| Outcome | Legislative Outlook | Implication for County | Odds of Happening | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats | Republicans | (1 = best/highest, 8 = lowest/worst) | ||
| President, Senate, House | - | Slow advance | 1 | 3 |
| President, Senate | House | Neutral | 2 | 1 |
| President, House | Senate | Neutral | 3 | 6 |
| President | Senate, House | Slow retreat | 4 | 4 |
| Senate, House | President | Fast retreat | 5 | 7 |
| Senate | President, House | Fast retreat | 6 | 2 |
| House | President, Senate | Fast retreat | 7 | 8 |
| - | President, Senate, House | The Apocalypse | 8 | 5 |
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Odds of Sods: November 2012 Edition
In the three preceding post I have made my predictions for the outcomes of the contests for the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Below is how I see the cycle as a whole. The second best outcome, which preserves the status quo, is also the most likely. The very best outcome - full Democratic control - is the third most likely. Unfortunately, the sixth best (or third worst) outcome is the second most likely. The chances of the other outcomes are very low at this point, as it would mean that people predicted two or more of the three contests wrong. Modern polling is reasonably good, and there are enough of them for the Presidency and Senate that the degree of confidence for individual contests is fairly high. The House is a little more dicey, as there aren't as many polls for individual races. In fact, most professional poll crunchers avoid the House altogether, and others look just at the overall picture. The redistricting process creates some additional uncertainty in the meaning of the generic congressional ballot, but I still think it indicates moderate gains for the Democrats, if not as many as I'd like. But, overall, I think Democrats should be moderately pleased at the end of next Tuesday night.
One Office to Herd Them All: November 2012 Edition
As is the case every four years, the grand prize for the election cycle is the office of the President of the United States of America. This cycle pits the Democratic incumbent, Barack Obama, against the Republican challenger, Willard Romney. The key to understanding the presidential race is that it is 51 state races, not one national race. Given the electoral college system, which I really don't like, I believe (as of now, November 1st) that Obama will be the winner on November 6, with 290 electoral votes to 248 for Romney. The best outcome Obama is likely to get is 332 to 206, and the worst is 265 to 273. 270 EVs is the threshold for winning. 269 EVs for each would send the election to the House of Representatives and the end of the world as we know it. (I'm kidding about that last bit. I hope.) In reality, the chances of Obama losing in Nevada are less than 15%, so it would have to be a very bad night for the Democrats if Obama were to receive less than 271 EVs. A lot of current polling gives Obama a victory in Virginia, but I think he will just barely lose. Winning that state would put his EV total over 300, which doesn't mean much by itself, but people tend to fixate on nice, round numbers.
I'm not going to analyze the popular vote because it's complicated and it doesn't matter, strictly speaking. It does matter a lot for legitimacy purposes, but only for Obama. My guess is that the result will be about 50-49-1% in favor of the incumbent, which will make him a legitimate victor in the minds of Democrats and true swing voters, and would mostly shut the media up. If Obama loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college, the press will insist that he bow to every Republican whim, which of course they did not do for Bush the Lesser. That would be both entirely unfair and entirely unsurprising, because media has two separate standards for the two parties.
On election night, the first state to watch for will be Virginia, where polls close at 7PM EST. If Obama takes that state, he'll almost certainly have won the election (given the near-certainty of Obama winning the 265 EVS in the higher confidence categories). The networks may also call Florida at 7PM EST, but most likely they will wait until 8PM EST when polls in the panhandle close. Florida is another state that would basically guarantee that Obama was victorious. If Obama loses in both of those states, he will need to win Colorado, Iowa, or Nevada. Those states close their polls at 9PM EST, 10PM EST, and 10PM EST respectively. New Hampshire polls will close at 8PM EST, but by itself the state's 4 EVs cannot give Obama the win when added to his baseline of 265. I think we'll have to wait until after 9 PM to see the good guy win.
* - By state law, both Maine and Nebraska can split their electoral votes, but that won't happen in 2012.
I'm not going to analyze the popular vote because it's complicated and it doesn't matter, strictly speaking. It does matter a lot for legitimacy purposes, but only for Obama. My guess is that the result will be about 50-49-1% in favor of the incumbent, which will make him a legitimate victor in the minds of Democrats and true swing voters, and would mostly shut the media up. If Obama loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college, the press will insist that he bow to every Republican whim, which of course they did not do for Bush the Lesser. That would be both entirely unfair and entirely unsurprising, because media has two separate standards for the two parties.
