With a little less than two months until the election, I'm adding a new feature to the site - that being predictions of the Electoral College from each state, each Monday, until election day. Without further adieu, here's the inagural map:

This map is essentially the same as the 2004 election, with the exception of New Mexico and Iowa flipping for Democrats. It puts the race at 274 - 264 in favor of the GOP, which I realize is counter-intuitive to many of the other maps being shown on CNN and Fox News, but nonetheless, is how I feel the states will fall at this time.

I didn't bother to label any of these states as too close to call, but rather decided to roll the dice. Naturally, I expect to revise the map each week as new information/polling/gut feelings sway my opinions. I don't at this time see the Republicans capturing any additional Democrat states, although Michigan could come in play later in the election, but the Democrats have a great opportunity in both Nevada and Virginia.

Here's something perhaps you weren't expecting me to say... It doesn't matter. Don't have a clue what I'm talking about? There was a big fuss over the "alleged" ban of Sarah Palin going on the Oprah Winfrey show. From the Drudge Report:

Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America -- but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket! Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. "Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on," an insider explains. "Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama." One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash! It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin's historic convention speech. Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography. Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, refused requests for comment. Developing...

Oprah then responded:

"The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

While Obama was on the show, and arguably used the appearance as part of his jump towards the presidency, his appearance was before he announced his run. In addition, she's come out wholeheartedly for Obama, which wasn't all that unexpected considering the many similarities the two share. While the election is still in session, a Palin appearance on her show would have a high amount of tension, since everyone on Oprah's show knows she supported Obama. Finally, and the most important point in my book - It's Oprah's show dammit! She has every right to allow who she wants on the show or not, no matter how dumb the decision may appear. A couple things may transpire because of this - Oprah, sensing her core audience wants to see Palin, will cave in. However, she may stick to her principles, and not have any candidate on her show until after the election. This works beautifully for Oprah, in that if Obama/Biden win, then it will be a "nice try, sweetie" type show, while if McCain/Palin wins, Palin might not have time to come on the show with the new responsibilities the VP job would entail and the preparation required before inauguration. Personally, I see Oprah the businesswoman making the decision, rather than Oprah the politician. This is where she invites Sarah Palin on the show, because not doing so now makes her look like a political hack, and alienates half of her viewers, just like her endorsement of Obama originally hurt her ratings a bit.

Well, the amount of viewers Sarah Palin received didn't really surprise me, but the Nielsen ratings for McCain did... As the title implies, the Democrats will find excuses as to why McCain could have possibly garnered a larger audience. You know, the same smarmy, pretentious ones who refer to John McCain as "Johnny." Don't worry, you're entitled to your viewpoints, and Republicans have the same smarmy, pretentious folks as well - those that refer to Barack Obama as Barack Hussein Obama or Joe Biden as "Joey." In any event, the Democrats will have a couple arguments regarding the numbers given:

• McCain got a huge boost from the NFL game on NBC
• Nielsen doesn't factor in PBS, and doing so puts Obama over the top

Here's the issue with each of these - While McCain did give his speech immediately after the NFL game, there was no net change from the NBC averages of the previous night. In fact, Republicans were worried that the NFL game would push back the speech later into the night, thus having many potential viewers go to sleep. The PBS argument, while valid when presented at face value, overlooks some important details. The ratings throughout the DNC were from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BET, TV One, Univision and Telemundo. The RNC did not have any coverage from BET or TV One, and the Univision and Telemundo coverage was only during the final hour of the night. On a side note to this, why Nielsen would rate BET, but not PBS or C-Span is beyond me. Don't the cable and satellite providers automatically have info over what customers are tuned into what channel on their box for statistics? Here's my take on all of this - McCain getting more viewers for his speech than Obama is a surprise. The other surprise I had was that the RNC actually averaged more viewers per night than the DNC at a 34.5 to 30.2 million viewers. This could also be taken a couple ways - first, the Republicans only had three days in the convention, rather than the scheduled four, due to Hurricane Gustav. This allowed them to cram in more "headline" speakers into a shorter time frame. In addition, while Sarah Palin's speech boosted numbers for the GOP, Joe Biden's speech night actually lost viewers from the night before when Hillary spoke. Because the conventions were a different amount of time, it isn't comparing apples to apples and therefore, isn't a realistic comparison. What the pure numbers show, however, is that a McCain-Palin ticket has just as much attention from the American people as the Obama-Biden one does, if not more. Regardless of what the pundits and partisans say, we've got a tight race on our hands and the next two months will be very exciting for political junkies.

Even with all the hype, Sarah Palin delivered a knockout speech. I was a bit leery after finding out she would be writing the speech herself, rather than allow a speechwriter to do so. But perhaps we underestimated that small town governor with no experience... For all the talking down of her credentials, people still turned in, with 37.2 million viewers according to Nielsen. As I predicted yesterday, the speech easily blew by the 30 million viewers I originally foretold. It didn't surpass Obama's record setting 38.4 million viewers, but as I mentioned, by getting a viewership of greater than 35 million, the Obama camp is worried. And while she didn't surpass Obama, she edged by Biden's speech with the wee margin of 13.2 million, a 55% increase in viewers. MSNBC's resident jackass Keith Olbermann summed it up best:

Case, I think, closed. If that speech was to be more about tone than content, pitch-perfect. If it was supposed to be more about content than tone, pitch-perfect. If that was supposed to be friendliness and what they call accessibility, couldn’t have done it better. Couldn’t have done it better.

He then went on to add:

It’s wonderful. It really was terrific. And notice—did you notice that throughout that, especially as it built towards its conclusion, the women in that convention hall, the ones we saw at least, we can’t say every one was this way, but there were tears throughout among the women. And it was not a maudlin speech, it was not a—it was not a salesmanship speech, there was just a—I know, I’m beginning to sound borderline sycophantic on this.

Of course, Keith Olbermann wouldn't say a thing like that about Sarah Palin's speech. Didn't you know, she's got an "R" next to her name. No, those comments were about Michelle Obama's speech last week at the DNC. Before blasting her for criticizing the media, CNN had something positive to say:

Well, let's just start with an obvious point that I don't think anyone has made yet. This speech was a heck of a lot better than Joe Biden's speech. I mean, it just was much more dramatic, much more interesting, much more entertaining.

You can watch the speech right here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCDxXJSucF4[/youtube]

I just saw a blurb on Drudge Report, comparing the ratings of the DNC's second night versus that of the RNC. Recall that DNC had Hillary Clinton as a headliner. Ratings were very high, with just under 26 million viewers. Compared to 21.5 million for day two of the RNC, I have to believe they are very pleased with the results - there were no headliners speaking yesterday, and the convention was still slow to pickup after Hurricane Gustav. In any event, tonight is THE night for the RNC. Forget about John McCain's speech for the time being. Tonight has the big speakers - Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and the most important - Sarah Palin. Barack Obama's historic speech had 38.4 million viewers. After talking with friends and family, Democrat and Republican alike - they are all interested in seeing the Palin speech. Drudge briefly had the headline:

All Eyes on Sarah; Nets Prepare for Record Audience

Now, the ratings matter for one very good reason in my book - If the ratings are near that, or surpassing that of Obama's speech, it will not guarantee anything with the election, but it will show that the Republican ticket has officially got the mojo back is was missing. Demographics hint that the Palin speech could indeed have those ratings. Lets face it, women outnumber African-Americans by a large margin in the country, and many of us are too young to remember the last time a Woman was in this position, as Geraldine Ferraro was in 1984. Yes, Hillary was close this year, but she wasn't actually on the ticket. I expect the Palin speech tonight to push the night over 30 million viewers. Should it push that number to 35 million, the Obama camp should be extremely worried by the shift in momentum - not in the polls, but in the interest of Americans. If it somehow *gasp* passes the Obama speech which was so lauded in the media, the Democrats will officially have wet themselves. Of course, this is dependent on Palin delivering a rousing speech. Anything other than contempt from the media will be a success for someone who they are looking for any reason to claim failure, which is shown from all of the shameless attacks. This is the make or break night for Republicans. Either McCain was a genius, or we've all been played the fool.

