One More Look Back at the Presidential Elections

I believe I've said enough about the Presidential elections, see for example my previous post Obama Win, 50% Not Voting, and Other Trends, but to round it up and offer some final information on who voted how, see this article in The Economist, The Remaking of the President  

The Economist

and the full results of the elections in this interactive CNN overview.

Obama Win, 50% Not Voting and Other Trends

Election Day came and went. Although in several states such as Ohio and Florida the lines waiting to vote were long and slow moving, there was no major upheaval or contesting voting outcomes as some had expected. President Obama won quite a convincing victory, and although surprising to me that that he won quite early in the evening and relatively easily, it was no surprise to the key pollsters I had referred to in my previous posts Alternatives to the Polling Frenzy  and At the Eleventh Hour: Election Polls Revisited.

Intrade was spot on with 303 electoral votes for Obama , so was Nate Silver  (who called 50 out of 50 states and had forecast a 91% chance for a Obama win with 313 electoral votes for Obama) and Professor Sam Wang (who had forecast a 99% chance with 332 electoral votes for Obama.)

The results in the Presidential election were as follows:

303 electoral votes for Obama vs. 206 electoral votes for Romney (270 electoral votes needed to win);  60,364,793 Popular Votes (51.2% - O) and 57,776,942 Popular Votes (48.8% - R),
a difference of 2.8 million voters (or approximately 2%) in Obama's favor.

The Senate race resulted in 53 seats for the Democrats (up 2); 45 for the Republicans (down 2) and 2 for the Independents (unchanged.) 51 of 100 votes are needed for majority. The House race resulted in  193 seats for the Democrats (up 7) and 233 for the Republicans (down 2). 218 of 435 seats are needed for majority.

In addition to President Obama's victory, there were some major trends to note:

At the Eleventh Hour: the Case for Proposition 37

Sweet Corn/Fairfax County

On the day of the Californian referendum of Proposition 37, requiring labeling of GMOs, an editorial was written for the American Sustainable Business Council by Brian Chossek, President of Seven Oaks Farm, titled "Making the Business Case for Prop 37." 

"Prop 37 isn’t just a vote for the rights of consumers, although that’s more than enough reason to pass it. Prop 37 isn’t just a vote about the quality of our food, although that’s more than enough reason to pass it. Prop 37 is about voting for transparency in businesses. It’s a vote that tells businesses to meet our needs. It’s a vote for entrepreneurship, innovation, and job and wealth creation. That’s just good business, and it’s why sustainability minded businesses should back Prop 37 on November 6th."
 
If the case wasn't already clear to support Proposition 37 - see my previous post, GMO, Health & Elections - this editorial will only strengthen it.

At the Eleventh Hour: Election Polls Revisited

Election Day in Philadelphia by John Lewis Krimmel 1815

Today is Election Day and it's finally the American voters' turn to speak and decide this election after a long year of way too many meaningless Republican primary debates, too much negative advertising, too many pundits keeping the media and citizenry occupied with tidbits, and Presidential debates which were basically ignored after the first one. Not to mention a barrage of obscene amounts funding two presidential campaigns, the money of which was spent on what exactly:to inform the voters or to fund solutions for the future of this country? Anyway, before you are on your way to the voting booth, here a few snapshots of leading pollsters. Let's review and at the end of the day see who will be right.

First, Intrade: with a 72% chance for a Obama win, and 303 electoral votes for Obama and 235 for Romney (270 electoral votes are necessary for the Presidency.)

GMO, Health & Elections

Sweet corn/Fairfax County

This coming Tuesday it's not only U.S. Presidential Election Day, but there also will be a Californian referendum with wide repercussions. I'm speaking of Proposition 37 requiring labeling of GMOs ("genetically modified organisms".) The outcome of this referendum will not only influence farmers and eaters in California, but also around the U.S. and even the rest of the world.

Foods that contain GMO have been available in the U.S. since the mid 1990s, and by now approximately 90 percent of the corn, soybeans, rapeseed and sugar beets grown in the United States are GMO.  Differently from most other countries, no labeling is required in the U.S. In an article by Francis Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé in the Huffington Post, "Seven Things to Tell Your Friends About GMOs"  the writers, experts in food, environment and sustainability, describe seven key points to consider for this referendum about GMOs:

Holland Offering a Solution for Battling Floods

The Netherlands/Wikimedia Commons

Just after hurricane Sandy has struck the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. with a ferociousness and damage to people and property,  only unimaginable a few days before, the first voices are being raised on how to avoid this kind of disaster.

Let's look at the damage sofar: 90 deaths in the U.S., of which 41 in New York City; over 6 million households have been or are still without power; hundreds of homes along the shore damaged or destroyed; the nation's leading subway and railway system which is still not fully in use; and the list goes on and on. The Financial Times reports that "Sandy will rank among the eight most costly storms ever to have struck the US, with losses to the insurance industry of at least $7bn..... The more pessimistic say initial forecasts have a tendency to underestimate the final tally, as was the case with hurricanes Katrina and Irene. One consultancy, PwC, says the total costs to the economy may well reach $45bn." 

Clearly, the first priority is to take care of the victims and repair damage. But what if similar hurricanes would hit again: is there a way to reduce or avoid all together this kind of damage?  Matthew Yglesias  wrote an article in Slate, New Amsterdam May Have To Look Back to the Netherlands To Control Future Flooding where he says:

The Day After Tomorrow.....

The Day After Tomorrow/Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

The scenes on TV the last few days reminded me of the 'science fiction" movie, The Day After Tomorrow, with actor Dennis Quaid as a climatologist who warns governments against catastrophic weather caused by global warming. His warnings are not heeded till suddenly violent polar weather starts assaulting the world, from New Delhi to Tokyo, from Scotland to eventually New York City.  The images of floodings and devastation in the streets of New York, which in this 2004 movie looked like fantasy and science fiction, became reality this week. Just like the concept of climate change being connected to recent hurricanes hitting the American North East, a concept being ridiculed by many in the U.S.,  finally starts gaining traction with some political leaders.

New York Governor Cuomo was quoted in the New York Times this Wednesday, saying:

 "“Climate change is reality,” while estimating Sandy’s economic damage up to $6 billion. “Given the frequency of these extreme weather situations that we’ve had — and I believe that it’s an increasing frequency — for us to sit here today and say this is a once-in-a-generation and it’s not going to happen again, I think would be shortsighted.”

In that same article, Klaus Jacob, an adviser to New York City on climate change, who had warned of the certainty of flooded Manhattan highways and tunnels of stranded ed subway riders and subway commuters if the next storm surge topped Irene’s, states:

“I’m disappointed that the political process hasn’t recognized that we’re playing Russian roulette,” said Mr. Jacob."

 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said: