Due to illness, the flu, I am home today and listening to Rush Limbaugh http://rushlimbaugh.com and he is firing on all cylinders today on both the Democrats and Republicans.
I urge you to listen. Find a radio station on his website or find a station that replays the show so that you can listen.
Some highlights:
The Clintons are playing the race card and since the Democrats have the perfect storm, a woman, a black and a class-warfare huckster, er thats Edwards, the Drive-By media does not know what to do.
On the GOP side, his angst that independents and Democrats may decide the Republican nominee. Also how too many Republicans are trying to end the Reagan era. A beautiful analysis of what happened to Gov. Arnold here in California and the serious risk of a McCain and or Huckabee nomination could do to the Republican party nationwide.
I have to say, this is why Rush is the most listened to radio talk show host in the United States.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Why Early Pontificating Is Pointless
Yes, I know. It is a shock that I, who does all kinds of pontificating would say that at some point there is something that makes it almost pointless.
I submit that for all of what we see in the blogs and on radio, television, websites, way too many pollsters, at some point we have to let things play out.
Case in point.
Most of those who would call themselves conservatives and definitely Republicans had been saying for the better part of a year now that it was a lock that Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) would be the Democrat nominee for president. And same people were ready to coronate former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani as the Republican candidate.
A funny thing has happened this election season.
By golly, people actually voted.
And for the Democrats, there was a surprise.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) won in Iowa, barely lost in New Hampshire and will quite possibly win a caucus in Nevada this Saturday and a primary in South Carolina the following Saturday.
So much for all our pontification. Although I have said I think Sen. Obama will be the eventual Democrat nominee, we still need to let people vote.
Same for the GOP.
Out of nowhere, Mr. Giuliani changes tactics and decides not to seriously contest any early state. Thus, the GOP divisions are plain as day. The Rev. Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in Wyoming, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire and we have to wait to see on Tuesday in Michigan and Saturday in South Carolina.
The point is that there are still people who, in trying to boost the candidate that they are for, still are going to say "If candidate A does not win in B, it is all over". Or, "This candidate polls the worst in the November election against that candidate".
Michael Medved http://michaelmedved.com is doing this in trying to boost his candidate, Sen. "F--- You" McCain. He cites polling data that shows Mr. Romney the worst candidate from the GOP against some Democrat rivals. Of course, this is in January and the election is in November.
Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com has done a lot to back the candidacy of Mr. Romney, looking for any positives.
But, at the end of the day, it is still up to us, the voters, to make our decisions.
My vote is in no way influenced by polls and the like. I have taken the time to look at all the candidates in the GOP field, since I am a Republican after all, and that is how I have come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney would be the best candidate. And, although not a Democrat, I have looked at there candidates and come to conclude that if I was a Democrat and wanted to win in November, I would vote for Barack Obama.
Now, here is something no one asks.
Do you want a different candidate from your party to run for president?
There is a way to throw a monkey wrench into all of this.
But, back to point.
Because I back Mr. Romney, I hope that I try to educate and inform rather than just bluster. I think that most analysts are lazy. That is why they wanted the Hilary-Rudy contest. Or the Hilary-McCain match up.
That is why certain wins or even second places are dismissed and attempting to influence an already tired electorate to just give in for the least objectionable candidate.
One thing that I have been saying and I think will bear out in all of this is that the American people want someone new on both sides. No more Bush and Clinton. Hence, for the Democrats it is Sen. Obama and to an extent for the Republicans, it is among two, the Rev. Mike and Mr. Romney.
Some pontificators have not caught up on that one yet because then they would have to work and find out why.
And that is the point. We who want to inform and to a lesser effect influence people need to not be lazy. We need to see that there are real trends out there, not just what we want. We need to try to be objective in that aspect of our pontificating and I think that we will move from being seen as nothing but shills and as people really trying to figure things out.
I submit that for all of what we see in the blogs and on radio, television, websites, way too many pollsters, at some point we have to let things play out.
Case in point.
Most of those who would call themselves conservatives and definitely Republicans had been saying for the better part of a year now that it was a lock that Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) would be the Democrat nominee for president. And same people were ready to coronate former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani as the Republican candidate.
A funny thing has happened this election season.
By golly, people actually voted.
And for the Democrats, there was a surprise.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) won in Iowa, barely lost in New Hampshire and will quite possibly win a caucus in Nevada this Saturday and a primary in South Carolina the following Saturday.
So much for all our pontification. Although I have said I think Sen. Obama will be the eventual Democrat nominee, we still need to let people vote.
