What are the Key Factors for Victory in the 2008 Presidential Election?

[Gokul43201]

Last Update before the end of the Democratic Primary.

Electoral maps (Obama/McCain):

                     AGGREGATES OF CURRENT POLLS                 |     PROJECTIONS
                                                                 |
Date      RCP1     RCP2     CNN   Elec-Vote  USAtlas-A  Pollster | Elec-Proj  USAtlas-P   
                                                                 |   
06/06   228/190                    287/227                       |  293/245
06/15   238/190                    304/221                       |  304/234      
06/21   238/163  289/249  211/194  317/194    271/191            |  349/189    298/240
06/26   238/163  317/221  211/194  317/194    288/180            |  338/200    298/240 
07/01   238/163  304/234  231/194  317/221    268/180            |  338/200    293/245 
07/06   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/218    268/177            |  338/200    293/245
07/11   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/215    268/188            |  306/232    293/245
07/16   255/163  304/234  231/194  320/204    268/177            |  311/227    293/245
07/21   255/163  322/216  231/194  312/199    268/172   293/214  |  298/240    293/245
07/26   238/163  322/216  221/189  292/195    264/175   284/147  |  338/200    298/240
08/11   238/163  322/216  221/189  289/236    264/202   284/157  |  298/240    293/245
08/21   228/174  264/274  221/189  264/261    264/210   260/191  |  264/274    293/245
08/26   228/174  273/265  221/189  273/252    259/210   260/176  |  273/265    293/245
                                                                 |

 

[BobG]

On a completely unrelated note, there was an interesting fund-raising stat that came up last week. I wanted to post it here, but forgot, so here it is:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080814/military_donations.html

How is that possible? McCain is an untouchable military icon, a "celebrity", you could say! Are the troops actually aware that despite McCain's rhetoric about supporting the troops, he repeatedly voted against spending money on improving conditions (materiel, armor, medical care, etc.) for them - measures that Obama voted for? Do they realize that Obama actually has shown better judgment on Foreign policy, or is it factors unrelated to the Military altogether (they have to worry about the economy too)? Or are they just voting for the person that will get them home faster?

Whatever it is, looks like they believe Obama will better serve their interests. Obama, not McCain.

But this shouldn't be a problem for McCain, since he knows the military and any polls that disagree with him are just wrong.

Matching the size of the military to the tasks assigned to them is pretty important.

Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy got the most publicity when he was President, but reaping the peace dividend while sending the military out on so many peacekeeping missions was also a problem with the military. Reaping the peace dividend may have started with Bush 41, but the problems with it became a lot more obvious when too many peacekeeping deployments started interfering with training for war time missions. The increase in deployments also increases family stress and causes an exodus of experience, amplifying the training problems.

Stretching a smaller military to cover Afghanistan and Iraq is the same basic problem; just at a larger magnitude. The deployments are even more frequent and the family stress level for each deployment is higher (it doesn't take catastrophic casualty rates; just high enough to be an almost daily news item).

Dropping violence levels and casualty rates can over win over the general public. But a long term policy of frequent deployments for peacekeeping missions hurts military morale more than a short, intense war. Bush 41 was extremely popular with the military.

Militaries are extremely expensive with large, but necessary overhead expenses. A couple of Presidents haven't seemed to realize that and have seemed to have the attitude of "if we're paying for them, we ought to use them".

Going into Iraq without much of a plan on how to handle the aftermath didn't help much either. I think that part has made Iraq permanently unpopular judging from the dissent from so many retired generals.

 

[BobG]

It's funny that you'd call my post illogical after having your primary claim and follow ups shown to be just wrong, at the very least. And after you then modify your stance to something I can agree with - it wasn't me that had to change my stance.

Anyway, an update on the polls...with a HUGE swing towards McCain.

Electoral maps (Obama/McCain):

One thing I like about electoral-vote.com is the graph showing how the projected electoral vote changes over time: Electoral College Graph.

There's a lot of fluctuation in the projections, but the trend in "safer" states (> 5% difference) is pretty steady. This election season, the fluctuations seem to be hard to anticipate and hard to explain. As Election Projection says, "Like so much of this election season, recent polls aren't following the expected course."

Obama has a long way to go before he can be confident about winning. McCain has an even bigger hill to climb.

Still, if McCain can keep the "safer" states down at 250 or lower, the polls seem to suggest that anything could happen on election night.

A different note on the convention - especially convention coverage. What's up with CNN and MSNBC talking about the lack of attacks on Republicans. If you switch to C-Span, it looks like quite a few of the speakers are on the attack - you just don't see them on CNN and MSNBC because the analysts are sucking up all the air time.