Hat tip to Neowin...

Google has released the very first beta of their new web browser, Google Chrome. Chrome is a browser that, for now at least, is focused on offering a full browsing experience within a minimalistic user interface. To skip past the P.R. phrasing, Google Chrome is designed to be simple to use without sacrificing any of the features required for daily web browsing. To get a little more in depth, Google Chrome uses the same rendering engine as Apple's Safari browser, named Webkit. In recent history, the developers of Webkit have made great strides in creating what is, as of today, the fastest browser engine in terms of rendering speed. Google Chrome, currently version 0.2.149.27, seems to use a slightly older build of Webkit (version 525.13, to be precise), however, so some of the recent Webkit development gains will not have made it into the first release of the browser. Other features of Chrome include a dynamic tab system which allows you to drag and drop tabs inside and outside of the browser window, an "incognito mode" in which the sites you visit are not added to your browsing history, and a feature similar to Opera's Speed Dial, in which you are presented with your nine most visited websites, in thumbnail form, when opening a new tab. If you wish to give Google Chrome a try, click the download link below. It's an early beta, though, so don't expect it to be perfect.

Link: Google Chrome Screenshot: View I've actually posted this entry via Google Chrome and find it to be decent for a beta (although isn't everything Google does always in beta?) but it misses some key things like the Firefox extensions such as AdBlock Plus...

The newest political argument seems to be that of experience - the experience of Presidential Candidate Barack Obama versus Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin. Palin's claim is simple - She started her political career in 1992 - four years before Barack Obama began his is 1996. Obama's claim to more experience is that his is more relevant, whereas Palin's tenure as a mayor doesn't matter as much. So which one is more experienced? That all depends on who you want to believe. Those in the McCain camp will undoubtedly say Palin, while those in the Obama camp will side with Barack. The only voices that matter are the independents who will decide the race, however. I'm a statistical oriented person, so from pure experience I'm inclined to say Palin, my support for the McCain-Palin ticket notwithstanding. A couple of thoughts though to put this into perspective. Sarah Palin isn't running for President - John McCain is. To make a valid comparison, you need to compare apples to apples. The whole premise of this argument doesn't knock Palin's credentials, but lowers those of Obama. By getting sucked into an argument comparing the Democratic #1 to the Republican #2, it elevates McCain above them both - naturally, otherwise the roles of Palin and McCain would be reversed. It also diminishes the idea of Joseph Biden, since he isn't talked about either. The other argument I hear is that she is only a "heartbeat away from the Presidency." Well, if she is being compared to Obama, then he doesn't even need a heartbeat, since he'll be there if voted in. The notion that Biden will be there for advice is also invalid because if, God forbid, something was to happen to a sitting President McCain, then Palin would select a capable Vice President as well. Democrats are trying so hard to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, that they've simply looked at best foolish - by falling for arguments such as this - to downright mean - for making up allegations claimign Palin's son is really her grandson (albeit false) and then prying into the family life to find out her seventeen year old daughter actually is pregnant.

