A Plausible President Palin Scenario

Follow me on this, because it could really happen.

On election night, the electoral map looks something like the following 2 scenarios (there are actually many more of them, but these are probably the most plausible):

(click to embiggen)
The electoral college count is Barack Obama with 269 votes, and John McCain also with 269 votes.

Now we’ve all had eighth grade government classes at some point; some of us will recall that in this eventuality, the decision for the President goes to the House of Representatives and the decision for Veep is made by the Senate.  However it was not at all immediately clear to me, thinking about this today, what that would mean.  Does the current 110th congress vote, or is it the newly elected congress which assembles January 3rd of 2009 that will make this decision?

According to the 12th Amendment, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.” So it is the current House delegation that chooses the President, and not the newly elected House.  Does this mean that it is a forgone conclusion that Obama will be President then, since the current House has a 31-seat majority of Democrats?  Far from it.  The 12th Amendment goes on to say that “in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote… and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”

Didya catch that?  There are not 435 votes cast such as the case with legislation.  Instead, each state’s delegation is allocated 1- and only 1- vote.  California receives 1 vote, and Wyoming receives 1 vote.  So how does this shake down with the current US House?  Currently, the Democrats have a 1 state majority (26 to 24), but this could be potentially meaningless:

It might be difficult for this majority to hold. After all, two of the Democrats’ twenty-six states are North Dakota and South Dakota, both of which will probably go for the Republican by a 2-1 margin in the popular election, and both of which are represented in the House by single members, Democrats Earl Pomeroy and Stephanie Herseth, respectively. Could both of them be counted upon to vote with their party? Could Mike Castle, the sole Republican from Delaware, be counted upon to vote with his party? Maybe, maybe not. The bottom line is that the Democratic majority in this instance would be relatively small and tenuous. There might very well be no decision reached…

NO DECISION REACHED?! I can hear the screams of the talking heads all over television now: “Constitutional crisis! Constitutional crisis! Constitutional crisis!”

This is no crisis, however; the 12th Amendment has a provision: “ if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President…”

The Veep becomes President, and this choice is the Senate’s.  Ah yes, the Senate: that erudite body of dispassionate souls.  First of all, it’s interesting to note that both McCain and Obama get to vote for their perspective running mates, and that Joe Biden gets to vote for himself.  Even more interesting to note: the current Senate has 49 Republicans and 51 Democrats (actually 50 Democrats, but Independent Bernie Sanders would vote with the Democrats anyway), HOWEVER, Democrat #51 Joe Lieberman supports John McCain for President.  The Senate vote tallies 50 to 50, another tie.  As we all know, the Vice President’s only constitutional duty is to cast a vote in the case of a tie in the Senate.

Dick Cheney casts his vote, and on March 4th, 2009, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States.

One last thing: even if the House is able to make a decision, there is still a very high liklihood (given a 269 to 269 tie) that we will have a Democrat President Barack Obama and a Republican Vice President Sarah Palin.

VP debate live blog wrap up

I think she came very close to doing what she needed to do but am not certain she did it.  Time will tell, but Biden was excellent. No mistakes from either one. Nothing embarrassing.

And most importantly- it wasn’t boring. Most of it.

I’m walking away feeling like it was a tie, but that Palin definitely kept hope alive for the ticket.  I think the enthusiasm is revived for her now.  It certainly is in me.

VP debate live blog

I’ve decided that I’m going to live blog the vp debate tonight.

Not that I actually think anyone will care much about what I think; it’s more of just a way to procrastinate from doing work.

So now. The debate starts in 3 minutes.

The conventional wisdom on the news channels: Palins has everything to prove tonight.  Her best advice? Be herself.

Biden, however, has little to prove, but his best advice would be to be anything but his gas-bag self.  If I start feeling my eyes glaze over, and if Palin can come in and capitalize on that, I think that will greatly affect the perceived outcome.

Ok. 30 seconds. This should be interesting.

The speech Sarah Palin wasn’t allowed to give

Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were both invited to speak at a rally today against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a nuclear Iran.  Clinton, after finding out Palin was coming, opted out.  Which is fine- she can do what she likes.  Unfortunately, Palin was then disinvited by rally organizers.  The reason for this is not clear to me.

However, below is the text of the speech she would have given today.  It’s pretty great.

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country – leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York – to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan – and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator’s intentions and to call for action to thwart him.
He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a “Final Solution” – the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a “stinking corpse” that is “on its way to annihilation.”

Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman -not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the “Iranian nation would not retreat one iota” from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons ? they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world’s most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran’s desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran’s official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government’s threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad’s rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed. If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the “One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws.” The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women’s rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of “propaganda against the system.” After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to “only” 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that” effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!
Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime’s dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran’s behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech – a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran’s allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran’s refined petroleum imports. We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran’s economic influence.
We must target the regime’s assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran’s Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps -which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization. Together, we can stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel’s enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain’s promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

McWomen!

I missed this part of the polling stories yesterday:

The McCain-Palin convention bounce also all but closed the ticket’s gender gap. According to Rasmussen, Obama had a 14-point lead among women; now it’s three. According to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, McCain now has a 12-point lead among white women.

