I know the (crackpot) debate over Obama’s citizenship (and therefore eligibility to be president) has been thoroughly debunked. That won’t make the issue go away for “birthers,” of course. Even though it was debunked more than a year ago (during the oh-so-thorough vetting of opposition candidates). But there’s one issue that bothers me about the coverage about this issue, even from the media that’s piled on top of Loud Dobbs (after needing a cue from Jon Stewart): Why doesn’t anyone discuss the definition of “natural born” citizen?

In the past several weeks, Evo’s government has become more aggressive towards Washington: In short order, the US ambassador, USAID, and the DEA were expelled from the country. The Peace Corps left on its own, but it too was a target of anti-US rhetoric. In response, the White House decertified Bolivia’s anti-narcotics efforts & threatened to end Bolivia’s favorable trade relationship (which threatens thousands of Bolivian jobs). Clearly, US-Bolivian relations are at a low point.

I don’t announce my politics too much. Students often read my blog & I take the idea of academic neutrality very seriously—or try to, at least. But I really can’t let the 2008 US presidential election go by w/o comment: I voted for Barack Obama. Here are my reasons, in no particular order:

Tomorrow is election day. So far, it looks like an Obama victory, and I’m going so far as to suggest a Reagenesque landslide. There’s a pool at work, and I’ve put in a prediction of 389 electoral college votes (including one Nebraska electoral college member & all of Arizona for Obama). Stay tuned.

Should a US elected official travel to a foreign country for a self-described “warm” & “friendly” meeting w/ the leader of a state (a military dictator, mind you) who had only a few years earlier orchestrated a September morning terrorist attack on US soil (Washington, DC) that killed American citizens? In the age of the “war on terror,” that’s an interesting question. Especially if the elected official was there to express his support for that leader, not to condemn him.

If you’re interested in how the world sees the US presidential contest, The Economist has a “Global Electoral College projection based on online voters in foreign countries. Not surprisingly, it has Obama up (8,957 to 31). Surprising, however, is that one of the three countries where McCain leads is Cuba (the others are Georgia & Macedonia).

A little thought popped into my head during last night’s presidential debates. And I’ve been unable to let it go. It has to do w/ the question of what is the most pressing issue facing the US as it moves deeper into the 21st century.

The last presidential debate introduced us to an interesting character: “Joe the Plumber.” He was undoubtedly the highlight of the show, and an interesting effort by McCain to be “folksy.” It’s nice to see Obama had a good sense of humor, and rolled w/ it.

It’s the day of the second presidential debate, and already the momentum has shifted back to Obama.

So the Senate passed a (oh so slightly) modified bailout package 74-25-1. Both of my (Maryland) senators voted for it. Unfortunately, neither is up for reelection this year. Now it’s up to the House. If my representative (John Sarbanes) votes for it, I will vote for his Republican challenger in November (and I don’t currently even know his/her name). Why? Because I want my $2,300! (my estimated share of the $700 billion).

It was perhaps too predictable, but the Bush administration is rescinding Bolivia’s preferential trade access to the US. The move, based on the previous White House declaration that Bolivia failed to meet up to its drug war obligations, is clearly a further response to the recent expulsion of the US ambassador from Bolivia. For its part, Bolivian government has declared the move an “attack on democracy.”

Here’s a curious finding: If you go to techPresident & check on its tracking of candidate Facebook supporters you’ll see that McCain had a huge spike in supporters on September 18 (select McCain only, and the most recent week). I’ve no idea why. But it’s curious. But have no fear Obamanauts: Obama still out-friends McCain by 1,867,732 to 531,625.

I’m in Boston, attending APSA (the largest American political science conference) & no one here seems to understand the Palin choice either. At least the buzz around the floor seems to be one of “I don’t get it” (though probably mostly because no one follows Alaska politics).

MABB has a pretty good rundown of the current US presidential candidates’ positions on Latin America. Basically, it’s unclear what (if any) position McCain has beyond free trade. Obama, on the other hand, has a lengthy position paper on the subject.

An interesting political observation from one of my savvy students: some US voters can vote more than once under special circumstances. In fact, he was already planning on it.

K8 & I have a wager on the Texas primary. I’m certain Obama will win by at least 10 points. The stakes: dinner at a restaurant of the winner’s choice; loser pays. As of today, I’m pretty confident that Hillary can’t beat the spread. Thoughts on dining options?

----
Editorial note: I should also make it clear that I am not endorsing or backing either candidate in this post. As a political scientist, I am only making a prediction.

When did this kind of power-grabbing come back en vogue?

Yes, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez wants to have indefinite reelection for president (but not for governors or mayors) in the new constitution. Seems pretty consistent for that administration. Bolivia’s Evo Morales wants indefinite reelection for presidents (but not for prefects or mayors—why does this sound so familiar?) put in that new constitution as well. So does Ecuador’s Rafael Correa.