On election night, the first state to watch for will be Virginia, where polls close at 7PM EST. If Obama takes that state, he'll almost certainly have won the election (given the near-certainty of Obama winning the 265 EVS in the higher confidence categories). The networks may also call Florida at 7PM EST, but most likely they will wait until 8PM EST when polls in the panhandle close. Florida is another state that would basically guarantee that Obama was victorious. If Obama loses in both of those states, he will need to win Colorado, Iowa, or Nevada. Those states close their polls at 9PM EST, 10PM EST, and 10PM EST respectively. New Hampshire polls will close at 8PM EST, but by itself the state's 4 EVs cannot give Obama the win when added to his baseline of 265. I think we'll have to wait until after 9 PM to see the good guy win.
| Certain Dem. | Likely Dem. | Lean Dem. | Lean Rep. | Likely Rep. | Certain Rep. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 9 | |||||
| Alaska | 3 | |||||
| Arizona | 11 | |||||
| Arkansas | 6 | |||||
| California | 55 | |||||
| Colorado | 9 | |||||
| Connecticut | 7 | |||||
| Delaware | 3 | |||||
| District of Columbia | 3 | |||||
| Florida | 29 | |||||
| Georgia | 16 | |||||
| Hawaii | 4 | |||||
| Idaho | 4 | |||||
| Illinois | 20 | |||||
| Indiana | 11 | |||||
| Iowa | 6 | |||||
| Kansas | 6 | |||||
| Kentucky | 8 | |||||
| Louisiana | 8 | |||||
| Maine * | 4 | |||||
| Maryland | 10 | |||||
| Massachusetts | 11 | |||||
| Michigan | 16 | |||||
| Minnesota | 10 | |||||
| Mississippi | 6 | |||||
| Missouri | 10 | |||||
| Montana | 3 | |||||
| Nebraska * | 5 | |||||
| Nevada | 6 | |||||
| New Hampshire | 4 | |||||
| New Jersey | 14 | |||||
| New Mexico | 5 | |||||
| New York | 29 | |||||
| North Carolina | 15 | |||||
| North Dakota | 3 | |||||
| Ohio | 18 | |||||
| Oklahoma | 7 | |||||
| Oregon | 7 | |||||
| Pennsylvania | 20 | |||||
| Rhode Island | 4 | |||||
| South Carolina | 9 | |||||
| South Dakota | 3 | |||||
| Tennessee | 11 | |||||
| Texas | 38 | |||||
| Utah | 6 | |||||
| Vermont | 3 | |||||
| Virginia | 13 | |||||
| Washington | 12 | |||||
| West Virginia | 5 | |||||
| Wisconsin | 10 | |||||
| Wyoming | 3 | |||||
| Subtotals | 217 | 48 | 25 | 42 | 37 | 169 |
| Baseline total | 265 | 206 | ||||
| Grand Total | Obama | 290 | 248 | Romney |
* - By state law, both Maine and Nebraska can split their electoral votes, but that won't happen in 2012.
One Hundred Mini-Presidents: November 2012 Edition
As is the case every two years, approximately one-third of the Senate is up for re-election in 2012. Below is what I think (as of now, November 1st) the outcome on November 6th will be. Since the last version of this post, the outlooks for four contests have changed significantly. I've moved one Democratic-held seat (VA) from tossup flip to tossup hold. I've moved one Democratic-held seat (CT) from certain hold to tossup hold. I've moved one Republican-held seat (IN) from Republican hold to Democratic flip. And I've moved one Republican-held seat (AZ) from certain hold to tossup hold . The result will be three D-to-R flips (MT, ND, NE) and three R-to-D flips (IN, MA, ME), with the final distribution for the next Congress 53-47 in favor of the Democrats (which includes the two Independents). Previously I viewed VA as a flip and IN as a hold, resulting in a 51-49 partisan split. I think the best outcome possible for the Democrats is 55-45 (winning in AZ, MT) and the worst is 50-50 (losing in CT, IN, VA).
