Pop Politics

Is your party alignment really dependent upon what you call a carbonated beverage? Just a little bit.

While up late eating everything in our pantry, I realized this one thing: There's a cultural divide in America. What? you say. This is a big discovery, you say. I know, I know. I'm just brilliant like that. No, hear me out. There's a cultural divide in America, and it should be visible in American English. Cultural divides very often create language shifts. It seems cultural boundaries fit themselves to linguistic boundaries, and vice versa. Well, my friends, it seems that the "Pop vs. Soda" site is backing me up on this one. Note:

Places that use "soda" primarily are definitely blue (Democrat, not blue on the map, though this is the case).
Places that use "coke" primarily are definitely red (Republican, see above).
Places that use "pop" primarily are mostly red.
Places that are sparsely populated:
If they're mostly "pop" they're probably red.
If they're mostly soda, with a significant mix of either or both of the others, they're probably swing states.
Washington, Oregon, and Arizona are a little weird here, but that may be because it's an internet poll, and people like to prove their own points, inappropriately.
Indiana. What the crap?

Further, note that there's a divide, geographically between West Coast and East Coast Dems, but that there's the coke/pop divide between Red States, which corresponds mostly to the Western Republican/Southern (Christian) Republican divide apparent in U.S. Politics.

So, in the end, look at this nice county map of it all and wonder, why didn't we think of this before? I'm going to start calling Arizonans "soda Republicans" and that's that.

*Special thanks to David Bowie (not the rather more famous rock star of the same name) of University of Central Florida for apprising me of this map's existence.

Hasta la Vista, Fidel

What Castro's departure means for your weekend.

After nearly fifty years heading the Communist Party of Cuba, Fidel Castro announced in a letter today that he would no longer "aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief." The news came as no surprise; Castro, 81, hadn't been seen in public since he went in for abdominal surgery in July 2006, and his brother Raúl has been acting in his place since that time. What was unexpected was Castro's voluntary decision to step down. Many world leaders in similar situations have only relinquished power on their death or at gunpoint. Castro's move, while not unprecedented, was certainly unexpected, and leaves open to debate the question of what will happen next in Cuba.

That doesn't mean, however, that you should start investing in Havana cigars. Castro's departure isn't likely to usher in a new age of democracy and tolerance in Cuba. Raúl was instrumental in suppressing revolution in Cuba, ordering executions and purges as recently as 1996. A Cuba led by Raúl Castro will likely have the same human rights record as the current one, if not slightly more oppressive. While the political climate isn't likely to thaw, however, the economic climate could change. Raúl has expressed concerns about the economic state of the country and wants to bring Cuba into the modern world. Cuba doesn't have the necessary resources to pull that off on its own, though. Where will he turn for aid?

Conventional wisdom would dictate that Raúl would look to the United States for that aid, though he wouldn't do so until after the November elections. He has spoken out against Bush several times since taking power in 2006, calling him "crazy" and "a common braggart." Yet he has been open to the idea of opening diplomatic relations with Washington in an effort to air out their grievances and come to an understanding. This would suggest that Raúl would be more receptive to an Obama government than any of the other major candidates. Obama has said that as president, he would be willing to open relations with nations considered as enemies to America, and Cuba certainly fits the bill. But the subject of Cuba is still a touchy one. Floridians aren't keen on the idea of easing restrictions on Cuba, since it opens the floodgates of refugees to their shores. Neither he nor Hillary Clinton are likely to openly support the idea of easing restrictions on Cuba at the cost of losing a swing state like Florida. Yet Obama is open to the idea of incremental reforms, possibly going further after discussions with Raúl Castro. If nothing else, the situation makes the already-interesting Democratic race even more tantalizing.

What of Fidel, though? His health is failing, but his mind remains alert and sharp. In his letter, he said that his only wish was to "fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas." He plans to continue to write under the title of "Reflections of Comrade Fidel" in Granma, the Cuban equivalent of Pravda. His influence will still be considerable. Castro has been the embodiment of the Cuban revolution for the last fifty years. He will officially only write pieces as opinion, but in Cuba, Castro's opinion is as good as policy. (Picture George Washington retiring but still writing regular dispatches about how he thought the government was doing.)

