina (8 ev) and Vermont (3 ev) will be closed and the networks will start calling the ones that are not close, and will start showing preliminary results for the ones that are. At that hour, watch Georgia, Virginia and Indiana carefully. Between looking at how the three of them are going, we’ll probably have a good sense for how the rest of the night will go. Full text here. Basically adds disability and sexual orientation to the list of things that the County can’t discriminate against in hiring or contracting. I am generally opposed to laws that in any way whatsoever restrict who PRIVATE entities can hire or why they can hire them. That includes non-discrimination laws. I think private entities should be able to do whatever the hell they want, and if they make decisions in ways other than merit alone, they will suffer the economic consequences of that stupid choice. However, this is GOVERNMENTAL hiring and contracting. I very much think the government should be required to not discriminate on irrelevant attributes. If I was doing such, I would not give a list of things you can’t discriminate on, I would instead require that ONLY attributes directly relevant to the candidate (or contractor’s) ability to accomplish the tasks required of them for the position / assignment could be taken into account. (Of course, this would prohibit any and all forms of affirmative action as well, which would be a good thing.) This does not go that far. But I guess as long as you are going to have things on a list, it is OK for these things to be on the list too. My vote: YES That’s McCain’s win percentage in fivethirtyeight.com’s latest update. Those are the longest odds he has ever had in their tracking. That’s about a 1 in 50 chance of victory. That still isn’t impossible… but… Full text is here. This would convert the County Director of Elections from an appointed position to a non-partisan elected position. Absolutely not. This is silly. Policy making positions should be elected. Jobs like this should be appointed or hired through some other process. And really? Electing the Director of Elections? There is at least one election they won’t be impartial on no matter what you do. Bleh. My vote: NO The full text is here (pdf). Basically, this would require, in the words of the summary “long-term care workers to be certified as home care aides”. It basically establishes a set of education and training requirements and requires that these workers be registered by the state and licensed. I am fundamentally opposed at a very basic level to the government licensing ANYTHING. (And yes, that probably even includes drivers.) It is just plain none of the government’s business to keep track of such things, or to set requirements. This is not to say that it is not good for such workers to have training, background checks, etc. It is just to say that I do not believe this should be government’s job. There are various private solutions for this. Government does NOT need to be involved. It needs to be the responsibility of those hiring for these sorts of workers to check qualifications to whatever degree they deem necessary (or not). And of course government should be involved if there is fraud or mistreatment or the like. But making sure that workers get some sort of mandatory training and then providing a license and keeping a big registry of such people? No thanks. Much too big brother for me. There can also be plenty of room for private providers of certifications that would gain reputations and be looked for by those doing hiring. But such things need to be voluntary, not mandated by law… both for the person looking to do work, and the person or organization looking to hire them. Therefore, my vote here is: NO Therefore The full text is here (pdf). This is a basic death with dignity initiative, which would allow terminally ill patients, with a number of safeguards, to request and receive lethal prescriptions to allow them to end their lives. I read through the entire text, and the statements for and against. I believe more than enough safeguards are present here and that this is a good change. Fundamentally, the choice to end one’s life should always be available to those who wish it. If I was in charge, I’d go even further and probably not even restrict it as much as it is restricted. But this is good and reasonable, and if I am ever in that sort of situation, I would certainly want to have that sort of choice available to me. I’m not by any means sure what I would choose, but I certainly would not want the law to say that anybody helping me in that situation was a felon, which is what the law says today. Thus, my vote is: YES |
||