The main reason for the changes is that the Republican candidates have been worse than I expected. Flake, Mourdock, and Allen (plus Aiken in MO) are all terribly unlikable, so they've turned off independents. On the other hand, McMahon in CT has done better than I expected, most likely because she's given herself huge amounts of money (over $42M so far). I would like to see more of the western Democrats win (Carmona, Berkeley), but the polling doesn't show that they have much of a chance. For two candidates where the polling is close (Heitkamp, Tester) I think their states are still too Republican for them to win on the same ticket as Obama. For the other other three (Murphy, Kaine, Baldwin) their states are sufficiently purple or blue that they will win. Donnelly, like McCaskill a few months ago, has been gifted a win because the Republican candidate said something vile about rape.
The Democratic caucus is likely to be more liberal after this election, with the additions of Murphy, Warren, and Baldwin, coupled with the losses of Lieberman, Conrad, Nelson, and Tester. Hirono, Heinrich, and Kaine are likely to vote in roughly similar fashion to their predecessors, and King will reprise Lieberman's role as an annoyance that frequently provides a helpful vote. Donnelly will be the sole conservative newcomer, though naturally he will be more liberal than the Republican he will replace. If Reid and the Democrats decide to ditch the filibuster (strong emphasis on "if") in 2013, at least judges and the like will be Democrats, and possibly even liberal Democrats on occasion. The importance of those positions should not be underestimated. Ditching the filibuster would also shift legislative control away from Conservadems (Pryor, Carper, Landrieu, McCaskill, Hagen, Manchin) who are numerous enough to give Republicans effective control on many issues if the filibuster remains. But even if the rule is removed, the overall legislative environment would remain poor for most of the policies I'd like to see changed because the Republicans are likely to narrowly retain control of the House.
* Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
** King is an independent who will probably caucus with the Democrats if there is a tie; otherwise he'll side with the winner so as to get a little more clout for his state.
*** Mourdock defeated Lugar in the Republican primary, and will lose the seat for Republicans.
Update 2012-11-02: Added sentence about Donnelly.
Update 2012-11-05: Corrected Baucus to Conrad.
The main reason for the changes is that the Republican candidates have been worse than I expected. Flake, Mourdock, and Allen (plus Aiken in MO) are all terribly unlikable, so they've turned off independents. On the other hand, McMahon in CT has done better than I expected, most likely because she's given herself huge amounts of money (over $42M so far). I would like to see more of the western Democrats win (Carmona, Berkeley), but the polling doesn't show that they have much of a chance. For two candidates where the polling is close (Heitkamp, Tester) I think their states are still too Republican for them to win on the same ticket as Obama. For the other other three (Murphy, Kaine, Baldwin) their states are sufficiently purple or blue that they will win. Donnelly, like McCaskill a few months ago, has been gifted a win because the Republican candidate said something vile about rape.
The Democratic caucus is likely to be more liberal after this election, with the additions of Murphy, Warren, and Baldwin, coupled with the losses of Lieberman, Conrad, Nelson, and Tester. Hirono, Heinrich, and Kaine are likely to vote in roughly similar fashion to their predecessors, and King will reprise Lieberman's role as an annoyance that frequently provides a helpful vote. Donnelly will be the sole conservative newcomer, though naturally he will be more liberal than the Republican he will replace. If Reid and the Democrats decide to ditch the filibuster (strong emphasis on "if") in 2013, at least judges and the like will be Democrats, and possibly even liberal Democrats on occasion. The importance of those positions should not be underestimated. Ditching the filibuster would also shift legislative control away from Conservadems (Pryor, Carper, Landrieu, McCaskill, Hagen, Manchin) who are numerous enough to give Republicans effective control on many issues if the filibuster remains. But even if the rule is removed, the overall legislative environment would remain poor for most of the policies I'd like to see changed because the Republicans are likely to narrowly retain control of the House.
| Democratic | Republican | |
|---|---|---|
| 2011-2012 seats | 53 | 47 |
| Carryovers | 30 | 37 |
| Contested | 23 | 10 |
| Certain holds | California (Feinstein) Delaware (Carper) Hawaii (open D to Hirono) Maryland (Cardin) Michigan (Stabenow) Minnesota (Klobuchar) New Jersey (Menendez) New York (Gillibrand) Rhode Island (Whitehouse) Vermont (Sanders*) Washington (Cantwell) West Virginia (Manchin) | Mississippi (Wicker) Tennessee (Corker) Texas (open R to Cruz) Utah (Hatch) Wyoming (Barasso) |
| Likely holds | Florida (Nelson) Pennsylvania (Casey) New Mexico (open D to Heinrich) Ohio (Brown) | Nevada (Heller) |
| Tossups | Connecticut (open D to Murphy) Missouri (McCaskill) Wisconsin (open D to Baldwin) Virginia (open D to Kaine) | Arizona (open R to Flake) Montana (Tester (D) to Rehberg) |
| Likely flips | Indiana (R*** to Donnelly) Massachusetts (Brown (R) to Warren) Maine (open R to King**) | Nebraska (open D to Fischer) North Dakota (open D to Berg) |
| 2012 results | 23 | 10 |
| Swing | 0 | 0 |
| 2013-2014 seats | 53 | 47 |
* Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
** King is an independent who will probably caucus with the Democrats if there is a tie; otherwise he'll side with the winner so as to get a little more clout for his state.