I guess the wrong speakers are on the attack. CNN and MSNBC don't like to break away from the chatter of their "experts" to cover the convention. The speaker has to have a pretty high profile before the convention becomes worth covering.

Personally, I was more interested in seeing http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20080825 than seeing attacks on Republicans.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

anyone just catch Obama making out with Jill Biden on stage when he made his surprise visit at the end of day three? I think he was going for the cheek, but definitely planted a huge smacker on her lips right in front of Joe lol

 

[WarPhalange]

That's good. It shows the public that Obama isn't afraid to take what he wants, and it shows Biden his place: where ever Obama wants. Now we just need to see him sucker punching some school bully so that he can show America that he isn't afraid to stand up and use force when necessary.

Unlike this guy:

yEc1daWnyGo[/youtube] How can you ...f you can't even slap a woman's *** properly?

 

[Astronuc]

Obama has to make a compelling speech tonight.

I'd like to see him include the Preamble of the US Consitution and explain how his administration will address the commitments therein.

I hope his message is about his vision and how he plans to address the challenges that the US if facing. I don't want to hear about his opponent or what his opponent can or cannot do.

 

[mathwonk]

hey, how is my boy al doing? (how many times ) did i mention i used to know him? he was a good kid, and i respect him even more now.

 

[mathwonk]

we'll probably lose in november after the swift boat ads air, but for now,...yeeee hahh! even eisenhower's grand daughter is on stage for barack.

 

[BobG]

A hurricane on opening night of the Republican Convention!

Funny thing is that it actually could be a positive for Republicans - provided it doesn't turn into a repeat of the Katrina disaster. Leave Bush and Cheney on the schedule for Monday night while the entire nation watches news of Gustav. If either has to cancel to respond to the hurricane, even better. Move Laura Bush to Tuesday night - she's actually popular.

Of course, if Gustav reaches a Cat 3 and the rebuilt levees in New Orleans fail, then oh,boy ... Obama can start picking his cabinet early.

 

[Evo]

The latest poll results.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm

 

[BobG]

A hurricane on opening night of the Republican Convention!

Funny thing is that it actually could be a positive for Republicans - provided it doesn't turn into a repeat of the Katrina disaster. Leave Bush and Cheney on the schedule for Monday night while the entire nation watches news of Gustav. If either has to cancel to respond to the hurricane, even better. Move Laura Bush to Tuesday night - she's actually popular.

Of course, if Gustav reaches a Cat 3 and the rebuilt levees in New Orleans fail, then oh,boy ... Obama can start picking his cabinet early.

Oh, my. Forget Cat 3. Now Gustav is becoming powerful enough to be worth its own thread. A Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans again could be a flat out disaster. Upgrades to the levees won't be finished until 2011.

Hurricane tracker
Leaky New Orleans Levee

Gustav is already forcing some changes to the RNC: Hurricane Gustav Forces Some Changes in GOP Convention

Who in the world did the scheduing for this convention, anyway? McCain's acceptance speech is scheduled immediately after the first game of the NFL season between the Giants and Redskins. What happens if the game goes into overtime?

The stage seems to be set for a total disaster for the GOP.

 

[Quincy]

I can't find any reason at all to like McCain. He
- slacked off in college (was ranked 894th out of 899th in his college graduating class)
- doesn't know how to use a computer...
- cheated on his first wife (the only reason he married her was because she was a swimsuit model, and when he returned from the war and found out she had become ugly, he decided to cheat on her, and then married someone 17 years younger than him - easy to tell what he looks for in a woman)
- supports a war that about 5% of Americans support
- chooses the most inexperienced VP after criticizing Obama of his inexperience

-- I'm surprised people like him are even allowed to run for president...

 

[Evo]

I can't find any reason at all to like McCain. He
- slacked off in college (was ranked 894th out of 899th in his college graduating class)
- doesn't know how to use a computer...
- cheated on his first wife (the only reason he married her was because she was a swimsuit model, and when he returned from the war and found out she had become ugly, he decided to cheat on her, and then married someone 17 years younger than him - easy to tell what he looks for in a woman)
- supports a war that about 5% of Americans support
- chooses the most inexperienced VP after criticizing Obama of his inexperience

-- I'm surprised people like him are even allowed to run for president...

All except the first statement are your own personal opinions, be aware that your post violates the forum guidelines on stating opinion as fact.

 

[mathwonk]

well color me gullible, because those statements sounded plausible to me.

 

[WarPhalange]

All except the first statement are your own personal opinions, be aware that your post violates the forum guidelines on stating opinion as fact.

The amount of support for the war in Iraq is a fact. It's not 5%, but might as well be.