Essentially, the situation will change in Cuba, but it won't be a dramatic change. We may have to wait until both Castros are out of power before we see any changes with any lasting impact. Those Cuban cigars may be a while yet in coming.

It's Deja Vu All Over Again

Why 2008 could be just like 2004.

Near-nominee and Kennedy heir apparent Barack Obama has been riding a wave of popularity. He's come back from double-digit deficits in national polls to winning eight straight primary and caucus states. No longer the underdog in the Democratic race, he looks like a solid bet to win the nomination, although still not untouchable. (InTrade contracts for an Obama nomination are at 70.5, compared to just over 20 a month and a half ago.) The man's on a roll. Just ask any of his supporters.

So why is all this a bad thing? The problem is that all of this shares some uncanny similarities to John Kerry's 2004 run for the White House, which ended in defeat. Kerry was running a distant third in the polls until the Iowa caucuses, where he scored a dramatic come from behind win. That win propelled him to front-runner standing, prompting a landslide victory on Super Tuesday and the party nomination. Obama is following the same path, albeit with a few more twists and turns. Even if he doesn't win Texas or Ohio, if he stays close with Hillary, it will probably be enough to secure him the nomination, something that seemed impossible as recently as two months ago.

So what, you might ask. You'd be right to be skeptical; after all, plenty of candidates have won the presidency despite initial setbacks. (Just ask Harry Truman.) The similarities go quite a bit deeper, though, and the ones likely to come up soon are the most ominous. Kerry spent his whole campaign dogged by criticism about policy. Skeptics said he spent too much time on rhetoric (specifically anti-Iraq rhetoric) and not enough time saying what he intended to do if elected. Countless times in speeches and debates, he dismissed the claim by saying that if voters wanted to know what he stood for, they could visit his website to see specifics, none of which could be shared publicly due to time constraints. It got to the point that the phrase "I have a plan, and that plan can be found on my website" was commonplace among my friends and I in 2004.

Sound familiar? Obama has excelled at silver-tongued rhetoric so far. People from both parties leave his rallies in tears. His now famous music video, "Yes We Can", brings the rhetoric to the YouTube generation. People love it. But it won't be long before he will be asked to deliver specifics for his plan. Supporters are quick to point out that he's already doing this; he described a recent speech in Wisconsin as "a little more detailed, a little longer, with not as many applause lines." Sounds good, but at a forum at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an Obama staffer dodged questions about the specifics of the senator's research and science plan by referring attendees to the campaign website, saying readers could see how often they "really get into the weeds on an issue." Sounds like echoes of 2004 to me.

Perhaps even more ominously, Obama's and Kerry's opponents are strikingly similar. Kerry ran against George W. Bush, whose approval ratings had been steadily droppings since 9/11. A theme of "Anybody But Bush" ran through the campaign, and yet Kerry was unable to capitalize on it. Could Obama share the same fate? Anti-Bush sentiments run even higher now than they did in 2004, and yet, curiously, Republicans have decided to nominate John McCain, a candidate who inspires revulsion from the party base. If ever there was a year Democrats were destined to win the White House, it's this one. Yet they couldn't do it in 2004, and they may not be able to in 2008 for the same reasons.

Kerry, like many other Democrats, staked a lot of hope on the youth vote. Efforts to rock the vote attracted a lot of attention in the months before the election, yet paid off little. Obama seems to be energizing youth in America like no other candidate in history. Will they help carry him to the presidency, or will they discard him like an outdated 1GB iPod Nano? It's hard to say at this point, but history certainly gives us pause.

Kerry's image as a "flip-flopper" helped hurry along his political demise. (Doubters need look no further than the recent departure of Mitt Romney from the political scene.) Obama has avoided that characterization so far, but he could be in for a major pitfall. Other than the ethereal concept of "hope," Obama has built his campaign on the fact that he opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, a fact most voters are aware of. You can be sure that McCain will bring up the fact that Obama has voted to continue funding for the war since his election to the Senate. It's a tenuous connection, admittedly, but it's one that is sure to come up if Obama secures the nomination. The label "flip-flopper" has become the new "liberal," a word almost guaranteed to sink any presidential ambitions. Don't be surprised if accusations of "idealism" give way to "flip-floppery" in a few months.

After two consecutive November defeats, the Democrats - and particularly Obama supporters - have high hope for 2008. They may be in for a rude awakening come November 4.