Lets look at the differences here...Barack Obama was running on the premise of change...and then picked Joseph Biden, a Washington insider with 36 years of experience, more than that of John McCain, who was tied to the "same old politics." By selecting Governor Sarah Palin, McCain has presented the real change in the campaign. The Obama camp and those on the left are quick to counter with the talking points stating how she is younger than Obama and doesn't have the experience. Palin however, has more experience in politics than Barack Obama, which presents a challenge to the Democrats. She has a total of 16 years of political experience, with the last twelve years being in an executive position, and has been governor the last two. Barack Obama has a total of 11 years of political experience, with none of those being at an executive level. No, the Democrats feel that the President isn't required to have experience, but the Vice President is. Because that makes sense... Palin isn't my first choice, but she brings some interesting things to the table. First, the obvious - Palin is a woman and will help to bring the female vote into the GOP camp. I've met many women who said they would vote for woman no matter what, just based on principle, even if that isn't my preferred way of voting, since issues are my source of narrowing down my choices. A recent statistic I saw was that 24% of women are still undecided, while only 7% of men are. This is a huge boon for the McCain-Palin ticket, and the Obama camp is probably kicking themselves for choosing someone other than Hillary. Palin also has a near 90% approval rating in Alaska - while only offering 3 electoral votes - may help to influence energy issues with her positions on drilling in ANWR, even if contrary to that of McCain. She also has a "real" blue collar background, unlike the supposed one being touted for Joe Biden. Biden has been receiving the salary of a senator for the last 30 years, automatically putting him leaps and bounds above the common folk. He also takes the Amtrak train each day to work - Have you even seen how much that costs? It costs more than an average person can afford...As Obama claimed:

“Instead, night after night, week after week, year after year, he returned home to Wilmington on a lonely Amtrak train.”

Well, as an average person, I'm sure I could afford that. The cost from Wilmington to Washington DC only has a low, low price range of $83 to $97 for a round trip, daily. So...$400 to $500 per week - that sounds like the average "working class" American to me! Palin is closer to the average worker than any other candidate in history - if that isn't a change in politics as usual, I don't know what is. Let's face it - The left is terrified of this choice (as they should be) due to the unpredictability of losing more of Hillary's voters, while rallying the conservatives with a breath of fresh air. The election just got more interesting. Oh and by the way, with all of the talk regarding McCain's VP I forget...was there a speech last night or something?

With the recent headline on Drudge that McCain has decided on his running mate, some analysis on who that person will be is in order. Common thoughts are either former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, or current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Other names such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Bobby Jindal, Tom Ridge and Sarah Palin have been mentioned, among many more, but I find all of them to be a reach. Tim Pawlenty is a safe choice, but I don't think he would be able to hold his own against Joe Biden in any comparisons or debates. In addition, Minnesota looks like a solid Democrat state in the 2008 election, so there would be no electoral help. Pawlenty has around a 55% approval rating, which probably isn't enough to swing the state to the GOP. Mitt Romney, the other front runner for the selection, also wouldn't win his home state of Massachusetts. However, the wildcard effect from Romney is his backing in my home state of Michigan, an interesting swing state. Michigan is in a unique position for the GOP in this election. While much of the country is upset with Republicans and the Bush administration, Michigan is much worse off than other states and is controlled by a flawed Democratic leadership: Governor Jennifer Granholm has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush and only won the 2006 election due to a poorly managed campaign by Dick DeVos and by drilling into folks minds that he was just the same as Bush - sound familiar? Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is lucky to not be rotting in jail as we speak. He's facing jail time for assaulting a Sheriff's detective among other things and has an approval rating of 2%. Senator Debbie Stabenow has received bad PR lately with her husband getting busted in a prostitution sting. Unlike Obama's Vice Presidential choice of Joe Biden, McCain's choice could actually flip a state, and in the case of Michigan, a 17 electoral vote swing would be immensely helpful. Should John McCain select Mitt Romney, the ticket will receive my full support. If McCain decided to go in a different direction, my support would be lukewarm at best, with the exception of Mike Huckabee - for whom my support would be non-existant. The recent press tour Romney has been on, along with the never-ending praise he gives McCain leads me to believe that he will, in fact, be the selection. I believe he will select Romney, and look forward to the announcement after the Democratic Convention.

"Barack Obama has chose Senator Joseph Biden to be his Vice Presidential running mate. Biden has thirty-five years of experience in Washington. So between the two of them? That's almost thirty-six years of experience."