Posted on
by

I call it “Shakeup Tuesday” partially because Obama took the lead, and partially because it comes after Hillary Clinton shook up her campaign.

So, everybody is going ga-ga that Obama has finally overtaken Clinton in total number of delegates. That he has all kinds of momentum that will lead him into next Tuesday’s Wisconsin and Hawaii races, and change up the election entirely.

Well, I’m going to put the brakes on outlandish predictions, particularly after making some of my own yesterday. I don’t want to burst any bubbles, but Obama only has 25 more delegates. I say only because of the fact that Wisconsin has 74 more coming up. If Clinton were to make a clean sweep in that state, she’d be back in the lead.

Now, I know Obama has a lot going for him. Clean sweeps of last weekend’s races, and yesterday’s. So, yes, he does have momentum going forward. Yet, keep in mind that between him and Clinton, in terms of delegates, they’re nearly tied. Between Wisconsin and Hawaii next Tuesday, they could end up tied again. Or Clinton could take the lead, or Obama could take the lead. The fact is, we don’t really know.

And even if we had a good idea, lets keep in mind that up until recently, Clinton had the total delegate lead, and for a long time. Obama could potentially get the lead for the next couple of Tuesdays, and then be surpassed by Clinton again. Or, that might not happen.

This is a very interesting race, even more so than the Republicans, which has become kind of boring with the withdrawal of Romney (and anyone who says Huckabee is mathematically out is forgetting how many delegates that really still are over there). Anybody who’s saying someone is out for the count just because of momentum is a bit misguided, I think. The cable news channels were saying things like this as far back as Iowa, and yet here we a month and a half later, with about as much of a tie as you can get.

Some would say it sucks, but I think it’s pretty interesting that so many Democrats are excited over two popular candidates. However, I will say this: I won’t be carrying this tune forever. I do think that eventually one candidate will need to show up as a clear leader. I’m not in favor of superdelegates (more on them in another entry), and don’t like the idea of them deciding this race. This is a democracy, and the idea that people who were never elected to represent the people could be a deciding factor in the nomination is a little scary. It would also go to show disunity in the Democratic party, which I think the Republican nominee could play on, claiming the other candidate can’t even unite their own party, so how can they unite the country?

So, if momentum helps one or the other candidate, so be it. If they take a lead in pledged delegates, they can claim a mandate to be their party’s candidate. On the topic of pledged delegates, I will say this: Obama has been in the position of having more of them for a long time now. The cable news channels always liked to point at Clinton’s position in total delegates, but when you strip away the superdelegates, Obama’s been leading for some time. If I were his campaign manager, I might suggest he try to incorporate this fact into his speeches or slogans.

So, while I’d be excited to see a battle between the two candidates for a little while longer, I think that after March 4th, there’d better start to be some idea of who’s going to get the nomination. Now, I’m not talking about claiming someone as the nominee at that point, I’m just talking about getting direction as to who it might end up being.

Posted on
by

Update: 2/12/08 7:19PM: CNN is projecting Barack Obama as the winner of Virginia, just as I thought.   Also, I’m changing my D.C. prediction for Obama, given its demographics.  I’m going to keep Clinton on Maryland for now, but stress a weak win there.  Too early to tell Virginia for the Republicans, as I expected it would be.

Now, I’m not one that likes to call the cards before they’re counted. It is, in fact, a pet peeve of mine when the likes of CNN, MSNBC, or Fox call a race when there’s only 10% of the votes counted or something. They’ve been wrong before, and will be wrong again. It only takes one county that voted some different way to throw everything off.

However, I would like to make some predictions here, and think I have some firepower because of past trends. On the other hand, certain circumstances may dictate what happens today, but I’ll get to those in a bit. This area of the country is interesting, since you start making the transition from “North” to “South” between Maryland and Virginia. So, I’ll go by state, and divide by party.

Maryland

A quick look at this facts surrounding Maryland show a pretty blue state. It almost seems like the Connecticut of the mid-Atlantic, but even more so. It has Democrat governor, it’s two Senators are Democrats, six of its eight U.S. reps are Dems, and the state legislature has a veto-proof Democratic majority. In this kind of state, like with Connecticut, I’m guessing the only reason those other two Republican U.S. reps are still there is because they are moderates. In my own state, Chris Shays is considered a moderate.

Republicans

Given the suggestion that Maryland favors moderate Republicans, I’m guessing John McCain is a pretty safe bet for this state. Huckabee will have a lot of trouble here. What is interesting about Maryland, though, is that it’s not a statewide winner-take-all situation, but a congressional district version. Regardless, though, I still think Huckabee has about as much chance as Ron Paul of getting delegates here. McCain’s just simply going to have a larger amount of votes in the two Republican congressional districts.