Same for the GOP.
Out of nowhere, Mr. Giuliani changes tactics and decides not to seriously contest any early state. Thus, the GOP divisions are plain as day. The Rev. Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in Wyoming, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire and we have to wait to see on Tuesday in Michigan and Saturday in South Carolina.
The point is that there are still people who, in trying to boost the candidate that they are for, still are going to say "If candidate A does not win in B, it is all over". Or, "This candidate polls the worst in the November election against that candidate".
Michael Medved http://michaelmedved.com is doing this in trying to boost his candidate, Sen. "F--- You" McCain. He cites polling data that shows Mr. Romney the worst candidate from the GOP against some Democrat rivals. Of course, this is in January and the election is in November.
Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com has done a lot to back the candidacy of Mr. Romney, looking for any positives.
But, at the end of the day, it is still up to us, the voters, to make our decisions.
My vote is in no way influenced by polls and the like. I have taken the time to look at all the candidates in the GOP field, since I am a Republican after all, and that is how I have come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney would be the best candidate. And, although not a Democrat, I have looked at there candidates and come to conclude that if I was a Democrat and wanted to win in November, I would vote for Barack Obama.
Now, here is something no one asks.
Do you want a different candidate from your party to run for president?
There is a way to throw a monkey wrench into all of this.
But, back to point.
Because I back Mr. Romney, I hope that I try to educate and inform rather than just bluster. I think that most analysts are lazy. That is why they wanted the Hilary-Rudy contest. Or the Hilary-McCain match up.
That is why certain wins or even second places are dismissed and attempting to influence an already tired electorate to just give in for the least objectionable candidate.
One thing that I have been saying and I think will bear out in all of this is that the American people want someone new on both sides. No more Bush and Clinton. Hence, for the Democrats it is Sen. Obama and to an extent for the Republicans, it is among two, the Rev. Mike and Mr. Romney.
Some pontificators have not caught up on that one yet because then they would have to work and find out why.
And that is the point. We who want to inform and to a lesser effect influence people need to not be lazy. We need to see that there are real trends out there, not just what we want. We need to try to be objective in that aspect of our pontificating and I think that we will move from being seen as nothing but shills and as people really trying to figure things out.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Republican Debate Analysis
Tonight the winner is . . .FRED!
WOW! Ol' Fred finally showed up and took no prisoners. This is what many of us have been waiting for. And this is from a Romney supporter.
I think that Fred finally felt comfortable. He is among southerners, his people so to speak. And it showed. Mr. Thompson had command of facts, was folksy and slapped the Rev. Mike around that by the end of the debate I think the good reverend could not wait to get out of the building.
I do not think that it is too late for Mr. Thompson. This probably will add a lot of percent in polling and the numbers will shoot up in South Carolina. I think this is the beginning of a series of wins for Mr. Thompson in the south that should end the candidacy of the Rev. Mike.
Now, my man Mitt did well, but did not have a lot of face time. But he, like Mr. Thompson, had control of the facts and made certain to add a little levity with every sane Republicans favorite punching bag, Herr Ron Paul. OOPS! Did I refer to him as Herr Ron?!
Rudy has to come up with some new material. As does Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. And, someone needs to call him out on the lies he his spewing on his "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. If I hear the sob-story one more time about the soldier's wife maybe getting deported, I will follow him to the gates of hell!
And that leaves the Rev. Mike. Come on evangelicals, stop supporting this guy! I think the more you watch him, the more that you realize that he really never thought he would get this far. When Chris Wallace asked him about raising taxes as governor of Arkansas, he said that he raised hope. And the pockets of the good people of Arkansas! The Rev. Mike needs to give straight answers to questions. If he raised taxes, say why and as they say in Las Vegas, let it ride.
Oh, and we had a return of Herr Ron Paul to the stage. Can anyone say "Cuckoo! Cuckoo?" And Duncan Hunter is out of the debates to this racist, conspiracy theorist?
As usual, the Fox News Channel team came through with great questions. However, they should have asked Herr Ron about those rantings in his newsletter. Oh, thats right. He sold it to someone else, but they kept his name. Please! We get more "straight talk" from Sen. "F--- You" McCain!
This debate raises the chances that Fred Thompson will "come out of nowhere" to win South Carolina and add himself as the fifth contender and keep this going on to the convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.
WOW! Ol' Fred finally showed up and took no prisoners. This is what many of us have been waiting for. And this is from a Romney supporter.
I think that Fred finally felt comfortable. He is among southerners, his people so to speak. And it showed. Mr. Thompson had command of facts, was folksy and slapped the Rev. Mike around that by the end of the debate I think the good reverend could not wait to get out of the building.
