Possible Election Outcomes and What Happens if there is a Tie??

Tuesday is coming! Tuesday is coming!

And finally all of the political ads and polling calls will end!! YEAH!!!

Real Clear Politics (and several other outlets) have some useful tools for creating your own electoral results map. My best guess for the electoral college is below.I scrolled my page so that I couldn't see the electoral count total at the top, so I wouldn't be tempted to swing a state one way or the other to make my candidate win.  I was very surprised by the total number in the end. I didn't realize a tie was a possibility in the electoral college!

(I created my own electoral map on Real Clear Politics.)
Any time there was a 2 or 3 point spread, I gave it to the higher party. If there was only a 0-2 point spread I gave it to the underdog, IF and only if the chart shows an upward trend in recent weeks for the underdog. The only 2 states I really don't think anyone can call are Virginia and Colorado. I gave both to Romney using my underdog trending upward theory. And because you don't see a lot of Obama supporters in my town. I also called Nevada for Romney based on the fact that in the past it has gone Republican, except in 2008.

So what happens if there is a tie at the electoral college? Some fascinating stuff I tell you. And a strong scenario for a Romney-Biden administration.
Say what?
Oh yes.
Time for a lesson on the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the Electoral College, and the calendar that will blow your mind.
We vote on November 6.
Sometime between Nov 6 and Dec 11 the electoral representatives gather with their states to formally declare that their state will be voting a certain way.
(Ahem, people are already raising the Ron Paul disruption flag here. I have no desire to address that right now. Maybe I will if and when there really is a tie.)
The electoral college will be held on December 17th. The votes are cast, but not counted.
The votes are formally counted on January 6.
NOTE- The new 113th Congress will swear-in on January 3rd!
Therefore it is the NEW House of Representatives that counts the votes for president. The new Senate counts the votes for VP. If there is a tie, the 12th Amendment declares that the House then gets to vote and decide who will be the president. And the Senate will vote on who gets the VP seat.
SIGNIFICANT DETAIL- The new House is expected to go overwhelmingly GOP. But the Senate is still a toss up!
And because our Founding Fathers never really cared for a majority of the popular vote of anything, the winner must win with a 2/3rds majority! And the Senate will most likely be 50/50!
Who casts the deciding vote when the Senate is all tied up?
The vice president!
You know, VP Biden.
Yes, it is possible that he would then have to cast the deciding vote for the VP. Does he vote for himself or Paul Ryan in that scenario??
Another interesting conundrum- if you are the newly elected congressperson, and you are a Republican, but your district voted for Obama for president, who do you vote for in your first ever chance to vote in the House? Your party or your people???

(Source: An Electoral College Tie Would Be an Hilarious Disaster, Huffington Post)

Now, another suggestion from my polluted late-night mind-

Sadly, we all know that New York has been suffered a lot of devastation from Hurricane Sandy. Much of the 5 boroughs are still under water and without electricity. This is likely to effect voter turnout. They are already talking about consolidating precincts (and when people don't know where to go vote they don't turn out), and how many precincts have no power.
New York is firmly in the blue right now. Obama has a 26% lead over Romney.
BUT! If voter turnout is low in the boroughs, could the rest of the state sway the overall vote?
Take a look at these older maps-

The top map is Bush/Kerry, the bottom is Obama/McCain. Both times the state went for the Democrat. But look at how much of the state is actually red! Personally I feel that the Bush/Kerry models are more accurate than the Obama/McCain models because McCain never had the support that Romney does now.
In my humble opinion, without the boroughs New York is in play. The overall vote is more important than the county results. And if few people turn out to vote in the boroughs, that can really sway things.

FACT CHECK- I am fairly certain that I am right about overall vote versus county results. I have heard that this is not the case in all states. I can't find any information to indicate I am wrong about New York.

If you pull New York out of the "strong Obama" category and move it to "leaning Romney" you really have a toss up scenario.

One more detail to note- New York has a little known law that allows them to hold a second voting day in case of a natural disaster!

(In all fairness, I applied this same logic to New Jersey which was also hard hit by the storm. However, the state overall is fairly split blue and red, but no one side of the state is more red or blue.) 