*** Mourdock defeated Lugar in the Republican primary, and will lose the seat for Republicans.
Update 2012-11-02: Added sentence about Donnelly.
Update 2012-11-05: Corrected Baucus to Conrad.
435 Creepy Critters: November 2012 Edition
As is the case every two years, every member of the House of Representatives is up for re-election in 2012. Below is what I think (as of now, November 1st) the outcome on November 6 will be. I have been somewhat optimistic in my analysis, but even if it is accurate, the Democrats will fall short, leaving the Republicans with a slim 230-205 majority and an even more radical caucus. That situation will not be good for legislation I think should be passed, as the Republicans will double down on obstructionism, hoping to duplicate the 2010 election in 2014.
I'm not going to break out individual races for the House because I just don't have the patience to document the 80 or so races that are somewhat competitive, or better. At a higher level, the states to watch are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. Those 10 states have the most competitive races. States definitely not to watch are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. There no competitive races in those 18 states. The remaining 22 have either only 1 competitive race, or races that are only somewhat competitive.
Because 2012 is a redistricting year, I have included a column for the change in the number of seats each state holds. I have also broken the "swing" into two separate columns because, with redistricting, one party's gains in a state don't always equal the other party's losses.
* - I have added the five currently vacant seats to the party of the previous officeholder.
I'm not going to break out individual races for the House because I just don't have the patience to document the 80 or so races that are somewhat competitive, or better. At a higher level, the states to watch are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. Those 10 states have the most competitive races. States definitely not to watch are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. There no competitive races in those 18 states. The remaining 22 have either only 1 competitive race, or races that are only somewhat competitive.
Because 2012 is a redistricting year, I have included a column for the change in the number of seats each state holds. I have also broken the "swing" into two separate columns because, with redistricting, one party's gains in a state don't always equal the other party's losses.
| 2011-12 Democratic Seats * | 2011-12 Republican Seats * | Change in Seats | Comp. Races | 2013-14 Democratic Seats | 2013-14 Republican Seats | Net Democratic Change | Net Republican Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 1 | 6 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| Alaska | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Arizona | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | -1 |
| Arkansas | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 1 | ||
| California | 34 | 19 | 11 | 37 | 16 | 3 | 3 | |
| Colorado | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Connecticut | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | |||
| Delaware | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Florida | 6 | 19 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 17 | 4 | -2 |
| Georgia | 5 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | -1 | 2 |
| Hawaii | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||
| Idaho | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||||
| Illinois | 8 | 11 | -1 | 6 | 13 | 5 | 5 | -6 |
| Indiana | 3 | 6 | 2 | 7 | -1 | 1 | ||
| Iowa | 3 | 2 | -1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Kansas | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | ||||
| Kentucky | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Louisiana | 1 | 6 | -1 | 1 | 5 | -1 | ||
| Maine | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Maryland | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | -1 | |
| Massachusetts | 10 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | -2 | 1 |
| Michigan | 6 | 9 | -1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | -1 | |
| Minnesota | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Mississippi | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Missouri | 3 | 6 | -1 | 2 | 6 | -1 | ||
| Montana | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Nebraska | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||||
| Nevada | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | -1 |
| New Hampshire | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -2 | |
| New Jersey | 7 | 6 | -1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | -1 | |
| New Mexico | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| New York | 21 | 8 | -2 | 8 | 22 | 5 | 1 | -3 |
| North Carolina | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 10 | -4 | 4 | |
| North Dakota | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Ohio | 5 | 13 | -2 | 5 | 11 | -2 | ||
| Oklahoma | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 | -1 | 1 | ||
| Oregon | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||||
| Pennsylvania | 7 | 12 | -1 | 4 | 6 | 12 | -1 | |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| South Carolina | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| South Dakota | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Tennessee | 2 | 7 | 2 | 7 | ||||
| Texas | 9 | 23 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 24 | 3 | 1 |
| Utah | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 2 |
| Vermont | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Virginia | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 8 | |||
| Washington | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 | |
| West Virginia | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Wisconsin | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | |||
| Wyoming | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Totals | 193 | 242 | 0 | 205 | 230 | 12 | -12 |
* - I have added the five currently vacant seats to the party of the previous officeholder.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Picture This and That: Zooming the Bridges October 2012 Edition
Before the mirrorless rage started, the big new thing was big zoom bridge cameras. Although the excitement has faded, the superzooms still out there, and a number of them are pretty good. They'll never match interchangeable lens cameras for image quality, but they're more than adequate for anyone taking snapshots, and they offer buyers a highly flexible camera for a relatively low price.
I've looked at the latest reviews, along with a lot of older comparisons, and found that the Canon Powershot SX_0 IS series and the Pansonic DMC-FZ series have been battling for the top of the heap since the mid-2000s. The DMC-FZ100 was a bit of dud, though, so watch out for that one if you're looking into the used market. I would also be wary of the SX50 if you're going to be shooting indoors often. The 50x (1200 / 24 = 50) zoom might seem like it would be great to have, but the price is a pretty slow (small maximum aperture) lens. I think Canon should have introduced a new series for such an extreme zoom, and then done a more conservative iteration of the SX40. The DMC-FZ200 takes the opposite approach - it has a much less aggressive telephoto specification, but maintains a relatively fast f/2.8 aperture through the entire zoom range. Both Sony and Nikon offer a model with built-in GPS, but in the Nikon the price is a rather low battery life. The other brands' products are entirely meh. I really don't understand Fujifilm's strategy, which seems to be spray out a ton of mediocre models plus an occasional very expensive oddball (which is still expensive when discounted by $200 from list). And why anyone would buy a Leica-branded Panasonic camera baffles me, too, though apparently buyers at least get better software and warranties from Leica than from Panasonic.
In the chart below, I've included the previous five years of cameras to show how the category has advanced in terms of zoom and megapixels. I've also included the current (as of mid-October 2012) street price for cameras released in the past two years. The cameras are arranged more-or-less in series, except for Fujifilm and Kodak models, which aren't worth looking at anyway.
# - no electronic viewfinder (EVF).
* - Kodak is kaput, so don't expect support if you buy one.
** - built-in GPS.
*** - due to its unique high-speed video features, the Casio Pro EX-F1 still sells for over $1000 used.
Note: no consideration has been taken, given, or otherwise discussed wrt. this review. However, camera manufacturers should feel free to shower me with products at their earliest convenience.
I've looked at the latest reviews, along with a lot of older comparisons, and found that the Canon Powershot SX_0 IS series and the Pansonic DMC-FZ series have been battling for the top of the heap since the mid-2000s. The DMC-FZ100 was a bit of dud, though, so watch out for that one if you're looking into the used market. I would also be wary of the SX50 if you're going to be shooting indoors often. The 50x (1200 / 24 = 50) zoom might seem like it would be great to have, but the price is a pretty slow (small maximum aperture) lens. I think Canon should have introduced a new series for such an extreme zoom, and then done a more conservative iteration of the SX40. The DMC-FZ200 takes the opposite approach - it has a much less aggressive telephoto specification, but maintains a relatively fast f/2.8 aperture through the entire zoom range. Both Sony and Nikon offer a model with built-in GPS, but in the Nikon the price is a rather low battery life. The other brands' products are entirely meh. I really don't understand Fujifilm's strategy, which seems to be spray out a ton of mediocre models plus an occasional very expensive oddball (which is still expensive when discounted by $200 from list). And why anyone would buy a Leica-branded Panasonic camera baffles me, too, though apparently buyers at least get better software and warranties from Leica than from Panasonic.