Democrats

This one is a little harder to tell, since both candidates are really very similar, except on a few issues. I’ll tentatively give the state to Clinton, but since most or all of the Democratic races are proportional, it could end up being very close here. The delegate counts could be very similar. So far, trends seem to show that Clinton is better in the cities, and Obama is better in the suburbs, so that’s the way this ball will probably roll.

District of Columbia

This is obviously the capital of the nation, and the politics here tend to be liberal. Its city council and mayor are Democrats, as is its non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives.

Republicans

I think Huckabee is also going to have a lot of trouble here, given the political orientation of the city. It doesn’t matter who lives in D.C.’s biggest house, it matters who the voters are electing, and they’re electing Democrats. I think McCain will again clinch it here, due to both politics, and his history in the city. He’s been here for a long time.

Democrats

This is another doozy. On one hand, I want to say Clinton will get it because she’s been here for so long. She has a sort of home court advantage, given that it was her permanent zip code for eight years. Obama is newer, but we know that doesn’t mean much, given how many pledged delegates each currently holds. I’m going to say Obama has a very good chance here. Still, I have to tentatively give it to Clinton.

Virginia

Now here’s a state I can really say a lot about. A first glance, some might pass it off as a conservative Southern state. It was a confederate state, after all. But hang on a second! One of its most popular governors of this decade was a Democrat, and the office retains a Democrat now. On the other hand, Virginia’s U.S. Senators are split between the two parties, but it has a greater number of Republicans for the House. The state legislature is also split up, with its House in weak Republican control, and its Senate in weak Democratic control.

However, Virginia does have one thing going for it that D.C. and Maryland just don’t have: The Independent factor. That’s right, the primaries for both parties in this state are open, meaning independents can vote here. So, that will keep this election interesting.

Republicans

McCain will obviously do well in urban areas. He’s also traditionally done well with Independents, and both will help him immensely. On the other hand, Virginia is starting to get into the South, where Huckabee has traditionally done well. Areas outside of urban centers tend to be Republican, and I definitely think the more west and south you go in Virginia, the more conservative you’ll be. You only need to look at West Virginia, where Huckabee won big, to see this.

The majority religious affiliation in Virginia, and by a large majority, is Baptist, and Huckabee was a Baptist minister, so that’s another thing going for him. The
rule seems to favor more moderates in the north, and more conservatives in the south and west. Rural areas are largely conservative, and urban centers more liberal.

It’s really hard to give a winner here. However, given Huckabee’s win in West Virginia, I’m going to have to tentatively give it to him, but it’ll be a weak win, I think. The politics of Virginia are becoming more dynamic as the years go on.

Democrats

Another hard one to guess for the Dems. However, lets gets some quickies out of the way. African Americans make up 20% of the population, so many of those I think will go to Obama. Hispanics, if I recall correctly, are favoring Clinton, and Virginia is seeing more and more immigration of Hispanics. So, those will go to her.

On the other hand, Virginia is a Southern state, and Obama has done well in those states. He’s also done well in the primarily rural states of the West. On the Independent front, they could easily be split up between both, but I don’t know the actual numbers of Independents to tell you so. However, given all those other facts, I’m going to have to give this one to Obama on a state-wide basis, and I also think he’ll do pretty well on the delegate count.

So, there you have it. Three races to get through today. On the Republican side, two are not so hard to guess, but one is a toss-up. For the Democrats, they’re all hard to guess, but I think history and make-up will determine a lot of those elections. Also keep in mind the proportional factor in the Democratic elections. Finally, Virginia’s Independents can participate today, which I think would play a large role in deciding that election, if not for the political and religious make-up of the state.

Posted on
by

With a seeming end to the writer’s strike being imminent, things have played out more or less how I thought they would.  Two months ago I said in the last episode of Dymersion Video that the studios would eventually force themselves to cough up a decent deal in face of falling ratings, but that the writers would not get everything they wanted.

And so it seems that this is the case.  This source is perhaps a little out-of-date on an actual time basis, but I don’t think it’d be too out of date on a fact basis.  As you can see, by the end of 2007, NBC viewership dropped 11%, CBS 10% and ABC 5%.  I’m going to guess it’s gotten worse as series have stopped airing new episodes after pre-strike episodes have aired.  Remember that around the time that article was written, new episodes of series were either airing their final new episodes, or it didn’t matter anyway, since Christmas was a few days away.