Palin being very inexperienced is also a fact, as is McCain bashing Obama for being inexperienced.

So it's only #2 and #3 that are opinion, although #3 could be verified easily.

 

[Gokul43201]

All except the first statement are your own personal opinions, be aware that your post violates the forum guidelines on stating opinion as fact.

Unless McCain has learned to use a computer over the last couple months, the second claim is true (McCain himself admitted to being computer illiterate during the Primary)

Here:
_R9wnMVZE_Q[/youtube] So - doesn't...resident... that [i]is[/i] stated as opinion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My wife said we're leaving the country if McCain wins, and I said we're leaving if Obama wins. So last week of course, we were out of the country. While we were gone, a lot happened. First though, some background.

Originally I was in the campaign just for Hillary. I bought into the new feminist position that instead of waiting for a woman with true qualifications to appear, something that may never happen, we had better elect the helpmate of a successful man. What's more, i thought it was ungentlemanly of Obama not to step aside and hold the door open for her. So I decided that if she lost, I wouldn't vote for him. But when she started losing and saying that the rules of the game should be changed after the ball was in play, I lost respect for her and started to think about voting for him after all. When she gave that "What does Hillary want?" speech, that was the last straw and I decided to vote for Obama.

But at the convention she really redeemed herself. She asked "Were you in this campaign just for me?" which as I said, I was. So I have reversed myself and respect her again and of course that means that I can't vote for Obama who stole the nomination from her. Now I realize that I am in it for for that poor woman in Alaska trying to raise 5 children on a Governor's salary while her husband goes fishing all day. That means I will vote for McCain.

I can't predict a winner just now. I see the contest as evenly balanced. On both sides you've got an older steady hand, ready to lead, paired with an inexperienced greenhorn who needs to learn a thing or two before becoming President.

 

[Art]

Anybody seen any polls conducted since Palin was announced as the VP candidate?

Just before the announcement I saw a poll of polls showing Obama with an 8 point lead (49-41)* but I haven't seen any poll since. It would be interesting to see the initial reaction to her appointment to see if it helped or hindered Mc Cain

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Assuming that you actually had a point, and that this was it:

On both sides you've got an older steady hand, ready to lead, paired with an inexperienced greenhorn who needs to learn a thing or two before becoming President.

Why would an old steady hand select a greenhorn who is not ready to lead? It must be the case that his hand is not so steady, because she clearly is a greenhorn who is not ready to lead. So it seems that both you and McCain have made a terrible mistake.

 

[chasely]

My wife said we're leaving the country if McCain wins, and I said we're leaving if Obama wins. So last week of course, we were out of the country. While we were gone, a lot happened. First though, some background.

Originally I was in the campaign just for Hillary. I bought into the new feminist position that instead of waiting for a woman with true qualifications to appear, something that may never happen, we had better elect the helpmate of a successful man. What's more, i thought it was ungentlemanly of Obama not to step aside and hold the door open for her. So I decided that if she lost, I wouldn't vote for him. But when she started losing and saying that the rules of the game should be changed after the ball was in play, I lost respect for her and started to think about voting for him after all. When she gave that "What does Hillary want?" speech, that was the last straw and I decided to vote for Obama.

But at the convention she really redeemed herself. She asked "Were you in this campaign just for me?" which as I said, I was. So I have reversed myself and respect her again and of course that means that I can't vote for Obama who stole the nomination from her. Now I realize that I am in it for for that poor woman in Alaska trying to raise 5 children on a Governor's salary while her husband goes fishing all day. That means I will vote for McCain.

I can't predict a winner just now. I see the contest as evenly balanced. On both sides you've got an older steady hand, ready to lead, paired with an inexperienced greenhorn who needs to learn a thing or two before becoming President.

Shouldn't we as a nation be voting on issues rather than personal feelings about the candidates? I think in a perfect world we would, and the US political system is far from that. As a former Hillary supporter I think that it's a mistake to vote for McCain in order to get Palin into the White House. Palin, as a social conservative, is against many things that the womens' rights movement has been fighting a long time for.

Now, even though I supported Hillary, I am glad that Obama got the nomination. I don't want to sound too much like his stump speech, but I think that he is the best candidate for change in the election. Although I think McCain would be better than Bush, I think that Obama has the analytical abilities to thoughtfully solve big problems that we are facing as a nation. McCain himself has said, in his autobiography, that he is quick to make a decision and sticks with it, regardless of some of the consequences.