I do not think that it is too late for Mr. Thompson. This probably will add a lot of percent in polling and the numbers will shoot up in South Carolina. I think this is the beginning of a series of wins for Mr. Thompson in the south that should end the candidacy of the Rev. Mike.
Now, my man Mitt did well, but did not have a lot of face time. But he, like Mr. Thompson, had control of the facts and made certain to add a little levity with every sane Republicans favorite punching bag, Herr Ron Paul. OOPS! Did I refer to him as Herr Ron?!
Rudy has to come up with some new material. As does Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. And, someone needs to call him out on the lies he his spewing on his "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. If I hear the sob-story one more time about the soldier's wife maybe getting deported, I will follow him to the gates of hell!
And that leaves the Rev. Mike. Come on evangelicals, stop supporting this guy! I think the more you watch him, the more that you realize that he really never thought he would get this far. When Chris Wallace asked him about raising taxes as governor of Arkansas, he said that he raised hope. And the pockets of the good people of Arkansas! The Rev. Mike needs to give straight answers to questions. If he raised taxes, say why and as they say in Las Vegas, let it ride.
Oh, and we had a return of Herr Ron Paul to the stage. Can anyone say "Cuckoo! Cuckoo?" And Duncan Hunter is out of the debates to this racist, conspiracy theorist?
As usual, the Fox News Channel team came through with great questions. However, they should have asked Herr Ron about those rantings in his newsletter. Oh, thats right. He sold it to someone else, but they kept his name. Please! We get more "straight talk" from Sen. "F--- You" McCain!
This debate raises the chances that Fred Thompson will "come out of nowhere" to win South Carolina and add himself as the fifth contender and keep this going on to the convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
JUST SAY NO!
I have one thing to ask those of you who worry that a Sen. John "F--- You" McCain coronation is being forced on us by the DDBMSM and some "conservative" pundits and talk show hosts.
JUST SAY NO!
It is time for those of us, many coming of age in the age of the great man, Ronald Reagan, to stop the insanity now.
We are conservatives. We have seen the success of the Republican party since Mr. Reagan wrested control from the moderates and liberals in the 1980s. How do you think that we eventually gained congressional control and enjoyed it for 12 years? Not on the blood, sweat and tears of Sen. "F--- You" McCain. It was because people got tired of being taken for granted.
Just remember the last time a moderate was forced on us.
Remember 1996? We got Bob Dole. A great patriot but one of those who went to Washington as a conservative and became part of the elite that got into "process" and "compromise". So, Mr. Dole won the Republican nomination and ran one of the worst campaigns in modern Republican history. Only because of the strong dislike of then President Clinton did Mr. Dole manage to get 40% of the national vote. And only win 16 states.
We were told then that only Sen. Dole could mount a serious challenge to President Clinton. Some serious challenge.
And here we go again. And, on a lot less evidence that Sen. "F--- You" McCain really could win. This is all based on one win in New Hampshire. Nothing more. And we are told that Mitt Romney should just get out now. So, his Iowa-New Hampshire strategy did not work. He is a smart man. He can retool the approach. There is no reason he should leave. Nor should Fred Thompson. He has a chance to win in South Carolina. Oh, but the Rev. Mike is leading big time there in the polls. Well, as Sen Barack Obama how accurate polls are. Or Sen. Hilary Clinton.
We do not elect based on polls. If that was the case, there would have been some different presidents.
Why there would have been no President Bush had he taken the advice of the DDBMSM. He won Iowa and lost very badly to Sen. "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire and badly in Michigan. But, in a much less fractured primary season, then Gov. Bush made an all out effort in South Carolina and won. And then won in Virginia. It was there that Sen. "F--- You" McCain went up against conservative Christians. But, to no avail. Mr. Bush went on to win, and win, and win. Sen. "F--- You" McCain got more and more bitter.
Here is the thing, fellow conservative Republicans, we need to stop with this "That candidate is not conservative enough." or "This candidate is not conservative enough". We need to rally around one of the conservatives left. I would encourage all to back Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney needs cash and support. He can win Michigan, and if not, make sure that he is competitive all the way to Super Duper Tuesday.
Remember, Sen. Hilary Clinton proved that polls are not always accurate. Do not buy that Sen. "F--- You" McCain is already up nine percent in Michigan. Of course he is. After all, he did win in New Hampshire. Polls can fluctuate and have this whole election season. Who would have thought that the Rev. Mike Huckabee would be in the thick of the race at this point?
