Obama has better chance of beating McCain

According to the latest results by Survey USA, Barack Obama would beat John McCain by 22 electoral votes, while Hillary Clinton would only win by 14.

It is interesting to look at the two graphs linked above to see which states switch sides depending on who is nominated.

In my home state of Virginia, for instance, Obama has a very, very slim lead over McCain, but McCain would win big over Clinton.  This result makes sense to me as Virginia is a very educated state and educated voters flock to Obama by a much higher rate than the blue-collar loving Clinton.

Jersey, PA, WV, all would vote for McCain over Obama, but Clinton over McCain.  These are mostly Rust Belt states that are still pretty racist against a black candidate (as for NJ, its just a strange result and overall a close matchup either way).

My former home state of MI would back McCain over Clinton and Obama over McCain, which I can't really explain since it is similar in demographics to Ohio.

True to form, Obama does much better out west than Clinton, winning Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, and the midwestern states of North Dakota, and Iowa while Clinton would lose all of these.  She makes up for that by winning Florida and Arkansas (where her husband was governor).

This poll is out very early in the game, and after the democratic nominee is chosen it will likely change.  Right now a lot of Clinton supporters will tell a pollster they will vote for McCain just to prove their point, but if Obama was elected they would probably endorse him over George W Bush's third term.  

One conclusion that can be drawn from these polls is that Obama seems to have appeal over much more of the country geographically than Clinton does.  

CA Shuts down homeschools

In a government move that I happen to agree with, a California District court has basically said that home schooling is illegal, unless the parent has proper teaching credentials.  This ruling (which is being appealed) would affect over 100,00 students. 

 

While parents should definitely have options when it comes to teaching their children, when it is done in the home it will generally lead to academic and social problems.  When kids are home schooled they do not get to interact with other children and may have socialization problems later in life.  Furthermore, of the home schooled people I have known, they were at least 2-3 years behind their grade level in math and science.  Obviously, your mileage will vary in a home school.

 

The parents quoted in the article are scared that their children will be "exposed to teachings about evolution, homosexuality, same-sex marriage and sex education."  How scary!  A kid may actually learn about true science, as opposed to the BS in the family bible, which may be a fun story but is far, far from fact.  He or she will also learn techniques to prevent HIV infection, how horrible! 
 

I think that if a group of parents wants to start up a school (which could take place in a home) and come up with an adequate curriculum, home school could be a good thing, especially for kids who would have to attend some horrible public school.  But even in those cases, private schools are generally available.  The problem is that the parents cannot take the money out of the public school (which their taxes pay for) and use it to pay for private school tuition.  If this problem is fixed, I don't see a need for homeschools anymore, unless there are some very extreme circumstances.

Apply tech to politics

Here are two interesting websites that can help you figure out what's going on, both courtesy of Slate:

 

The first is a virtual "market" that allows you to trade the various candidates.  Higher prices indicate a higher likelihood of them winning.  While Hillary's stock is up, its only about 1/4 the value of Obama's.

http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/presidential/

 

The other is a tool to show you how mathematically impossible it is for Hillary to win:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

 

 

Last night's results

Clinton won: OH, TX (primary), and RI.

Obama won: VT and possibly the TX caucuses.

In general, she won the blue collar vote, the women, and the seniors.  He won college educated, younger people.  Race seems to have played a factor in Ohio, especially in the rural areas.

Clinton will gain 10-20 delegates but since she had trailed by over 100 prior to this mini Super Tuesday she would need large victories in the remaining states.  By my estimation, she will need to win each state on average 60%-40%, a very tough task.

If she cannot do this, Obama will end up with the lead in delegates going into the convention and I predict whoever has the lead at that point will win the nomination.

Election results part 2

Hillary really whipped Obama in Ohio as far as the popular vote goes, but it looks like a wash for the delegate counter when you factor in Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

I think tomorrow Clinton will be bragging about winning OH and possibly TX, but Obama will still be far ahead in the delegate count.

Cato is an organization I have supported in the past, a Libertarian thinktank.  They have an interesting article on why libertarians might want to support Obama, that you can find here.

