Lentorama 2009: Great(?) Moments in Catholics on Television

September 26, 1960: John Kennedy takes on Richard Nixon in the first-ever televised Presidential debate.

I don't think I need to go into specifics here, but if you don't know how this turned out, this page will give you a decent synopsis.

Catholics haven't fared so well in Presidential politics since, but we are currently a heartbeat away from our second Catholic president. I was reminded of this yesterday when I saw Joe Biden, complete with ashes on his forehead, on NBC Nightly News. And two heartbeats away there's Nancy Pelosi, who is also on the team. All that being said, it may not be a bad idea this Lent to say an extra prayer for the health and safety of President Obama.

Based on the number of entries, most of you may not remember that I put together an election prediction contest (or perhaps most of you do, and I just have a much smaller readership than the handful I assume still read this thing). It seems like it would be gauche to have the results announced after next week's inauguration, so here they are!

The contest had five parts:

Part I: Pick the winners by state. There were 104 possible points here, as I threw in Guam's straw poll to get the contest to a 200 point theoretical maximum. Two of us managed to get 101 points: myself and Brian Hight. The odd number comes from Nebraska's split, as I awarded half credit to all of us who predicted McCain's win but not the split (the wife got full marks for picking the split, but then got half credit for picking a split in Maine, too).

Part II: Pick the percentages. Here you got 10 points each if you correctly predicted the popular vote percentages for Obama and McCain, losing a point for every quarter-point off one was. Kudos here to the wife, who got 17 of a possible 20 points.

Part III: Pick the Senate winners. Ten races, two points each. In order to score this I've assumed that Franken will remain the winner in Minnesota, and I gave credit for Georgia where people picked Chambliss and those who went with "other" to represent the run-off. Taking all that into account, Craig Barker ran the table and picked up all 20 points.

Part IV: Pick the next five finishers in order. This gave the minor candidates some love, with each candidate in proper order giving 5 points, those one position off giving 3, and two positions off giving 1. The wife earned all 25 points here, correctly getting the order of Nader, Barr, Baldwin, McKinney and Keyes.

Part V: Yea or Nay? Seven yea-or-nay questions, three points each. They were:

Would Santa Claus get 100 votes in West Virginia? A guy in Nevada who legally changed his name to Santa Claus was a registered write-in candidate in West Virginia, meaning that any votes for him would be reported under his name. Not surprising for a state full of coal, he only garnered 59 votes.

Would the Democrats get a 60 seat majority in the Senate? A nay for this admittedly unlikely possibility.

Would the Democrats get at least 250 seats in the House? Aye, they did.

Would any location be decided by fewer than 1000 votes? Nay, nowhere was even close to that number (though Missouri's 3903 is pretty tight).

Would the Democrats win more gubernatorial races than the GOP? Aye, they did, 7-4.

Would McCain or Obama get at least 75 percent of the vote in any state? Limited to state given the expected big win for Obama in DC, the closest we got was the President-Elect's 71.85 percent in Hawaii. Nay.

Would Obama win Dixville Notch, New Hampshire? The traditional first in the nation voting location went with Obama, 15-6, so aye.

Our wacky prop bet winner was the Left Reverend Erik Corley, sweeping the field for the full 21 points.

Entrants were also allowed to "ballot stuff" five races out a select group of state Presidential and Senate races. I don't think everyone realized that there were Senate races in play, as more than one entrant didn't use all of their stuffing opportunities. Brian was the only entrant to get the 10 extra points.

So when the smoke-filled room cleared, what were the final totals?

Coen, S. 170
Hight 167
Coen, M. 164
Barker 158
Corley 154
Sorenson 115

So kudos to the wife, whose success later in the contest made up for her McCain-friendly state picking. It should be noted that Greg's score is the result of an incomplete entry. I'm sure he'd have done much better if he'd bothered to try.

Thanks to all who played, and see you in 2012!

As you may imagine, scoring the election contest is a bit dicey, hence the delay. Which I know is killing the half-dozen of you who actually participated. At some point I'll score what I can and see if the outstanding races would matter. I'll try to get this wrapped up by Inauguration Day.

Oh, the voting.

We got to our polling place 10-15 minutes before it opened, and there was a line of 20-25 people in front of us (depending on how you count; there were several children in the line, so while they were in front of us they weren't going to be voting, unless ACORN got to them). By the time the polls opened I'd estimate 75 or so people were in line (based on the the segment behind us looking about twice as long as the segment in front of us).

For whatever reason, about 90 percent of the people in front of us lived in the other precinct (our ward is split into two precincts, both of which vote in the same place). This made our trip to the booth much quicker than expected, and we were out of there by 7:10 at the latest. We were the fifth and eighth voters for our precinct. Go us!

