Looking at the numbers for a minute

There are several electoral vote calculators out on the web. A good graphical one can be found at Grey Raven, about which I know nothing. However, the java applet there has information on the electoral college results for every US presidental election, and allows you to play with the numbers for this year's election.

( Playing with the numbers a little )

The summary: Right now, this is not a landslide for the incumbent. The likely breakdown is a Bush victory by a larger margin in the electoral college than he got in 2000 after stealing Florida's votes. However, the 2000 election showed that Florida is up for grabs, even with vast amounts of skullduggery both organized and spontaneous arrayed in his favor. If the Democratic candidate can carry all the states he's currently projected to win, plus "Likely Bush" states worth 13 or more electoral college votes, the Democrats win. There are two states that would do it by themselves--Florida and Ohio--and a lot of combinations of two states that would do it--Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee each have 9 to 11 votes.

The New York Times article pointed out that no Republican has ever been elected president without winning Ohio, so that seems certain to be one of the big battleground states. The incredibly stupid steel tarrifs that were enacted in 2001 were blatant pandering to Ohio, Michigan, and other Rust Belt states, but they didn't generate enough votes and Bush recinded them. The Democrat might well be able to use that against Bush to win Ohio.

The battle is an uphill one. But it isn't Pickett's Charge. Please remember that every time the SCLM declares the election decided before November. And if you haven't registered to vote yet, please go do so.

Condensed Return of the King: The Movie

Is available here. Not the best "condensed movie" I've ever seen, but there is a line in the Grey Havens which made me laugh hard enough that I felt light-headed.

Tort reform: Another number

One of the many policies pursued by the forces which occupy the US government is medical malpractice tort reform. They have argued that high medical malpractice payments are driving up the cost of medical care to the point where people cannot afford health insurance.

They are, for the most part, lying. Dwight Meredith has written a couple of very good short articles about the numbers involved; I particularly recommend the second one ("Scare Tactics Part II") because of what it says about the amount of darkness being shed on the issue:

Please note that in constant 2002 dollars, the total payments from both judgments and settlements in med mal cases for the entire twelve year period from 1990 through 2002 was about $44 billion or about one-half of what Jane thought was plausible for a single year.

Jane Galt is very smart, has a very good education, reads a lot and is well informed. How can it be that she was off by a factor of 16 or 20 on such a basic point as the total payouts for medical malpractice cases?