Here are a few more maps and the way these major publications are calling it-

CNN electoral map with toss-ups Obama 237, Romney 206. 

NY Times with toss-ups., Obama 243, Romney 206. The major difference between NYT and CNN is NYT is calling Nevada for Obama. 

Real Clear Politics with no toss-ups. Obama 290, Romney 248. 

All 3 publications are calling Nevada for Obama. I personally think this is a mistake. Nevada is currently Obama 50, Romney 47.3. Romney has never had the lead in Nevada, but he is on an upward trend there. I think that is a good sign he could catch up and win. And I have a hard time believing that in the end the Mormons won't come out and really win it for him. That is the only state I truly disagree with the polls on. I really do thing the rest of the toss up states are unpredictable at this point.

And more than anything, I think there is little to no chance of this election actually getting settled and answered on Tuesday night.

Are We Controlled by History and Weather?

Are we a country trapped and held back by its own history?

Be patient with me as I work my thoughts out here. I'm learning as I type. 

The most powerful and largest cities in the world are also some of the oldest. The worldwide centers of power continue to reside in their historic birthplaces. And as I look over pictures of of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in Washington, DC and New York City, I can't help but wonder if it is unwise for such important businesses and agencies to be housed in geographically precipitous areas? 

Centers of power are located not in the area most protected or beneficial. They are located where history grew them- which means they are centered around archaic trade routes, usually based on ocean or maritime trade. (New York, London, Hong Kong, Chicago, etc.) Most major cities were built around rivers and wind trade routes. As the major ports of commerce, it made sense back then. No major cities were built in their locations because they were centrally located to the nation, in a well-protected (easy to defend) spot, or in an "elementally" wise area (unlikely to be hit by hurricanes, earthquakes, and crippling snowstorms). In fact, most major cities, because of their maritime roots, were built in the worst locations possible for weather problems. 

Why haven't any major countries moved their center of power to a more modern, wiser location? I realize it would require a massive and costly change of infrastructure, not to mention overcoming public sentiment and attachment. But with all of our modern technologies and abilities it seems strange to me we have not relocated seats of government and centers of economic strength to more prudent location. 

The New York Stock Exchange has been closed for two days. Think about the fiscal impact that has around the world. Weather is controlling the economy. Wouldn't it be smarter to locate such an important financial institution in a more habitable clime? 

To me it seems strange that since we have the ability to relocate the most important parts of our infrastructure to more reasonable, safer locations, that we have not yet begun to do so. 

Not to mention the national security factors! Wouldn't the seat of government be safer not on a seaboard and instead in the center of the country? Or shouldn't the government and financial headquarters be in areas less likely to be affected by severe weather? 

We have NORAD, and most data happens online, and is (in theory) appropriately backed up so as to prevent irreversible losses. But it still just seems to me that it would be wise to move power centers to more modern and technologically wise locations that aren't historically rooted in maritime trade. 

As I think it through though, I'm not even really sure where in the U.S. more prudent locations would be. The center of the country- St Louis, Kansas City - comes to mind, but they are very prone to severe weather. San Diego and Phoenix seem to be two of the least weather affected locations in the U.S.. But then, San Diego is also a beneficiary of maritime winds and trade. (Ooh, but more food for thought- how different would the war on drugs be if the government were located that close to the border??) Also, it isn't central enough or secure enough (earthquakes). The more I think about it there is only one state that really comes to mind for not having severe weather. It isn't incredibly central, but it is landlocked, and would have good natural defenses for security purposes. I've never heard of major snowstorms, earthquakes, tornadoes, or hurricanes affecting this region. It has no existing infrastructure though. 

So my question to you is this- if you were given the terra firma of the United States, with natural resources intact, as a blank slate to build from the ground up, where would you put your government, military, and financial seats of power? 

(I'll put my spots in the comments below.)