I believe we need a leader in the White House who weighs every possibility and is a multi-step thinker, and to me, Barack Obama would be better than John McCain. Also, his policies fall more in line with my personal beliefs.This is unrelated to the above...but seeing that McCain will be above the average life expectancy for a male by the time his term is up, I don't like the idea of somebody with very little political experience being in charge of perhaps the most powerful nation in the world.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wooohooo! Iowa is still going heavily for Obama, and more than before. From the latest CNN poll, taken after the Dem convention and the Palin announcement:

Obama, 55 percent

McCain, 40 percent

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-poll2008-iowa,0,2619088.story

The first black President will have a bunch of Iowa whities to thank. Iowa is the whitest state in the Union!

How far we have come. Thank you Iowa.

 

[Astronuc]

Here's an interesting observation by Paul Krugman.
The Resentment Strategy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html

Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business — really keep a straight face while denouncing “Eastern elites”?

Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, “marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu” — that was between his second and third marriages — really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn’t think small towns are sufficiently “cosmopolitan”?

Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself — until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans — really portray herself as running against the “Washington elite”?

. . . .

What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it’s better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P. is still the party of Nixon.

One of the key insights in “Nixonland,” the new book by the historian Rick Perlstein, is that Nixon’s political strategy throughout his career was inspired by his college experience, in which he got himself elected student body president by exploiting his classmates’ resentment against the Franklins, the school’s elite social club. There’s a direct line from that student election to Spiro Agnew’s attacks on the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as “an effete corps of impudent snobs,” and from there to the peculiar cult of personality that not long ago surrounded George W. Bush — a cult that celebrated his anti-intellectualism and made much of the supposed fact that the “misunderestimated” C-average student had proved himself smarter than all the fancy-pants experts.

And when Mr. Bush turned out not to be that smart after all, and his presidency crashed and burned, the angry right — the raging rajas of resentment? — became, if anything, even angrier. Humiliation will do that.

. . . .

It seems the GOP is bifurcated, that is John McCain's rhetoric seems less resentful that his peers, or maybe McCain himself has a split personality. Reading some of McCain's acceptance speech, it seems like two people wrote the speech. At times he is positive, and really sounds like a true reformer, and at other times, he spouts the same old tired negative rhetoric I'd expect from Bush or Cheney, or Tom DeLay.

 

[G01]

Palin's speech has yet to have an affect on the Gallup Daily tracking poll numbers. Obama is still up 49%-42%:

http://gallup.com/home.aspx

Obama got a boost in the numbers after his convention. The same should happen to McCain, but no sight of the boost yet.

 

[Evo]

Here is the Presidential Debate schedule.

The debates are all scheduled to air at 9 p.m. Eastern and will last 90 minutes:

First debate
Sept. 26 at University of Mississippi
Topic: Foreign policy and national security
Moderator: Jim Lehrer of PBS
Staging: Podiums
Format: Broken into nine 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment, then facilitate a discussion for the remaining 5 minutes.

Second debate
Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville.
Moderator: Tom Brokaw of NBC
Staging: Town hall
Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the Internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute.

Third debate
Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.
Topic: Domestic and economic policy
Moderator:Bob Schieffer of CBS
Staging: Seated at a table
Format: Same as first presidential debate, plus each candidate will get a 90-second closing statement.

 

[Evo]

There will be a Vice-Presidential Debate held at Washington University in St louis On Oct 2nd, 2008 at 8pm.

http://debate.wustl.edu/media.php

 

[BobG]

Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business — really keep a straight face while denouncing “Eastern elites”?

Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, “marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu” — that was between his second and third marriages — really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn’t think small towns are sufficiently “cosmopolitan”?

Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself — until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans — really portray herself as running against the “Washington elite”?

Working with a deadline must be tough. That's a very amateurishly written article.

The first paragraph is right on the mark. Krugman knows Romney well.

The second paragraph evokes nothing more than, "Huh? How are these related?" Unless Krugman is under the impression that Giuliani would be chased out of most small towns by pitchfork wielding crowds, along with all the other gays and divorcees.

The third paragraph evokes another "Huh?" You're talking about a state where seceding from the lower 48 isn't as far from mainstream thought as many might think (I was kind of surprised to find Palin never officially belonged to the AIP). Alaska governor is about as far from the Republican establishment or the Washington elite as you can get.

The article gives the impression that the further Krugman ventures from his own home turf, the less he knows about the world.

Krugman has some valid points about Republicans villifying the East Coast press, but he also manages to illustrate why it's so easy for non-Easterners to believe the Republican's charges.

 

[Astronuc]

What I'd like to see is a candidate stand up with the US budget and talk about each item.

I would like he or she to say - "Hey, nobody likes to pay taxes, but . . . ." Then go down the list as discuss where and what to cut.

I'd like someone to propose a fairer and simpler tax system.