In the chart below, I've included the previous five years of cameras to show how the category has advanced in terms of zoom and megapixels. I've also included the current (as of mid-October 2012) street price for cameras released in the past two years. The cameras are arranged more-or-less in series, except for Fujifilm and Kodak models, which aren't worth looking at anyway.
| Brand \ Year | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canon | SX500 IS 16.0MP # 24-720mm $300 | |||||
| S5 IS 8.0MP 36-432mm | SX1 / SX10 IS 10.0MP 28-560mm | SX20 IS 12.1MP 28-560mm | SX30 IS 14.1MP 24-840mm | SX40 HS 12.1MP 24-840mm $315 | SX50 HS 12.1MP 24-1200mm $480 | |
| Casio | EX-FH20 9.1MP 26-520mm | EX-FH25 10.1MP 26-520mm | ||||
| Pro EX-F1 6.0MP 36-432mm *** | ||||||
| Fujifilm | SL240 14.0MP 24-576mm n/a US? | |||||
| S5700 Zoom 7.1MP 38-380mm | S2000HD 10.0MP 28-414mm | S1500 10.0MP 33-396mm | S1600 12.2MP 28-420mm | SL300 14.0MP 24-720mm $190 | ||
| S1000fd 10.0MP 33-396mm | S1800 12.2MP 28-504mm | S2950 14.0MP 28-504mm $170 | ||||
| S2500HD 12.2MP 28-504mm | S3200 14.0MP 24-576mm $190 | S4200 14.0MP 24-576mm $160 | ||||
| S8000fd 8.0MP 27-486mm | S8100fd 10.0MP 27-486mm | S2800HD 14.0MP 28-504mm | S4000 14.0MP 24-720mm $160 | S4500 14.0MP 24-720mm $170 | ||
| IS-1 9.1MP 28-300mm | S200EXR 12.0MP 31-436mm | HS10 10.3MP 24-720mm | HS20EXR 16.0MP 24-720mm $500 | HS30EXR 14.0MP 24-720mm $320 | ||
| S100fs 11.1MP 28-400mm | X-S1 12.0MP 24-624mm $600 | |||||
| Kodak * | Z712 IS 7.1MP 36-423mm | Z812 IS 8.1MP 36-432mm | Z980 12.0MP 26-624mm | Z981 14.0MP 26-676mm | Z990 12.0MP 28-840mm $200 | |
| Z1012 IS 10.0MP 33-396mm | Z5010 14.0MP 25-525mm $140 | Z5120 16.0MP 26-676mm $180 | ||||
| Z1015 IS 10.0MP 28-420mm | ||||||
| Leica | V-Lux 2 (Pansonic DMC-FZ100) | V-Lux 3 (Pansonic DMC-FZ150) $629 | V-Lux 4 (Pansonic DMC-FZ200) n/a | |||
| Nikon | L100 10.1MP # 28-420mm | L110 12.2MP # 28-420mm | L120 14.1MP # 25-525mm $210 | L810 16.0MP # 23-585mm $200 | ||
| P80 10.1MP 27-486mm | P90 12.1MP 26-624mm | P100 10.3MP 26-678mm | P500 12.0MP 23-810mm $320 | P510 16.0MP ** 24-1000mm $400 | ||
| Olympus | SP-550UZ 7.1MP 28-504mm | SP-565UZ 10.0MP 26-520mm | SP-590UZ 12.0MP 26-676mm | SP-600UZ 12.0MP # 28-420mm | SP-610UZ 14.0MP # 28-616mm $190 | SP-620UZ 16.0MP # 25-525mm $200 |
| SP-560UZ 8.0MP 27-486mm | SP-570UZ 10.0MP 26-520mm | SP-800UZ 14.0MP # 28-840mm | SP-810UZ 14.0MP # 24-864mm $250 | SP-820UZ 14.0MP # 22-896mm $330 | ||
| Panasonic | DMC-LZ20 16.1MP # 25-525mm $250 | |||||
| DMC-FZ18 8.0MP 28-504mm | DMC-FZ28 10.1MP 27-486mm | DMC-FZ35 12.1MP 27-486mm | DMC-FZ40 14.1MP 25-600mm | DMC-FZ47 12.1MP 25-600mm $260 | DMC-FZ60 16.1MP 25-600mm $349 | |
| DMC-FZ100 14.1MP 25-600mm | DMC-FZ150 12.1MP 25-600mm $480 | DMC-FZ200 12.1MP 25-600mm $550 | ||||
| Pentax | X70 12.0MP 26-624mm | X90 12.0MP 26-676mm | X-5 16.0MP 22-580mm $280 | |||
| Samsung | HZ25W 12.5MP 26-624mm | HZ50W 13.8MP 26-676mm | WB100 16.2MP 22-580mm $230 | |||
| Sony | DSC-H3 8.1MP 38-380mm | |||||
| DSC-H7 8.0MP 31-465mm | DSC-H10 8.1MP 38-380mm | |||||
| DSC-H9 8.0MP 31-465mm | DSC-H50 9.1MP 31-465mm | DSC-HX1 9.1MP 28-560mm | DSC-HX100V 16.2MP ** 27-810mm $370 | DSC-HX200V 18.2MP ** 27-810mm $480 |
# - no electronic viewfinder (EVF).
* - Kodak is kaput, so don't expect support if you buy one.