Then Christmas came and went, and we went a whole month without new episodes.  Lost came back on the 31st, but that’s about it.  I’d be interested in seeing if ABC’s ratings have risen any, since judging by the article, they seem to have lost the least, and so probably gained the most by Lost coming back (which has been good so far).   Meanwhile, CBS and NBC are likely struggling.  I’m guessing all the ratings have come back up with the return of some other shows, but are probably not where the execs would like them to be.  It would help immensely if the anchors of these networks could come back.  Heroes on NBC, the CSIs on CBS, would help things a lot.

So, faced with lower ratings, the studios knew they needed to get back to making shows.  So, they were forced to concede more than they wanted, but not as much as the writers wanted.  So is the nature of negotiation; both sides have to give up concessions, or nothing gets done.  The writers seem to be content. anyway, lauding the deal.  It’s only for three years, but I’m hoping the Internet will have truly proved itself by then, in which case, the writers will have firepower at their disposal.

I’m happy that this thing seems set to end.  I know it will be some time before I can see CSI, Without a Trace, 24, and Heroes again, but I’m content in knowing that they’ll be back soon.

Posted on
by

So, my lack of a Dymersion entry last night was due to me completing some final touches on the website for the club I’m in, TV 22.

For some time, I’ve been trying to make it work like a true CMS; that is, static pages for some spots, and blog-type pages for others.  I’m using WordPress as the CMS, and for a while, I was using a plug-in to try to include WP pages on other pages.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t working out too well.

I finally found out that WordPress and WordPress-MU, WP’s multi-user solution, has the capability to make a static page as the main page of a blog!  So, there’s no need for the plug-in.  I was so freaking happy about that, I could cry, haha.

I made sure the layout was working right, and set up a blog on the News 22 side to add  our YouTube videos.  I added all the information about the club that was needed, and voila!  The site was set.  You can read about the nearly year and a quarter journey from no TV 22 site to one working well on WPMU at my blog entry there.

My TV 22 blog will be the primary source for articles I have on my work in the club, whether it be producing Eastern Expedition, shooting and editing video, or other aspects of the television industry.  It won’t be updated nearly as often as this one, and I’m not going to make it a goal like I have here.  I’m simply too busy during my days to attend to two blogs a day.  However, entries I post there will be cross-posted to here (if they’re not simple posts about the TV 22 site or something), as well as cross-posting any appropriate entries I make here to there.

On the subject of attending to blogs, I know it’s been a long time since the last Dymersion Video episode.  I’m planning to start them up again.  I didn’t have a tripod during my month at home, and the last few weeks have been busy.  However, I will try to squeeze one in this week.  Perhaps after the primaries this week, I’ll chime in on the direction of the nominations, talking-head style!

Until next time…

Posted on
by

Please, if you will, take a look at the comments section of this link to a Digg article. Those weak of stomach, heart, or those whom are pregnant may want to refrain!

Now that you’re back, I hope you’re as disgusted as I am. Those kind of comments are exactly why I left the Democratic party a few years ago and became an Independent! Yes, yes, I know all the comments are talking about McCain, a Republican, but hear me out.

McCain is getting attacked because he’s varies from the Republican party line on a few issues. Immagration (those he recanted a bit) and torture are a couple. Heck, he even has views on same-sex marriage that nearly match both Democratic presidential candidates (yes, even Obama). Yet, for the most part, he’s conservative on most issues. He was arguably the cheerleader for the surge, and has supported this war as well as the President. He’s for lowering taxes, he’s against abortions, etc, etc, etc. Yet, because he differs on a few issues, he’s slammed.

Now back to why this partisan attitude also applies to the Democrats: Joe Lieberman. Although with the Republicans on terrorism and foreign policy, he is essentially liberal on most other issues. Yet, he gets flack from Dems for his foreign policy views. Now, before anyone who knows me says, “Ahh, but Mike, you voted for Ned Lamont in 2006. So how can you defend Lieberman now?” It is true I voted for Lamont, and I’ve made no secret of the fact. It was mostly a last minute decision, and largely because of Lieberman’s staunch support for the direction things were going at the time in Iraq, in addition to some statements he made around the time, with which I disagreed.