No problems with electioneering out front of the location, with only the write-in candidate for state rep out there when we arrived (turns out the wife and I both wrote him in). The whole thing went very smooth, with the exception of the bake sale not being set up in time for us to make a purchase. The women running it can be excused, given how the city put the kibosh on bake sales in 2006. But they better be ready to go in 2010.

Still time to get your entry for my election prediction game. It's due at 11:59 PM EST tonight, given that one of the questions on it will be answered by 12:15 or so tomorrow morning.

Note that the original spreadsheet didn't include Iowa, so if you filled that one out please email me with your call for that state. Sorry, Iowa.

For those of you who are looking for one more thing to drive you to distraction on election night, I've created a little prediction game.

Point yourself here to get a copy of the spreadsheet, and get your completed predictions to me by 11:59 PM EDT on Monday, November 3. If I've screwed anything up, feel free to note it in the comments for my public shaming and eventual correction. The winner will get a prize, by which I mean something I'll find at home that can be easily mailed or hand-delivered the next time I see the winner.

Two weeks until the election, so you know what that means. Endorsement time!

President - OK, I voted for John McCain in the primary, as I got to couple the vicarious thrill of voting in a Republican primary with maximizing my opportunities to vote against Mitt Romney. But I went into it knowing that I wouldn't vote for him again in November, and that's still the case. We're too far apart on issues, and he's clearly not the McCain of 2000. His talk is less straight now than ever, and I fully expect he'll bust out some revamped versions of John Edwards' "two Americas" stump speech before the week is out.

So then there's the other major option, Barack Obama. We in Massachusetts got a sneak preview of his campaign two years ago when Deval Patrick ran for governor, as the whole hope/change theme was the basis of his candidacy. And considering that it's been a mixed bag for Governor Patrick, I worry about similar lack of results for a potential President Obama (though I think Obama will find working with Congress less problematic than Patrick has found working with our hack-infested state legislature). So I'm at a bit of an impasse with him.

Normally, I'd settle this by going with one of the third-party candidates. In 2004 I endorsed voting for any one of them, depending on your politics. The only problem is that this year's crop of third-party candidates is sorely lacking. Your choices:

Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party: I don't know much about him as a person, but looking at the Party's website is interesting, to say the least. To quote their mission statement, "The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries." Which is great news to the folks who train seeing-eye dogs. They also seem very concerned about the North American Union, a theoretical merger of the US, Canada and Mexico, though I think they're missing a fundraising opportunity by not selling party logo-embossed tinfoil hats on their website.

Bob Barr, Libertarian Party: My problem here is personal, as Barr's role in the Clinton impeachment makes me want to slap the stupid little mustache off of his face every time I see him on TV. That he's turned his back on the GOP and now may help to torpedo McCain in some states makes me a little happy, in that now people on both sides hate the twerp.

Cynthia McKinney, Green Party: Assuming I never get the change to slap Barr's mustache off his face, McKinney may be able to do the honors for me. I've voted for the Greens the last couple of times, but can't see myself doing so this time between the cop slapping and all.

Ralph Nader, Independent: At this point I think he keeps running because he likes to get out of the house.

With all that in mind, the best I can do is say that Blogolicious endorses no one in particular, but wouldn't be heartbroken if you voted for Obama. Or Nader, if you want to get your third party on.

Senate - John Kerry is up against Republican Jeff Beatty and Libertarian Robert Underwood. Kerry is actually going through the motions of a campaign, as he's run TV ads, sent out mailers (including one with him acting as the T in the word VOTE) and even had a debate with Beatty on New England Cable News. I'll admit to knowing very little about Beatty and Underwood, but perusing their websites there's not enough there to convince me that either one of them is the right agent for change. So, for what it's worth, Blogalicious endorses John Kerry, though not exactly with enthusiasm.

US House - John Tierney runs against Richard Baker, a Republican. We actually got a mailing for Baker last week, looking to get money from us to do another mailing. Why he didn't just do one mailing I'm not sure, but he did tout his experience balancing the budget of his local school district as why he's the pefect person to fix our economy. I expect his plan has Treasury agents going door to door to sell wrapping paper, scented candles, and shares of AIG. While I'm dubious on him due to his switcharoo on the bailout bill, Blogalicious endorses John Tierney.

State House - Our state rep (Mary Grant) and state senator (Fred Berry) and governor's councilor (Mary Ellen Manning) are all running unopposed, so an endorsement seems pointless. However, we'll go out of district as Blogalicious endorses Arthur Vigeant for state representative for the Fourth Middlesex District. In the interest of full disclosure I work with one of his family members, but he does seem like the right choice, given that he's a long-time Marlborough city counselor running against a Democrat who was an aide to the previous rep.

I won't bore you with county races.