** - built-in GPS.
*** - due to its unique high-speed video features, the Casio Pro EX-F1 still sells for over $1000 used.
Note: no consideration has been taken, given, or otherwise discussed wrt. this review. However, camera manufacturers should feel free to shower me with products at their earliest convenience.
Monday, October 8, 2012
E-Reading is Fundamental: October 2012 Edition
I'm about to take a plunge into the e-book pool, and here's my research into e-Ink-based e-readers. I have decided to go with an e-Ink device for now, because they are easier to read than LCD-based tablets such as the iPad, Kindle Fire, and Nook HD, as well as being cheaper. They are, of course, more limited. Tablets are general purpose computers, and are quite flexible, though without adding accessories they are not nearly as useful as even a low-end laptop. OTOH, e-readers are appliances, and do one thing well, though all of the readers I looked at have some amount of secondary functionality.
Right now the Kobo Glo seems to be the best all-around device. It is top-lit (as opposed to back-lit, as with an LCD-based device), it is tied for the highest resolution in the 6-inch class of readers (the standard size), and it is part of the most open "ecosystem." It has a decent web browser and decent PDF support. (Like most people, I loath PDFs, but they are unavoidable at this point.) However, the Kobo isn't available in the US yet, though it should be shortly. The Kindle Paperwhite probably has a better screen, but it is completely tied to Amazon's store, and there is a shipping delay of almost a month right now due to demand. The Nook Simple Touch Glow is available today (and in stores for pre-purchase evaluation), but it has a lower resolution screen which, according to reports on the internet, seems to be quite susceptible to damage from things being dropped on it. It also has the worst PDF support and no web browser.
The first chart after the break contains mainstream models from each of the three best vendors - Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Kobo. The 6" readers are all about the same size and weight, though the side bezels on the Nook models are slightly wider, which would be good for anyone who plans to hold it with one hand. The second chart contains some other models Amazon and Kobo, plus two models from Icarus that seem nice, though they are not really available in the US. The latter may be of interest to someone wants their extra features. I have not included Sony, which used to be a major player, because it seems to be on its way out of the market, having reduced the number of models it offers to one.
Update 2012/10/12: Some early customer reports on the Paperwhite indicate that the screen isn't so great after all. I think they may be over-reacting to Amazon's (false) promises of perfection, as the unevenness is at the extreme bottom. But people who are looking for the absolute best screen should probably wait until more reports on the KPW come in, and until customers actually receive the Kobo Glo.
Note: no consideration has been taken, given, or otherwise discussed wrt. this review. However, e-reader makers should feel free to shower me with products at their earliest convenience.
Right now the Kobo Glo seems to be the best all-around device. It is top-lit (as opposed to back-lit, as with an LCD-based device), it is tied for the highest resolution in the 6-inch class of readers (the standard size), and it is part of the most open "ecosystem." It has a decent web browser and decent PDF support. (Like most people, I loath PDFs, but they are unavoidable at this point.) However, the Kobo isn't available in the US yet, though it should be shortly. The Kindle Paperwhite probably has a better screen, but it is completely tied to Amazon's store, and there is a shipping delay of almost a month right now due to demand. The Nook Simple Touch Glow is available today (and in stores for pre-purchase evaluation), but it has a lower resolution screen which, according to reports on the internet, seems to be quite susceptible to damage from things being dropped on it. It also has the worst PDF support and no web browser.
The first chart after the break contains mainstream models from each of the three best vendors - Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Kobo. The 6" readers are all about the same size and weight, though the side bezels on the Nook models are slightly wider, which would be good for anyone who plans to hold it with one hand. The second chart contains some other models Amazon and Kobo, plus two models from Icarus that seem nice, though they are not really available in the US. The latter may be of interest to someone wants their extra features. I have not included Sony, which used to be a major player, because it seems to be on its way out of the market, having reduced the number of models it offers to one.