It is up to us to stop this stealing of our right to choose our nominee. Stand up to the DDBMSM and coalesce around Mr. Romney.
And here is another thing. If Mr. Romney wins Michigan and starts winning and gets the Republican nomination and should win the White House, he will be able to thank conservatives by giving us a conservative justice or two on the supreme court. On tax reform. And, really fight the Islamofacsist terrorists.
To Mitt Romney, JUST SAY NO! Do not let the DDBMSM drive you out!
JUST SAY NO!
It is time for those of us, many coming of age in the age of the great man, Ronald Reagan, to stop the insanity now.
We are conservatives. We have seen the success of the Republican party since Mr. Reagan wrested control from the moderates and liberals in the 1980s. How do you think that we eventually gained congressional control and enjoyed it for 12 years? Not on the blood, sweat and tears of Sen. "F--- You" McCain. It was because people got tired of being taken for granted.
Just remember the last time a moderate was forced on us.
Remember 1996? We got Bob Dole. A great patriot but one of those who went to Washington as a conservative and became part of the elite that got into "process" and "compromise". So, Mr. Dole won the Republican nomination and ran one of the worst campaigns in modern Republican history. Only because of the strong dislike of then President Clinton did Mr. Dole manage to get 40% of the national vote. And only win 16 states.
We were told then that only Sen. Dole could mount a serious challenge to President Clinton. Some serious challenge.
And here we go again. And, on a lot less evidence that Sen. "F--- You" McCain really could win. This is all based on one win in New Hampshire. Nothing more. And we are told that Mitt Romney should just get out now. So, his Iowa-New Hampshire strategy did not work. He is a smart man. He can retool the approach. There is no reason he should leave. Nor should Fred Thompson. He has a chance to win in South Carolina. Oh, but the Rev. Mike is leading big time there in the polls. Well, as Sen Barack Obama how accurate polls are. Or Sen. Hilary Clinton.
We do not elect based on polls. If that was the case, there would have been some different presidents.
Why there would have been no President Bush had he taken the advice of the DDBMSM. He won Iowa and lost very badly to Sen. "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire and badly in Michigan. But, in a much less fractured primary season, then Gov. Bush made an all out effort in South Carolina and won. And then won in Virginia. It was there that Sen. "F--- You" McCain went up against conservative Christians. But, to no avail. Mr. Bush went on to win, and win, and win. Sen. "F--- You" McCain got more and more bitter.
Here is the thing, fellow conservative Republicans, we need to stop with this "That candidate is not conservative enough." or "This candidate is not conservative enough". We need to rally around one of the conservatives left. I would encourage all to back Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney needs cash and support. He can win Michigan, and if not, make sure that he is competitive all the way to Super Duper Tuesday.
Remember, Sen. Hilary Clinton proved that polls are not always accurate. Do not buy that Sen. "F--- You" McCain is already up nine percent in Michigan. Of course he is. After all, he did win in New Hampshire. Polls can fluctuate and have this whole election season. Who would have thought that the Rev. Mike Huckabee would be in the thick of the race at this point?
It is up to us to stop this stealing of our right to choose our nominee. Stand up to the DDBMSM and coalesce around Mr. Romney.
And here is another thing. If Mr. Romney wins Michigan and starts winning and gets the Republican nomination and should win the White House, he will be able to thank conservatives by giving us a conservative justice or two on the supreme court. On tax reform. And, really fight the Islamofacsist terrorists.
To Mitt Romney, JUST SAY NO! Do not let the DDBMSM drive you out!
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
California May Really Matter This Time
For the Republicans, California may really matter in the primary season.
It looks doubtful that there will even be a prohibitive front-runner at that point.
But, there is something about how Republicans campaign here that will prove their overall grasp of campaigning smart.
Because the California GOP gave up the winner-take-all primary, the Republicans are distributing there delegates by congressional district.
There are 53 congressional districts in California. And 3 delegates each district. In a strange twist, a candidate can win the popular Republican vote, but not the majority of delegates. So, how does a Republican campaign in California?
Well, Mayor Rudy has been in the Bay Area a lot. And I think that he is looking at the Democrat-held districts. Because there are fewer registered Republicans, He believes that he can persuade very few and win many of those districts.
It appears that Mayor Rudy gets it and has a plan.
So far, it does not seem like any of the other candidates are looking that far out. But, they should. There will not be any steam-roller effect. So, there maybe as many as five realistic candidates who could take at least one district.
Here is what some should do.
For Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Concentrate on Riverside County. The lies Palm Springs and the desert with three districts. They are chock-full of retirees and perfect for your candidacy.
For the Rev. Mike, there are a lot of evangelical Christians in the central valley. They may be yours for the picking and can give you maybe a couple of districts and delegates.
Form Mr. Romney, go into the Silicon Valley hard. That is easy pickings. Then look at what is left, who looks the weakest and in for the kill. It is possible that both Sen. "F--- You" McCain and the Rev. Mike may not have the money to put a strong challenge anywhere in California, but they should. We are not that predictable and running in each district, anywhere can help you win the lion's share of delegates.
I could not tell you who will win, But a guess is that if Mayor Rudy survives to California, he can get the majority. But, no one can walk away from California with a majority of delegates. And that will add more fun to an already unbelievable race that we are having now.
It looks doubtful that there will even be a prohibitive front-runner at that point.
But, there is something about how Republicans campaign here that will prove their overall grasp of campaigning smart.
Because the California GOP gave up the winner-take-all primary, the Republicans are distributing there delegates by congressional district.
There are 53 congressional districts in California. And 3 delegates each district. In a strange twist, a candidate can win the popular Republican vote, but not the majority of delegates. So, how does a Republican campaign in California?
Well, Mayor Rudy has been in the Bay Area a lot. And I think that he is looking at the Democrat-held districts. Because there are fewer registered Republicans, He believes that he can persuade very few and win many of those districts.
It appears that Mayor Rudy gets it and has a plan.
So far, it does not seem like any of the other candidates are looking that far out. But, they should. There will not be any steam-roller effect. So, there maybe as many as five realistic candidates who could take at least one district.
Here is what some should do.
For Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Concentrate on Riverside County. The lies Palm Springs and the desert with three districts. They are chock-full of retirees and perfect for your candidacy.
For the Rev. Mike, there are a lot of evangelical Christians in the central valley. They may be yours for the picking and can give you maybe a couple of districts and delegates.
Form Mr. Romney, go into the Silicon Valley hard. That is easy pickings. Then look at what is left, who looks the weakest and in for the kill. It is possible that both Sen. "F--- You" McCain and the Rev. Mike may not have the money to put a strong challenge anywhere in California, but they should. We are not that predictable and running in each district, anywhere can help you win the lion's share of delegates.
I could not tell you who will win, But a guess is that if Mayor Rudy survives to California, he can get the majority. But, no one can walk away from California with a majority of delegates. And that will add more fun to an already unbelievable race that we are having now.
This Race Is Not Going Away For Either Party
The most important fact that has come out of New Hampshire tonight is two fold.
For the Republicans, there is no front runner. There are three candidates that can claim victories, the Rev. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and Mitt Romney. Right now, that is the top three. Pay no attention to polls. That is the top o' the pack for the Republicans. This week.
The Democrats also do not have a front runner. However, thanks to Sen. Satan, er Clinton's marginal win over Sen. Barack Obama, their field is winnowed down to two. And they will not have any easier time than the Republicans.
And, this may really becoming the death march to the nomination, especially for the Republicans.
But, here are observations for the next couple of weeks, no predictions.
Mitt Romney has to win one. A big chance is Michigan next week. It is where the Romney family name carries some weight with Mr. Romney's dad, George, was governor for three terms. But, there are some mountains that get in the way. One is Sen. "F--- You" McCain. He will push hard to get those pesky independents to come out once again. That strength is probably in the Detroit area. And there is the Rev. Mike. Western Michigan is ripe with evangelical Christians and while the Rev. Mike is staking claim to South Carolina, he may also make a push for those independents. And that could splint the independent vote and give Mr. Romney the inside push and come out a winner. And, if that happens, a win is a win. But, this electorate is not going to make it easy. I think it is time to emphasize why you want to be president and what you would do differently than say Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Then there is South Carolina, different for different folks.
For Sen. Obama, he needs to get an overwhelming majority of the black Democrat vote and split the difference everywhere else. With former Sen. John Edwards out by then, maybe, you will probably split those voters with Sen. Satan, gosh darn it, Clinton! That will be a great comeback because Nevada probably goes to Sen. Clinton.
And, two Republicans will make their line in the sand. Fred Thompson and the Rev. Mike. Look for the gloves to come off here. It would probably be wise for Sen. "F--- You" McCain and Mr. Romney to put a minimal effort here. This is a good chance for Mr. Thompson. This is where he can do his kind of down-home campaign. Look for a lot of plaid shirts and possibly a pick up truck. There, you will find Mr. Thompson. A win here for Mr. Thompson and the Topsy-turvy race gets another good jolt.