Their bottom line is that if your main issues are: Iraq withdraw, civil liberties, taking religion out of government, and reducing enforcement of victimless crimes you should vote for him.  

The economics stance and the gun stance still bother me, but I think that the chances of him getting those types of things passed are close to nil.  The Supreme Court will rule on the 2nd amendment this summer, which will either restrict our gun rights or enforce them, which means that either way the president's position won't matter.

VT, RI, OH, and TX

Big news tonight: 

McCain locks up his nomination.  By far the worst Republican candidate of my lifetime thus far.  I'll vote for Obama (if he's nominated) just to make sure McCain loses.

Mike Huckabee is out.  No big loss.  I'd never have voted for someone as ignorant on him.  He would probably cut NASA to fund an expedition to find Noah's Ark.

More later as the democrat race pans out.  So far it doesn't seem that anyone won much.  Obama's huge victory in Vermont should cancel out Clinton's smaller victory in RI.

Good news for Lions fans

Brett Favre has now retired.

He hung on for a while, beating our team twice a year many, many times over. Hopefully Aaron Rodgers at QB = 2 easy wins for the Lions next year.

Is Global Warming Over?

Some people certainly think so.

My thoughts have always been that the temperatures fluctuate in cycles. We've had "little ice ages", "medieval warm periods", and right now we are just a bit warmer than average. I guess we'll see if this trend holds up.

Now, there's nothing wrong with cars that get better mileage, since that ultimately saves people money. But to say its good for the environment is dubious at best.

Social Engineering a Restaurant

I eat out often.  Probably about average for Americans, but in general I eat out at a sit-down restaurant at least once a week.  I also like to get a good deal, since restaurants have a huge markup on most food and especially drinks.

If nothing is done wrong for your meal, than you are an asshole for asking the manager for a discount, though it is very possible.  Here are certain situations where you can normally get a discount if you speak up.

1. You are billed for something you did not order.

2. There is more than a 5 minute gap between your food arriving and the rest of your party's food arriving.

3. Food is too cold or otherwise prepared incorrectly (well-done when you ordered medium rare).

4. Service takes much too long in general.

Once you've made up your mind that something has not been done to your satisfaction, here is what you need to do:

1. Tell the waitress you want to speak to the manager.  I have never had them tell me that he was busy or not available.

2. When the manager arrives, remain calm.

3. Tell him exactly what happened, and ask if there's anything he can do to help.

Its that simple.  After completing these steps, I've gotten free desserts, $50 gift cards, free meals, free drinks, etc.

Restaurants that are most vulnerable to this technique (and most likely to screw up) are those that have shared service.  Shared service is when a team serves you and you don't have a dedicated server.  So the person who takes your order does not necessarily serve your food.  You ask one person for a beer, another brings it out.  Lots of room to mess up.  

So speak up, and get a discount.

Consumer Reports Misses the Mark

Consumer Reports has ranked my truck, the FJ Cruiser, as the sixth worst car this year.  I want to address their summary as well as tell you why Consumer Reports is bullshit.  I am not just writing this entry because they dissed my car, I am very skeptical of their rating methodologies.  

Consumer Reports used to report mainly on quality/reliability.  Interestingly enough, they say that reliability does not factor into their ratings.  Say what?  So if a car is a complete piece of shit, they may still rate the car highly.  Is that helpful to consumers?  

I also noted two glaring issues with their rating of the FJ.  The first is that they claim it requires premium fuel.  This is not true: Toyota recommends premium fuel for optimal performance but says that anything 87 octane or above is fine.  Secondly they say that access is limited.  What we are talking about is a compact SUV that is good enough to have 2 suicide doors.  It works well to have an extra person or two in the back, and an adult will fit comfortably back there, but its not a minivan nor is it intended to be.

I noticed that most of the "worst cars" are SUVs, as well as one of the most popular cars around, the Toyota Yaris.  Maybe Consumer Reports has just lost its relevance.

Also, if you want the most up to date quality ratings, I recommend you visit True Delta: www.truedelta.com