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Don't Super Size New York City

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed an amendment to the city health code to prohibit the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants and other locations in the city.
The amendment would prohibit food service establishments from  selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. It would apply to restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums or arenas, the administration said. Sixteen ounces is larger than most soda cans but smaller than most soda bottles.
A sugary drink is defined as any beverage sweetened with sugar or another caloric sweetener that contains more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces and contains less than 51% milk or milk substitute by volume as an ingredient.
For example, according to the administration, a diet soda, a milk shake or sweetened latte that is larger than 16 ounces wouldn't be banned.
(Source: New York City Plans to Restrict Big-Size Soda Sales, Wall Street Journal)
This proposed amendment could set some very interesting precedents. NYC was one of the first places to require that food service establishments list the calorie content in a visible and obvious manner on all menus. That practice is not yet wide-spread nationwide, but has become more common.
I remember my first trip to NYC after the calories on the menus was implemented. I went into a Starbucks to get a spiced apple cider. I love those things. When I looked up and saw there are 228 calories in the small "Tall" size, it stopped me dead in my tracks. A regular size apple juice has about half that many calories, and considerably less sugar. I bought the apple juice instead of the cider.
I'm not a New Yorker, nor do I ever intend to become one. I have no doubt that if I lived in the city when the calorie law was up for discussion that I would have opposed it. It would have/did put an unfair cost on businesses, and it doesn't have a quantifiable, measurable results or effect.
This new proposed amendment is very similar. It does not take away anyone's right to choose, or to buy a drink. The thirsty and caffeine addicted people of the world can still drink as much as they want to. They will just have to buy more than one cup to do it.
No one hates "nanny-state" government more than I do. I despise government interference and regulation. Therefore, I am naturally and initially opposed to this amendment. However, I think back to my experience in the Starbucks and it gives me a reason to think twice- and that is the point here. Consumers would still have the ability to choose how much they want to drink. But they will be forced to think twice before they do.
I actually can't think of a downside to this amendment. Sure, it would be a hassle, but it would be good for people in the end.
But, I am and always will be, against government over-regulation. So I just can't get behind this proposal.
The reason this amendment should be more than just a passing interest story to the country is that New York tends to be very influential on the rest of the nation. People do need to sit up and pay attention to this one. This is definitely the sort of issue that could start in a harmless manner in one town (like the calories on the menu), and end up with a much more intrusive regulation in another city down the road.

Hat Trick Romney! So now what?

Mitt Romney waves to supporters in Wisconsin. Linked to source: newsobserver.com

Mitt Romney made a clean sweep last night and won in Maryland, DC, and Wisconsin for a grand total of ---

Romney 654
Santorum 270
Gingrich 137
Paul 71

So now what?
Will his challengers go quietly into the night?
Of course not.
Next up we have Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum's sort of stomping grounds. He was their Senator and Congressman for several terms, but really he lives in Virginia, and he was born in VA as well. It is also the state the soundly kicked his butt and didn't re-elect him in 2006.  But nonetheless, he ain't dropping out of this race until he's gone back to PA. In his "concession" speech last night he said we're at "half-time" in this race. If by half-time he means he now has less than half of the delegates Romney has, I guess that makes some sense.
So other than being Santorum's home state, what does Pennsylvania have to offer?
72 proportional delegates.
The primary is on April 24 along with Connecticut (28 proportional), Delaware (17 winner takes all), New York (95 proportional), and Rhode Island (19 proportional). Obviously, Pennsylvania isn't even the most profitable state that day, with NY on the calendar as well. The only reason it is a big deal is because it is Santorum's "home."
The PA polls are all over the place, thanks to super old data in them, but they do consistently show Santorum ahead.

click image to enlarge

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-pennsylvania-polls-showing-close-race-are-work-of-democratic-hack/2012/04/01/gIQA7yE2oS_blog.html

This second screen shot might be one of my favorite Santorum quotes ever. He's really showing his colors lately that when he doesn't like something someone says or does, he insults them. "...Democratic hack... has probably singularly gotten more polls wrong..."  And what was the hack's big offense? He only shows Santorum leading by 2 points. Heaven forbid. It's almost as if Santorum was winning in every single state, and the front runner, and suddenly somebody dared to say he has some competition.
Meanwhile, talking about really old data, check out the Real Clear Politics offerings for New York-

Click image to enlarge. Screen grab from Real Clear Politics.

Yes, that would be data from nearly a full year ago in the mix. And the most recent data is from February. So yeah, that's not too helpful either. And things aren't much more useful for CT and DE polling either.