Ballot Question 1 seeks to repeal the state income tax in Massachusetts, cutting it in half next year and removing it entirely the following year. This doesn't seem like the best idea, given what the medium-term predictions are for the economy, and when paired with the cap cities and towns have on raising property tax the results of this passing look pretty grim. On the other hand, if you ever wanted to pay $750 to renew your driver's license, this seems like the perfect way to have it happen. Blogalicious endorses a no vote on Question 1.

Ballot Question 2 would decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, replacing criminal sanctions with fines and (in some cases) mandated treatment. Law enforcement and county DAs are against the question, and while I do have some concern related to public health and safety, I'm not convinced that the criminal system is the best way to approach things, so Blogalicious endorses a yes vote on Question 2.

Ballot Question 3 would ban dog racing, a proposal that's been brought up before and met with narrow defeat. While supporters focus on animal cruelty issues, I'm thinking this would be a good way to open up space for actual casinos. Trump's people have already looked at Wonderland, the track in Revere, which is located near public transportation and is likely to go bankrupt due to low revenue and significant tax debt. This could also shift racing fans to Suffolk Downs, which could use the business as well. So, perhaps twisted logic, but it leads to Blogalicious endorsing a yes vote on Question 3.

Just once, when Sarah Palin or someone of her ilk drops a "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" in the middle of a speech, I want the crowd to react like the kids do in the Harry Potter books when Voldemort gets mentioned by name. Whatever faith I have in humanity will finally exhaust itself, but at least I'll get a chuckle out of it.

I don't have a real opinion on this whole Bristol Palin pregnancy thing, other than hoping she and the baby daddy get away from the sort of names that were used on Bristol and her siblings. Although it would be amusing to have the Vice President introduce the nation to her first grandchild, Yardarm Slapshot Palin-Johnston.

My theory on McCain's VP choice - he selected her for her fresh, young organs. Has anyone checked to see if they share a blood type?

Wound up going red instead of blue yesterday, thanks to George Washington. It was his head I saw, rather than whatever state-specific scene was on the back of the quarter (the Maryland state house, I think), making my ballot choice final.

My previous plan was to vote for the candidate with the greatest amount of support outside of our polling place, but I'm assuming the weather (freezing rain, with up to an inch of sleet on the ground) kept people home. So much for Ron Paul's dedicated masses.

One thing I noticed as we were leaving the polling area is that there was a ballot available for the Working Families Party that had no one listed on it. An opportunity missed.

As if there were any chance that I'd vote for Romney tomorrow, I read today that former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum is campaigning with him. Based on past experience, I think that any idea that Santorum favors is a good one to reject.

Still, not sure if we're going red or blue tomorrow. May wind up flipping a coin.

Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris, and now John McCain has Sly. So who would the other candidates have to back them up?

Mitt Romney: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both are/were Republican governors of states that aren't thought of as conservative. Neither had elected experience before becoming governor. Arnie had well-sculpted pecs. Mitt has well-sculpted hair. Both have killed alien life forms that have the power of invisibility. They're perfect for each other.

Rudy Guiliani: Harrison Ford. Everybody loved you - for a time. You even had a moment where you looked completely Presidential. Now, you've had your mid-life crisis, done some odd things (ranting about ferrets and Six Days, Seven Nights, respectively), and remain on the edge of relevance with a level of popularity that's surprisingly soft.

Ron Paul: Nicolas Cage. Neither seems to belong in the category they're in, and neither really started out in a way that would make you thing they'd be where they are now (Paul is a doctor, while Cage's first role was in Fast Times at Ridgemont High). Both have popularity beyond what you'd expect. And both are loony tunes.

And for the Dems...

Barack Obama: Wesley Snipes. Always bet on black.

Hillary Clinton: Linda Hamilton. There aren't that many female action stars, and comparing Hillary to a man would probably lead to some sort of protest. So I'm going with Hamilton based on both women having matrimonial difficulties. Hamilton has been married three times, while Clinton... well, you know that story. Both also achieved their greatest success after moving to New York to pursue a career. Which is something, I suppose.

John Edwards: Steven Segal. He's always fighting on the side of the people, which befits the new, populist stance that Edwards is using. Both also continued on long after the point where they should have moved on and done something else with their lives.

Dennis Kucinich: I have nothing. It's hard to come up with an action star for someone whose campaign website touts "Strength Through Peace." Suggestions welcome!

(UPDATE: Kucinich has saved us the trouble of finding him an action star by dropping out of the race. The article I read on this reminded me that Mike Gravel is still in it, though, so I have to pick someone for him. I'm going with Ron Ely, best known for playing Tarzan back in the day. Like Gravel, you barely know who he is (if at all) and haven't seen him in quite some time.)