How about using a ratio based on total income and/or total wealth? If someone's wealth is 1% of the sum of all the wealth, then they pay 1% of the federal budget.

If someone's income is 0.0001% of the total wealth, they pay 0.0001% of the federal budget.

I'd like to see a schedule on capital gains that decreases the tax rate the longer the investment is held. This would help encourage long term investment. I'd like to see higher rates on speculative investing so as to discourage gambling and reduce volatility in the market.


I'd like to see a balanced budget and a reduction in the accumulated debt.

I'd like to see an energy policy that encourage efficiency, reduces waste, promotes innovation and development of renewable energy sources. Government subsidies should be treated more like venture capital, and the government should be able to recover its (actually the peoples') investment. The government doesn't need to subsitizing millionaires or billionaires.

 

[chemisttree]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history" The post convention bounce is beginning to become apparent in the Rasmussen polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/" has the race tightening with Obama now leading McCain by preconvention (both) levels. CBS has the race at a tie and CNN has Obama by a point. Gallup Daily still has Obama by 7, which is probably a bit off, and Hotline FD has Obama by a whopping 9 points.

 

[BobG]

What I'd like to see is a candidate stand up with the US budget and talk about each item.

I would like he or she to say - "Hey, nobody likes to pay taxes, but . . . ." Then go down the list as discuss where and what to cut.

I'd like someone to propose a fairer and simpler tax system.


How about using a ratio based on total income and/or total wealth? If someone's wealth is 1% of the sum of all the wealth, then they pay 1% of the federal budget.

If someone's income is 0.0001% of the total wealth, they pay 0.0001% of the federal budget.

I'd like to see a schedule on capital gains that decreases the tax rate the longer the investment is held. This would help encourage long term investment. I'd like to see higher rates on speculative investing so as to discourage gambling and reduce volatility in the market.

It sounds almost like a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income until you get to investments. Then I think your plan runs into problems where two people with the same amount of wealth pay different tax rates.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The CNN Electoral map has Obama by 243 to 189.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/

IIRC, no Republican has ever won without winning Iowa.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gore won Iowa.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Gore won Iowa.

REALLY?? I was traveling a lot back then and apparently missed that one. I wonder if the demographics of Iowa has changed? I know there is a high-tech culture, but I think it is still mostly rural and farming, isn't it?

 

[BobG]

I think quite a few reporters and other observers noted the lack of diversity in the Republican delegates at the convention. There were a couple other interesting developments by Republican delegates.

The primaries and caucuses don't actually select the nominees. They select delegates that are committed to a certain candidate and those delegates can be counted on to vote for a particular candidate at the convention (or at least counted on until the losing candidate frees up his delegates in order to provide an appearance of unanimity for the winning candidate.) The delegates committed to a certain candidate usually share similar political ideals.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/ny-usconvene0902,0,1110476.story . Delegates, selected by which candidate won primaries and caucuses, went with a much stronger pro-life position than McCain promotes (no exceptions vs exceptions for mother's health, incest, rape, etc). Delegates also went with a much stronger anti-immigrant policy than McCain.

The differences show some of the side effects of having a "maverick" candidate with a weak ground game win the nomination. McCain had some problems generating enough delegates to 'win' in the caucuses and primaries. Mike DeWine generated the cluster of folks to be http://www.daytondailynews.com/story/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/09/01/ddn090108dewineposseweb.html?cxntlid=inform_artr . Talk about lack of diversity; they all looked like DeWines!

The problem coming up with delegates had a different impact in states where no one stepped up. Regardless of the conservative base's opinion of McCain, they were happy to fill up delegate slots for him. Even if they didn't get the candidate they wanted, they still had delegates to draft up the party's platform.

Since the party platform is non-binding and the candidate has no obligation to adhere to the party platform if he's elected, it probably isn't a major issue, but it is an oddity that the party has a platform quite a bit different than their candidate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The folksy tale of how Gov. Sarah Palin saved Alaska millions by unloading the state jet on eBay is fast becoming a campaign fish-that-got-away tale.

Sen. John McCain not only repeated that story on the stump Friday to tout his Republican running mate, but added, "She made a profit, too."

The truth is that Palin couldn't find a buyer last year when she tried to peddle to plane on eBay - and lost the state money when she did sell it. [continued]

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/09/05/2008-09-05_story_that_sarah_palin_sold_alaska_state.html

It seems that "folksy" supercedes "factual" where McCain is concerned.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Gore won Iowa.

...of course, just to nitpick that point a bit, Gore did win the popular vote. And arguably election fraud made the difference in the electoral count. Maybe Iowa was right all along.