[presidential election] state by state guide and candidates

Clicking on the map above will take you to an interactive map on the election site and is the most comprehensive and succinct guide I've seen on the net so far. When you are in there, hover your cursor over the state and it will do the rest.

Karl Denninger, through whom I found this map, says:

The count for McCain (all red-shaded states) is 185. To win he must flip all of the blue-bordered and light blue states. If he misses any of them - any - he loses. Flipping all of them gets McCain 274 EVs, but the lowest-count state in the game here is worth 5 EVs (Nevada), which means there are no losses that can be sustained. Further, if he loses just one of the "barely republican" states other than Montana or North Dakota, nothing else matters.

The game is over John. While technically this race is winnable, were I a bookmaker I'd give you 20:1 odds against.

For a complete rundown of the candidates, you can't go past Wiki.

Karl Denninger is an astute American economist and all indicators are that he is right. However, there are so many unknowns, such as the anti-black factor, for example. Who is going to publicly say he won't vote for Obama because of race but what he does in the ballot booth is between the voter and that bit of paper.

People might also vote for John McCain for Sarah Palin - I imagine she'll soak up a lot of the women's votes, which are unrepresented really. There might also be a last minute gut reaction to Obama's inexperience, the too-slick way he's been railroaded through, slickness being an out of fashion idea just now in the light of Wall Street and the mortgage crisis.

I really feel that this one is down to the wire. I could well have egg on my face Wednesday morning after an Obama landslide and so I'll issue a pre-emptive apology now.

The two party system

Political commentators have long had concerns about the system:

Although the system has declined into a two-party system, the Constitution does not mandate a two-party system, nor does it limit political parties. In fact, it doesn't say anything about political parties at all. During the ratification, the Federalists and Republicans did debate and argue, but these two "parties" were not opposition parties, nor were they to truly develop into such until 1814.

James Madison, in Federalist Paper #10 argues against "factions," claiming that to ensure a fair democratic process such factions (politically parties) should be limited. Of course the anti-federalist's Clay reacted vehemently in Federalist Paper #11, claiming that limiting the liberty of citizens to form political factions violated the sprit of democracy, a point that Madison had already conceded.

The current dysfunctional, partisan, two-party system essentially creates an "either or fallacy" [and] has little to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with ideologues. Until a serious third party develops, the current false dilemma will be perpetuated, and the win-at-any-costs mantra will remain the common political strategy.

... and:

Most third parties also recommend taking back the public airways and granting media supported access to the public by all qualifying parties during an election cycle. That is the goal; giving the American people real choices at the voting booth. A government that is made up of multiple parties will diminish the concentration of power in the hands of a few political bosses over all the diverse people of this great land.

In the view of this blog, there is no true democracy any more in America, no real debate immediately prior to the ballot box - it's been a three card trick foisted on the voters for many generations. Americans need to get back to their constitution, the only document separating them from third world countries, politically. It is a fabulous document, for all its flaws and it is one which Americans will need to cling to tightly in the coming troubles, 2009-12.