Update 2012/10/12: Some early customer reports on the Paperwhite indicate that the screen isn't so great after all. I think they may be over-reacting to Amazon's (false) promises of perfection, as the unevenness is at the extreme bottom. But people who are looking for the absolute best screen should probably wait until more reports on the KPW come in, and until customers actually receive the Kobo Glo.
Note: no consideration has been taken, given, or otherwise discussed wrt. this review. However, e-reader makers should feel free to shower me with products at their earliest convenience.
Friday, September 28, 2012
435 Creepy Critters: October 2012 Edition
As is the case every two years, every Representative in the House is up for re-election in 2012. Below is what I think (as of now, September 28) the outcome in November will be. I have been somewhat optimistic in my analysis, but even if it is accurate, the Democrats will fall short, leaving the Republicans with a slim majority and an even more radical caucus. That situation will not be good for legislation I think should be passed, as the Republicans will double down on obstructionism, hoping to duplicate the 2010 election in 2014. However, momentum seems to be with the Democrats right now, so the final count could be better than what I expect.
I'm not going to break out individual races for the House because I just don't have the patience to document the 80 or so races that are somewhat competitive, or better. At a higher level, the states to watch are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. Those 10 states have the most competitive races. States definitely not to watch are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. There no competitive races in those 18 states. The remaining 22 have either only 1 competitive race, or races that are only somewhat competitive.
Because 2012 is a redistricting year, I have included a column for the change in the number of seats each state holds. I have also broken the "swing" into two separate columns because, with redistricting, one party's gains in a state doesn't always equal the other party's losses.
I'm not going to break out individual races for the House because I just don't have the patience to document the 80 or so races that are somewhat competitive, or better. At a higher level, the states to watch are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York. Those 10 states have the most competitive races. States definitely not to watch are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. There no competitive races in those 18 states. The remaining 22 have either only 1 competitive race, or races that are only somewhat competitive.
Because 2012 is a redistricting year, I have included a column for the change in the number of seats each state holds. I have also broken the "swing" into two separate columns because, with redistricting, one party's gains in a state doesn't always equal the other party's losses.
| 2011-12 Democratic Seats |
2011-12 Republican Seats |
Change in Seats |
Comp. Races |
2013-14 Democratic Seats |
2013-14 Republican Seats |
Net Democratic Change |
Net Republican Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 1 | 6 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| Alaska | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Arizona | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | -1 |
| Arkansas | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 1 | ||
| California | 34 | 19 | 11 | 39 | 14 | 5 | -5 | |
| Colorado | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Connecticut | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | |||
| Delaware | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Florida | 6 | 19 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 5 | -3 |
| Georgia | 5 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | -1 | 2 |
| Hawaii | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||
| Idaho | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||||
| Illinois | 8 | 11 | -1 | 6 | 13 | 5 | 5 | -6 |
| Indiana | 3 | 6 | 2 | 7 | -1 | 1 | ||
| Iowa | 3 | 2 | -1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Kansas | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | ||||
| Kentucky | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Louisiana | 1 | 6 | -1 | 1 | 5 | -1 | ||
| Maine | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Maryland | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | -1 | |
| Massachusetts | 10 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | -1 | |
| Michigan | 6 | 9 | -1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | -1 | |
| Minnesota | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | -1 | |
| Mississippi | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Missouri | 3 | 6 | -1 | 2 | 6 | -1 | ||
| Montana | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Nebraska | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||||
| Nevada | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | -1 |
| New Hampshire | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -2 | |
| New Jersey | 7 | 6 | -1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | -1 | |
| New Mexico | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| New York | 21 | 8 | -2 | 8 | 23 | 4 | 2 | -4 |
| North Carolina | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 10 | -4 | 4 | |
| North Dakota | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Ohio | 5 | 13 | -2 | 6 | 10 | 1 | -3 | |
| Oklahoma | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 | -1 | 1 | ||
| Oregon | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||||
| Pennsylvania | 7 | 12 | -1 | 4 | 6 | 12 | -1 | |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| South Carolina | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| South Dakota | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Tennessee | 2 | 7 | 2 | 7 | ||||
| Texas | 9 | 23 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 24 | 3 | 1 |
| Utah | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| Vermont | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Virginia | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 8 | |||
| Washington | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 | |
| West Virginia | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Wisconsin | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | -1 | |
| Wyoming | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Totals | 193 | 242 | 0 | 213 | 222 | 20 | -20 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)