Still, I do agree with Lieberman on many other issues. That, and like with McCain, I respect his ability to reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans to get things done. This partisan divisiveness that’s come across the country in the last several years is frankly pretty shameful. These days, if you look like you might have an independent mind, and not always stick to the party line, you’re demonized. Thus, I give you John McCain and Joe Lieberman, two guys who are independently minded, and consequently get hounded for it. After their respective elections in 2006 and this year, they would be well within their rights to either quit their parties, or else try and form a new centrist party. That would be the day, right? A day when the Democratic and Republican parties had their duopoly on this country wrangled straight from their grips. I know it sounds like a dream, but if the two parties are going to increasingly become more partisan as the years go on, I think it’ll be a necessary step in order to keep this country from falling apart.

After all, as Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I mean, there is no arguing with that, and it is my fear that this nation’s house will become more divided if something isn’t done to push it back together. A centrist party, particularly one that finds some kind of political strength, would be a wake-up call to both parties. Of course, I’m not stupid; I know that under the stewardship of R&D, this is next to impossible. Still, it should not be so, and I wish it was not the case, because it is beginning to show that it’s time for a third party to come upon the scene. To give a wake-up call to this country, and those that run it. That would be the day…

Posted on
by

Okay, so maybe the pun isn’t as great as I first thought.

This race just keeps on getting more surprising.  I had heard talk Tuesday night and Wednesday of the possibility Romney might choose to drop out due to his rather unflattering showing on Tuesday.  Still, I thought he’d hang on for at least a little while longer.

Now Republicans essentially have a choice between McCain and Huckabee, and I predict that the vote will be somewhat split up.  The voters now have the choice between the conservative evangelical Huckabee and the still conservative except on a few issues McCain.

I predict that this drop is going to help both of them immensely.  After Huckabee’s good showing on Tuesday, he’s looking like a real player again.  Without Romney, I think the evangelical vote is his for the taking.  McCain, on the other hand, will take some of the perhaps less evangelical, slightly more moderate voters Romney might have had.  Yet, I’ve seen several people dispense with their party altogether and proclaim that they will vote for either Clinton or Obama.  So, I think this news might have the side effect of helping them a little bit, too.  It will be especially aparent if they start getting more votes than expected in the open and semi-open primary states.

However, even though I do think the loss of Romney will help Huckabee, I still think he’s in a tough spot.  He only has 181 delegates compared to McCain’s wopping 714.  Even if Romney’s leftover 286 votes were to get split evenly between the two (which it probably won’t, since the allocation of his delegates will be determined state by state), he’d still have an uphill battle to get anywhere close to McCain.  This is probably why some of Romney’s former supporters are jumping ship to the Democrats.  Faced with a practically unbeatable McCain, they’d rather face four years of a Democrat in the White House, and try again then.

If you thought Tuesday was an exciting day in this primary/caucus season, I don’t think you’ve seen anything yet.  I think Saturday will begin to tell the future of the Republicans for the general election.

Posted on
by

Well, it’s finally Super Tuesday, and indeed the games have begun.

If anybody was expecting a presumptive nominee for each party tonight, I think they’re going to be disappointed.  Both Democrat and Republican candidates are in a fight for their viability in this race.

Easier to claim viability will be both Democratic candidates, who I think are likely to come out pretty much neck and neck, despite who actually comes out the leader tonight.  I think all will be able to happen is we’ll be able to tell who has momentum coming into the races over the next month.

For the Republicans, I think tonight is really going to whittle down the pack.  Even though Huckabee is doing better than expected, I think tonight is really going to show where he’s going.  He is doing well in the South, and it’s a credit to him to be doing so well there.  However, I’m just not convinced that in terms of delegates, he can catch up with McCain and Romney at this point.  I could be wrong here, though, and that somehow Huckabee pulls through tonight.  I do think, though, that Huckabee would be an asset to whoever does win the nomination.

Romney and McCain are really fighting it out in a lot of states, but like with the Democrats, it’s hard to tell who’s going to clinch the momentum.  Yet, like with the Democrats, I think that’s about all we’ll be able to get tonight.  There’s going to be no presumptive.

Personally, I’m rooting for whoever the Democrats have vs. McCain.  On issues alone, and his ability to reach across the aisle, I like him the best.  I don’t necessarily agree with everything on him about Iraq, and after looking like he’d fight against the bill that pretty much approved waterboarding, he went with it.  Still, he has some things about him I don’t like.  He does seem a little arrogant.  And I’ve also rediscovered the controversy about him related to being in support of normalizing relations with Vietnam, even though there are probably still some POWs over there.  Still, in any match-up, I’d probably rather have him than anyone else.  So, we’ll see how well he does tonight.

The games continue…

Posted on
by

The games are about to begin…

There’s been some news of great importance to me since I last posted.  The latest polls in my state of Connecticut shows that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are now in a toss-up for the win here.  This up from an earlier better showing for Clinton.