Looking for added guidance on who to vote for, I've taken a number of online quizzes to see what candidate I match up with the best. The results?

USA Today: Mike Huckabee
Political Base: Bill Richardson
Minnesota Public Radio: Clinton or Kucinich
SpeakOut.com: Chris Dodd
SelectSmart.com: Kucinich
Blue Pyramid: Peter Camejo (who isn't even running!)
ABC News: Huckabee (which isn't surprising, as they use the USA Today questions)
GoToQuiz.com: Richardson
dehp.net: Kucinich
Glassbooth.org: Edwards

Clear as mud, just as you'd expect. Also pretty funny that neither of the people I've decided I'm most likely to vote for came up at all.

Reading this post from the Bruce has finally gotten me to address the looming Massachusetts primary, which, like California's, will be held on Super Duper Tuesday. After reading his post, I was stunned to learn that there's a decent chance that he and I will wind up voting for the same person. I wouldn't have concieved of that four years ago. Or even four months ago, for that matter.

Now that I'm an unenrolled voter, I get to choose which party's primary to vote in, a first for me. So how might it go down?

Democrats - I have to admit, my decision here is based mostly on personalities and ephemera rather than positions, as from what I can tell the differences between the major candidates isn't that great. I'm discounting John Edwards as I find his populist posturing a little too sudden and opportunistic. And I don't think I'd go for Hillary as I've still got some Clinton fatigue from when her husband was in office.

This brings me to Obama, even though I have the same concerns about him that I did about Deval Patrick, namely that I'm not sure there's enough substance under the inspirational message. On the minus side, the Presidency is a tough job to learn while doing. On the plus side, he'd be able to choose his Cabinet and other staffers to help get things going. But then I think of our current leader and the example of how this sort of plan can go horribly awry. As you can tell, I'm not particularly convinced about this.

There is an outside chance I'd throw a vote to Joe Biden in honor of his "noun verb 9/11" analysis of Guiliani's campaign. It may be the most on point thing anyone has said during this campaign.

Republicans - voting here would be driven by voting against Romney. His tenure as governor was not impressive (granted, he didn't have a lot of support, given how thin Republicans are on the ground here), and I don't buy for a second his "evolution" into conservatism. I tend to think he was always conservative, but played at moderate positions in order to get elected. This hardly makes him unique, but it makes it hard for me to believe what he's saying at any given time. A good rule of thumb with politicians generally, but it strikes me as being particularly important with him.

A vote here would be guided by how candidates have done in the states to come and how things appear to be shaping up in the polls. Were I casting this vote today I'd probably go with McCain, even though I probably more closely aligned with Guiliani on issues. We do have a thing for McCain in New England. It's probably due to his curmudgeonly attitude and fondness for sweaters (which, based on this, may have an odd same-sex marriage/union corollary).

Should Guiliani show some life in Florida, I may throw him a vote. It seems unlikely, although if it would help Romney finish third here it'd up the odds.

The other option would be Ron Paul, even though he's a couple of steps on the wrong side of the good crazy/crazy crazy line. I've probably seen more signs for him here than any other candidate, and had be fared better in New Hampshire I'd be more inclined to pay tribute to the dedication of his supporters.

Huckabee gets nominal consideration based on performance to date. Everyone else is out.

Green - yes, there is Green Party primary here. Most of the names are of party functionaries that I've not heard before. Ralph Nader is on the ballot, as is Cynthia McKinney, best known for her time as a cop-slapping Georgia Congresswoman. I don't know what would drive me to vote here, though I am tempted to cast my first vote for Kat Swift, who will turn 35 this year, just so I can cast my first vote for a candidate younger than I am. But I suppose that day will come soon enough, so I'll likely pass for now.

You can see the lineup for the Massachusetts primary ballots here.

OK, there's an ad on during the game now that has Curt Schilling endorsing John McCain. Not particularly surprising given Schilling's politics, and I suppose it may help out here given the way the Sox are venerated here, but given Schilling's general reputation as a jackass I don't know if it'll help all that much. It also doesn't help that Schilling's delivery is solid oak levels of wooden.

I did not watch last night's debate in South Carolina, as it is April 2007 and I am already sick of the 2008 election. It does not help that, out of the eight announced candidates, I cannot get excited about any of them. The best I can do is nominal interest; will 2008 be the year that I - gasp! - vote in the Republican primary?

Probably not. My only motivations there would be to (a) continue my string of voting against Mitt Romney, and (b) being the only guy in Beverly to vote for Sam Brownback. And even then, I think the guy who drives around with the "ARREST ALL CRIMINALIENS" sign on his car may be a Brownback voter.

I was just on the Massachusetts secretary of state's website, and have discovered that it only takes 2500 signatures to get on the Presidential primary ballot. That's tempting.