All of this leads to February 5, Super Duper Tuesday.
I think, now I am not predicting, but that this will still not decide the nomination on either side.
For the Republicans, if one of the serious five comes in really badly, they are gone. Chances are that either the Rev. Mike or Mr. Thompson will not do all that well. But, no one candidate will emerge.
And, even though it will be down to Sens. Clinton and Obama, they may split the difference and the race continues.
And I do not think it will be a bad thing.
For too long, party bigwigs and blowhard pundits have wanted this to end quickly. Why? A battle-tested candidate is a better candidate in the general election. And, if both nominees and battle-tested, it will be an epic struggle for votes and states in November.
And that means that there may be a lot more "swing" states and that is a good thing. Complacency is not what we need now. A real race in both parties keeps up interest and gets the partisans fired up for the general election campaign.
Maybe all of this front loading was not such a great idea after all!
For the Republicans, there is no front runner. There are three candidates that can claim victories, the Rev. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and Mitt Romney. Right now, that is the top three. Pay no attention to polls. That is the top o' the pack for the Republicans. This week.
The Democrats also do not have a front runner. However, thanks to Sen. Satan, er Clinton's marginal win over Sen. Barack Obama, their field is winnowed down to two. And they will not have any easier time than the Republicans.
And, this may really becoming the death march to the nomination, especially for the Republicans.
But, here are observations for the next couple of weeks, no predictions.
Mitt Romney has to win one. A big chance is Michigan next week. It is where the Romney family name carries some weight with Mr. Romney's dad, George, was governor for three terms. But, there are some mountains that get in the way. One is Sen. "F--- You" McCain. He will push hard to get those pesky independents to come out once again. That strength is probably in the Detroit area. And there is the Rev. Mike. Western Michigan is ripe with evangelical Christians and while the Rev. Mike is staking claim to South Carolina, he may also make a push for those independents. And that could splint the independent vote and give Mr. Romney the inside push and come out a winner. And, if that happens, a win is a win. But, this electorate is not going to make it easy. I think it is time to emphasize why you want to be president and what you would do differently than say Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Then there is South Carolina, different for different folks.
For Sen. Obama, he needs to get an overwhelming majority of the black Democrat vote and split the difference everywhere else. With former Sen. John Edwards out by then, maybe, you will probably split those voters with Sen. Satan, gosh darn it, Clinton! That will be a great comeback because Nevada probably goes to Sen. Clinton.
And, two Republicans will make their line in the sand. Fred Thompson and the Rev. Mike. Look for the gloves to come off here. It would probably be wise for Sen. "F--- You" McCain and Mr. Romney to put a minimal effort here. This is a good chance for Mr. Thompson. This is where he can do his kind of down-home campaign. Look for a lot of plaid shirts and possibly a pick up truck. There, you will find Mr. Thompson. A win here for Mr. Thompson and the Topsy-turvy race gets another good jolt.
All of this leads to February 5, Super Duper Tuesday.
I think, now I am not predicting, but that this will still not decide the nomination on either side.
For the Republicans, if one of the serious five comes in really badly, they are gone. Chances are that either the Rev. Mike or Mr. Thompson will not do all that well. But, no one candidate will emerge.
And, even though it will be down to Sens. Clinton and Obama, they may split the difference and the race continues.
And I do not think it will be a bad thing.
For too long, party bigwigs and blowhard pundits have wanted this to end quickly. Why? A battle-tested candidate is a better candidate in the general election. And, if both nominees and battle-tested, it will be an epic struggle for votes and states in November.
And that means that there may be a lot more "swing" states and that is a good thing. Complacency is not what we need now. A real race in both parties keeps up interest and gets the partisans fired up for the general election campaign.
Maybe all of this front loading was not such a great idea after all!
Monday, January 07, 2008
And The New Hampshire Winners Are. . .
OK, this is it.
In less than an hour the residents of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire have the fate of the free world in their hands as they are the first residents in the United States to vote in a presidential primary.
Now that some of the histrionics are done, what is really important are the predictions for the fateful primary tomorrow in New Hampshire.
So, without further ado, here they are:
REPUBLICANS:
Mitt Romney 35%
John McCain 31%
Rudy Giuliani 10%
Mike Huckabee 9%
Ron Paul 8%
Fred Thompson 6%
Duncan Hunter 1%
DEMOCRATS:
Barack Obama 40%
Hilary Clinton 30%
John Edwards 20%
Bill Richardson 4%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
OTHER 1%
The DDBMSM is so pushing the McCain line, but the "independents" are going to vote in the Democrat primary and for Sen. Obama. The real story will be how Sen. Obama will get the most votes of any candidate. Period.
