On to the 2004 Presidential Election

I'm one of those guilty people, but I've used the famous 2000 election blue and red state map to talk about politics. It's a simplistic map, and therefore a simplistic way to talk about presidential politics.

Here's a different analysis of the red and blue presidential race map, Beyond Red and Blue.

Sullivan divides the country into 10 regions, and does a much more in depth analysis of how the state votes for president in the 2000 election. It's also a political road map for Bush and the other democratic candidates on how to win in 2004.

"If either Bush or the eventual Democratic nominee in 2004 can carry a sixth region, as Bill Clinton did in both 1992 and 1996, he is virtually assured to win in November. As political campaigns pull out their maps and sharpen their pencils, setting a course for November 2, 2004, they should consult our cartography - if only to determine where their opportunities lie, and where they're wasting their time. "

Sullivan explains his rationale for 10 regions in this article, Continental Divides.

"American politics always comes back to geography. One reason for this is the Electoral College, which doesn't award votes based on which candidate was favored by soccer moms or NASCAR dads. On election night, all that matters is who won where, and the 10-region model shows the long-term trends that both parties must take into account in trying to assemble an Electoral College majority."

If I think about it long enough, I bet I could come up with a similar geographical map for San Francisco and a strategy for a candidate to win the mayor's race. Gore won in the big cities, but lost in the heartland and the suburbs. Gore won the big populous states like California and New York, and lost the smaller states.

Gonzalez won in the inner city, but lost in the outer city or as we say here, "the suburbs of San Francisco". But in San Francisco, most people don't live in the inner city they live in the outer city. The neighbourhoods and districts that Gonzalez won accounted for about 30-40% of the San Francisco population.

A San Francisco mayoral candidate popular in either the inner or the outer city, would need to win enough hoods in the opposite region to win the mayor's election. Newsome won because he carried enough neighborhoods in the inner city, as well as dominating in the outer city.

Check out these San Francisco mayoral race maps, Runoff Maps.

This is from the russian paper Pravda so who knows if it's true but I wish it would happen to me, E-mail letters from the future: People receive warnings from their future selves.

I wish my future self would let me know if I'm ever going to make it as a self-employed writer, and answer other burning and important questions in my life.

I was reading a political blog from someone who is a Gonzalez supporter, and a well known San Fran political writer, and at the end of his entry he penned "Gavin Newsom is white trash."

Is there a difference between the GOP and the Progressives in San Francisco?

Didn't the GOP and their commentators for eight plus years call Bill and Hilary Clinton "white trash"?

Didn't Dick Cheney say at the 2000 GOP convention that "He and Bush were going to clean out The White House"? Which by the way, sounded a ton like Gonzalez's campaign slogan of "Anyone but Newsome" and "We're going to get rid of the Democractic machine"

The Progressives keep harping on how they're not "politics as usual", but to my eyes, they're mirroring the GOP tactics right down to calling Newsome "white trash".

So much for being a different party; more like "The Left Wing GOP."

Watch! The Greens probably already have a plan to put a Recall on the ballot next year.

There's no more demanding and stressful job than being an NFL Coach. Poor Jim Fassel, coach of the NY Giants was canned, New York Giants Fire Coach Jim Fassel. The season isn't even over, and he already got his pink slip.

Look at George Siefert. The 49ers fired him, and he has the NFL's best-winning percentage of all-time.