I’ve been listening to Hugh Hewitt’s show in the evening while at work, and he’s decided to take nothing but first-time women callers until- well, until they stop calling.  And I am simply stunned by what I am hearing from these women.  

I have been skeptical of the idea that women are simply going to go crazy for Palin based on little more than a sense of identification; I have talked with quite a few ladies who find the very implication to be abhorrent, and it is a commonly held view that ‘identity politics” is a game in which both parties ought to shun participation.  However, yesterday (Monday), one woman in particular called and convinced me that at least in the current case of Sarah Palin, voting by identification may be a different beast than the one with which we are all familiar.  The following is gist and not quote:

I was a Hillary supporter, and then by default an Obama supporter, until I heard Sarah Palin speak at the convention.  And now I have to vote McCain, because even though I disagree with her on some issues, the fact remains that while Hillary got where she was the old fashioned way- marriage- Sarah has made her own way.  All of her achievements were accomplished without a leg-up. And that is significant enough for me to disregard differences in opinion and get behind her.

The beast is different here because the identification is not gender, class, race or religion, but accomplishment (and not just vocational accomplishment; success in family is one of the most noble of accomplishments).  And that is a good type of identity:  “I am a success.  I have accomplished ____ and ____.”  Quite a different thing than “I am woman.  I am middle class. I am black.  I am Christian.”  It is quite natural and even healthy to understand who I am in the context of my race, class, gender and religion, but to define my identity in terms of these?

Some of my readers (all 2 of you) might cringe at my inclusion of that last one: “I am Christian.”  You see there is another type of identity other than accomplishment that is also a good one: identification of values.  And in that vein (as opposed to the religious one), “I am Christian” has a different meaning entirely, but I would prefer to state it thus: “I practice Christian values.”

It is in the identity politics of both values and accomplishment that we find the source of excitement among both men and womean regarding John McCain and Sarah.  It is interesting to note that Obama’s principal motor of excitement has been steered by the other identities mentioned above: race, class, and yes, religion (gotta close that God-Gap!) and gender (lets get some women out there to counter the Palin factor!).

I suppose it would be appropriate to end this post with a simple, “You go girl(s).”

Bouncy bouncy

McCain is up significantly among the only group that matters: likely voters.

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

And why?  Enthusiasm.  A full 107% change from before the convention to after the convention:

Before the convention, Republicans by 47%-39% were less enthusiastic than usual about voting. Now, they are more enthusiastic by 60%-24%, a sweeping change that narrows a key Democratic advantage. Democrats report being more enthusiastic by 67%-19%.

I can only speak for myself, but 107% sounds about right- I have done an about-face on my feelings regarding McCain’s prespective presidency.  The reason is twofold:  the impressiveness of McCain himself (the more I see, the more I like), and of Sarah Palin.

I’m not counting my chickens before they hatch, but at this point I agree with Dennis Prager who has been saying all week “the election is McCain’s to lose.”

The O

Apparently there is some noise out there about how Oprah doesn’t want to have Sarah Palin on her show.

Not sure how true it is, but I found this to be interesting.  Point #4 is an especially interesting proposition; for all practical purposes, one could say that Oprah is Obama’s honorary VP pick anyway- why not have them go head to head?

five reasons why O should have Palin on:

1.) To talk about motherhood, her family and Bristol; if you’re really hung up on politics, O, then this doesn’t have to be a “political” debriefing at all, per se, but a larger look at even more important issues, which your show claims to care about.

2.) It’d get a huge number. Hell yeah! Perhaps one of the biggest numbers in “O” history. This is a mercenary business, O, in case you’ve forgotten.

3.) It’d get the show back to that sweet spot of “relevance” and “news-worthiness.” Wonderful to have all 150-or-so Olympians on Monday’s season premiere, but the Olympics are old news; Palin is fresh news.

4.) Of course, it’s O’s right to support Obama in whatever forum she chooses, but she’s simply too transcendent – her word – a cultural figure to pretend she’s lil’ ol’ objective and non-political Oprah on her show, and yet Obama’s most important supporter in the WORLD when she’s not on screen. That’s a silly artifice, transparent to all. Why not get Palin on and say, “OK, lady, I happen to think this guy walks on water. Now you tell me why he doesn’t, and let’s go at this.” That would be great TV, and far better than a dreary debate between Palin and Joe Biden.

5.) O helped secure at least a million additional votes for Obama but probably lost hundreds of thousands of McCain supporter-viewers – if not more – to her show in the process. Here’s her chance to say to everyone, “I have a right to support whomever I choose, and now to prove to you just how open-minded I am, here’s the gun-toting mama from Alaska on the show.”

So what about it, O?

Courageousness

Todd and Sarah Palin’s (newly nominated Republican vp candidate) statement regarding the news that their eldest daughter is pregnant:

We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.

Juxtapose to Barack Obama’s statement below.   The contrast is stark:

I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby.

Both reactions are understandable.

Only one of them is commendable.

I love this picture

I’ll have more to say about John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin for the vp slot on the Republican ticket at some point in the future.

At this point, the only thing I have to say is this: the picture of her below is AWESOME.