Another factor why Mr. Romney will win in the GOP primary is that New Hampshire is slowly becoming like Massachusetts without the high taxes. The Democrats control the state legislature and the governor's mansion. While it went marginally for President Bush in 2000, it went for Sen. Kerry in 2004. And it was in 2006 that the Democrats took the state legislature. Just recently, New Hampshire passed and Democrat governor Lynch signed a same-sex "civil union" bill. Who would have thought about that just a few short years ago?
And keep this in mind.
Two nights in a row. Two debates. In the first, all the Republican candidates ganged-up on one-Mitt Romney. He came out of that standing. John "F--- You" McCain showed why is the the Vietnam era version of former Sen. Bob Dole. Mean, petulant, jealous. Next night, it was Mr. Romney who came out swinging. Had the Rev. Mike stuttering. Had Sen. "F--- You" McCain bumbling. Gave no quarter to Mayor Rudy or Fred Thompson. Mr. Romney won that debate. Even a Frank Luntz focus group agreed. And, it changed some minds.
For the Democrats, Sen. Obama is really hitting Sen Clinton hard. Almost making her cry today http://drudgereport.com. Losing two in a row is bad for Sen. Clinton. But, DO NOT RULE HER OUT! She is a fighter behind those tears and she will hang on until February 5, Super Duper Tuesday.
And, a final thought.
How do these pundits even get what is going on in either party? A month ago, it was Mitt and Hilary, no doubt about it. Then the Rev. Mike caught fire. Now, he is the "voice" of the GOP. And Sen. Obama. He did not get here by a few appearances with Oprah Winfrey.
It is a fluid race in both parties, more in the Republican field. So, the Rev. Mike will win one, then Romney, maybe McCain, no one knows really week to week. Hell, day by day. After Iowa, we were told Sen. "F--- You" McCain would blow Mr. Romney right back to Massachusetts. And, after Sunday night, it may very well be the other way around.
I am not a pundit. I just look at what is going on. Talk to real people, not fellow pundits, party hacks or campaign hacks for any candidate. Read around the blogs. Get a real feeling. All I do is write what I think. But, that does not make me Nostradamus. Nor any pollster for that matter.
We have an obligation to vote, and we all should. Lets participate in the election instead of letting pundits and pollsters do it for us.
In less than an hour the residents of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire have the fate of the free world in their hands as they are the first residents in the United States to vote in a presidential primary.
Now that some of the histrionics are done, what is really important are the predictions for the fateful primary tomorrow in New Hampshire.
So, without further ado, here they are:
REPUBLICANS:
Mitt Romney 35%
John McCain 31%
Rudy Giuliani 10%
Mike Huckabee 9%
Ron Paul 8%
Fred Thompson 6%
Duncan Hunter 1%
DEMOCRATS:
Barack Obama 40%
Hilary Clinton 30%
John Edwards 20%
Bill Richardson 4%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
OTHER 1%
The DDBMSM is so pushing the McCain line, but the "independents" are going to vote in the Democrat primary and for Sen. Obama. The real story will be how Sen. Obama will get the most votes of any candidate. Period.
Another factor why Mr. Romney will win in the GOP primary is that New Hampshire is slowly becoming like Massachusetts without the high taxes. The Democrats control the state legislature and the governor's mansion. While it went marginally for President Bush in 2000, it went for Sen. Kerry in 2004. And it was in 2006 that the Democrats took the state legislature. Just recently, New Hampshire passed and Democrat governor Lynch signed a same-sex "civil union" bill. Who would have thought about that just a few short years ago?
And keep this in mind.
Two nights in a row. Two debates. In the first, all the Republican candidates ganged-up on one-Mitt Romney. He came out of that standing. John "F--- You" McCain showed why is the the Vietnam era version of former Sen. Bob Dole. Mean, petulant, jealous. Next night, it was Mr. Romney who came out swinging. Had the Rev. Mike stuttering. Had Sen. "F--- You" McCain bumbling. Gave no quarter to Mayor Rudy or Fred Thompson. Mr. Romney won that debate. Even a Frank Luntz focus group agreed. And, it changed some minds.
For the Democrats, Sen. Obama is really hitting Sen Clinton hard. Almost making her cry today http://drudgereport.com. Losing two in a row is bad for Sen. Clinton. But, DO NOT RULE HER OUT! She is a fighter behind those tears and she will hang on until February 5, Super Duper Tuesday.