I’m extremely interested to see if Stephen Colbert does, in fact, end up on the South Carolina primary ballot—and what effect that has on the presidential race. A stunt? Perhaps. But then, so are the “candidacies” of the likes of Mike Gravel, Tomas Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Dennis Kucinich, and at least a few others in the over-crowded primary fields.

Last semester, I conducted a voting simulation in several political science classes (thank you, colleagues) at Dickinson. This year, I hope to expand that to a much broader cross-section of the student body. In addition, I’m hoping to rope in a few other colleges & universities, if possible. I’ll be running the simulation at Dickinson from October 22 through November 2.

Just a quick note: I’ve been following the use of Facebook in the 2007-08 presidential primary races. Here’s a paper on about the Facebook & the 2006 mid-term elections. This is the kind of thing I plan to use in my Spring 2008 research methods course.

While I’m still putting together my own data on presidential candidates & their Facebook supporters, techPresident has been doing that, too. And lately it’s been presenting the information in handy graph form. Click here to view their Facebook supporters graphs, their MySpace supporters graphs, and their YouTube stats. I still prefer using Facebook, since it’s more restrictive (MySpace accounts can include groups, not just individuals, and it’s possible to have multiple personal accounts, which can inflate figures).

Did Barack Obama hit his first hiccup in the Facebook primaries race? He’s still gaining supporters (all the candidates are), but his rate of increased support was the lowest for the 7-day period between July 30 & August 6. He only gained 4.53% more supporters (the median rate for Democrats was +9.36%; the median rate for Republicans was +10.80%).

A quick look at the Facebook primaries numbers is merited following the Democratic presidential candidate debates (hosted by CNN & YouTube). I’m not so much interested in number of supporters (every candidate gained supporters), as much as percent change in number of supporters (7/23—7/25) relative to the previous percent change (7/17—7/23). Note that 7/23 recorded figures are pre-debate figures.

The latest installment of my Facebook candidate updates: Not much has changed, though Mike Huckabee (1,820 supporters) has moved up a notch (squeaking past Sam Brownback, 1,802) in the GOP race. Barack Obama still has more supporters than all the other candidates combined (109,847 to 92,752); Rudy Giuliani still has no Facebook profile; Chris Dodd’s (930) profile picture is now a Simpsonesque drawing. There’s also a new “independent” candidate: Ray McKinney (15).

Facebook has launched a new US Politics application, which makes it much easier to track the “popularity” (measured by number of Facebook supporters) of candidates (including governor, Senate, and House candidates). I’ve also noted (in my spreadsheet) the number of supporters for candidates last week (but didn’t post it).

This is the latest installment of the Facebook primaries updates (after a month’s absence). I’ve been keeping track of primary presidential candidates’ Facebook profiles, taking a periodic tracking of their number of “supporters” (i.e. “friends”). Note that Rudy Giuliani still has no profile; most likely this hides a large share of GOP support headed into the primaries (though one would expect Facebook users to lean Democratic).

This is the latest installment of the Facebook primaries updates. I’ve been keeping track of primary presidential candidates’ Facebook profiles, taking a periodic tracking of their number of “supporters” (i.e. “friends”). Note that Rudy Giuliani still has no profile.

This is the latest installment of the Facebook primaries updates. I’ve been keeping track of primary presidential candidates’ Facebook profiles, taking a periodic tracking of their number of “supporters” (i.e. “friends”). Note that Rudy Giuliani no longer has a profile (suggesting the numbers from last week weren’t “official”).

I’ve been keeping track of primary presidential candidates’ Facebook profiles, taking a periodic tracking of their number of “supporters” (i.e. “friends”). This is similar to the “MySpace primaries” project at the Web Candidate 2.0 blog. Beyond periodic updates, I’m also noting their numbers in an Excel spreadsheet. There are some problems: Some candidates still don’t have Facebook profiles. Some have made their profiles private (meaning, I can’t view how many friends they have w/o “supporting” them first). Still, the results are interesting:

I’m not the only one tracking candidate Facebook profiles. The Hotline, a political blog by National Journal, has been keeping stats, too. Check out this post from April 20 (which also has links to all the candidates’ Facebook profiles).

Sometimes I like running little experiments—simulations, games, activities—in my classes. I think they’re useful to illustrate a point, or to dissect an argument, or even just to make complex ideas more accessible (and fun). This week I roped another six faculty into my latest project: presidential voting simulations.

I’m sure I’m not the first person to notice this. But this is clearly the first web-driven presidential election. Check out the Facebook profiles for: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and John Edwards. I couldn’t find profiles for Rudy Giuliani, Bill Richardson, or the other also-rans. Sure, they each have a website, but who in American w/ a pulse doesn’t?