Personally, I am not entirely sure who I want to win the Democratic nomination.  I could essentially take either Clinton or Obama, although I am not happy about some of the tactics the campaign was using earlier before South Carolina.  I am definitely edging toward Obama at this point in time.   On the Republican side, it’s McCain or nobody for me.

I like him because, even though I may not agree on everything he stands for, the man isn’t afraid to reach across the aisle.  Unlike Romney, he’s been more consistent on the issues .  There’s that lingering tax cut flip-flop, but if you go for him on that, you have to go on Clinton for Iraq, and I don’t fault her for that.  Heck, I supported the Iraq war at the time.  I’m not sure you can find a lot of people who didn’t.  Obama wasn’t in the Senate at the time, so it’s easy for him to say he didn’t support the war, because he never had the opportunity to vote on it.  So, McCain is willing to go against the party line on some issues, and I like him for that reason.

So, Obama or Clinton I’ll take (though more Obama than Clinton), and McCain.  Romney is the poster boy of the conservatives since Huckabee’s fall, and I just feel like voting for him is bringing back some of the similar Bush policies.  Huckabee is over with, and though I have no disdain for those of faith, I don’t like what he’s said about wanting to making the constitution closer to the Bible.  And Paul…eh…

The games are about to begin, so join me tomorrow during my coverage of the results!

Posted on
by

As I’ve surfed the Internet these past months, I’ve noticed a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding being spread about the switch to DTV. It’s really a shame, since the switch is government-ordered, yet they have barely taken the time to inform the public until very recently. So, to hopefully clear a few things up, I’ve decided to explain a few things. I’ll present it in FAQ style:

  • What is DTV?
    • DTV stands for Digital Television. There are several kinds of digital television, such as digital cable, but the switchover next year concerns the type that will be broadcast over-the-air. Over-the-air digital television is sent using digital signals rather than the traditional analog signals.
  • How will the switchover affect me?
    • That’s just it…it may not. The people who should pay the most attention are those still getting their TV over-the-air. Many people this day in age get their TV via cable or satellite service. They don’t need to worry (well, probably not, see below). Those who need to worry most are the people who are using a big ‘ol antennae on top of their house or rabbit ears connected to their TV.
  • Ok, so I’m one of those people. What do I need to do?
    • Well, it depends on when you got your current TV. If it was in the past couple years, you should be set. All TVs in the past couple years were legally required to have digital tuners built in. Check your TV’s manual to see if this is the case. If it does, you’re all set, ready to join the digital revolution. If this is not the case, your manual should notify you. In some cases, you’ll probably know your TV is pretty old.If this is the case, you will need to buy either a new TV, or a digital tuner box. Now, you can probably find a decent TV with a digital tuner, but they are becoming more rare, with the industry focus on HDTVs. You could also buy an HDTV, if you have the money. Otherwise, or if you don’t want to buy a new TV, you will need a digital tuner box. Basically, the box converts the digital signal coming into your antennae into an analog signal before it reaches your television. It’s essentially the external equivalent of what all new TVs have.Need help buying a converter box? This past January, the federal government started offering a coupon program. Go to the government’s DTV website for information on how to sign-up for the program.
  • So, will I get HDTV quality with this converter box thing?
    • Not necessarily. If it so happens you have an HDTV and are using it with DTV, that’ll be the case. However, I do believe that most people who have an HDTV will already have HD service through their cable or satellite provider. However, you’ll also be able to pick up DTV signals (with an antennae), and see them in HD. Standard definition televisions will get a better picture, because the DTV signal if all or nothing, with no grey, snowy area in between. However, you will not get HD quality.
  • You said earlier if I was on cable, I may need to pay attention. Why?
    • This is a possibility. Cable services are not mandated to go digital like over-the-air broadcasts are. However, some cable companies may take it upon themselves to go digital, in which case you’d probably need a converter box from that company. However, this is something you will need to check with them about. My guess is that most will probably keep their analog services, meaning that you’ll only need your trusty coax cables. Digital cable services are definitely getting more popular, but I don’t think they’ve reached the mainstream yet where cable companies are going to entirely abandon the old basic cable plans. However, don’t take my word for it. They’re the final say on this.

There. I hope I was a little bit helpful on this whole transition thing. If anybody has further questions, feel free to post it, and I’ll find out what answer I can, or redirect you to a more proper channel (no pun intended), if I cannot.

For all the information above, the DTV converter box sign-up, and more, visit http://www.dtv2009.gov