And, a final thought.
How do these pundits even get what is going on in either party? A month ago, it was Mitt and Hilary, no doubt about it. Then the Rev. Mike caught fire. Now, he is the "voice" of the GOP. And Sen. Obama. He did not get here by a few appearances with Oprah Winfrey.
It is a fluid race in both parties, more in the Republican field. So, the Rev. Mike will win one, then Romney, maybe McCain, no one knows really week to week. Hell, day by day. After Iowa, we were told Sen. "F--- You" McCain would blow Mr. Romney right back to Massachusetts. And, after Sunday night, it may very well be the other way around.
I am not a pundit. I just look at what is going on. Talk to real people, not fellow pundits, party hacks or campaign hacks for any candidate. Read around the blogs. Get a real feeling. All I do is write what I think. But, that does not make me Nostradamus. Nor any pollster for that matter.
We have an obligation to vote, and we all should. Lets participate in the election instead of letting pundits and pollsters do it for us.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Romney, Thompson Looked Good Tonight
Just done watching the Republican presidential forum on Fox News Channel http://FoxNews.com and here are some observations.
Firstly, it is great that Fox finally said enough is enough and said no to the Art Bell candidate, congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Because of that, we heard a lot from the serious candidates for president in the Republican party.
The format was even closer as each candidate sat next to each other as if they were at a sporting event, a movie, or a concert. It worked well and I do not know how the seating arrangements came about, but who ever put Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney next to each other must have a sick sense of humor.
Another thing was that there was no audience to get in the way. Just Fox News anchor Chris Wallace asking the questions and the five candidates, Sen. "F--- You" McCain, Mr. Romney, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, The Rev. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The forum itself was great.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain was on his best behavior, but still unable to weasel out of his support and pushing the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. Also, could not justify why one of the most inside Washingtonians as he is would be the best agent of change within the Republican presidential field. Saying that he changed the course in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofascist Terror is not enough.
Fred Thompson may not be electrifying, but he is the one candidate who says what he means, explains his positions in simple English and basically lets it all out there. But, it may not be enough in this tough field. I wish he had gotten in earlier.
Rudy Giuliani has some good points to make, but kind of sort of falls short when the subject of middle-class angst came up.
And, one of the correct points the Rev. Mike does bring up is that there is anxiety among many in the middle class. The problem with the Rev. Mike, is solutions would add not just more to their anxiety, but possibly to their being put on an unemployment line. Again, in the overall, the Rev. Mike is just out of his league. He even looked hostile when Mitt Romney was giving an answer. It is never good to fold your arms and look like you are ready for a rumble, and the Rev. Mike did just that at one point.
And Mr. Romney?
He hit it out of the park and looked, sounded and acted presidential. Mr. Romney had command of facts and even turned the discussion on "attack" ads to his advantage. A winner tonight.
And, if you think that I am just shilling for Mr. Romney, a Frank Luntz focus group of 30 undecided Republican voters more or less agreed and it appeared that Mr. Romney changed some people's mind towards his direction.
So, I think Mr. Romney gave a great performance and may have staved off defeat from Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Mr. Thompson was a good second, but the Luntz focus group did not agree. When you sound like you would rather be somewhere else, I think it shows and no matter how much sense you make, people just do not gravitate towards you. I think that was Mr. Thompson's problem tonight. Mayor Rudy was alright and actually had a good point about the whole discussion of change. He said it depends on what kind of change. That is an excellent point. As noted, Sen. "F--- You" McCain was on his best behavior, but he just does not understand that he is talking to the Republican electorate. And the Rev. Mike? Well, he had a couple of lousy nights and I think that once the results come in on Tuesday evening, we will see that halo drop from the Rev. Mike's head.
And, here is another fearless prediction. It will be Mr. Romney winning the Republican primary and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) winning the Democrat primary on Tuesday.
Firstly, it is great that Fox finally said enough is enough and said no to the Art Bell candidate, congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Because of that, we heard a lot from the serious candidates for president in the Republican party.
The format was even closer as each candidate sat next to each other as if they were at a sporting event, a movie, or a concert. It worked well and I do not know how the seating arrangements came about, but who ever put Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney next to each other must have a sick sense of humor.
Another thing was that there was no audience to get in the way. Just Fox News anchor Chris Wallace asking the questions and the five candidates, Sen. "F--- You" McCain, Mr. Romney, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, The Rev. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The forum itself was great.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain was on his best behavior, but still unable to weasel out of his support and pushing the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. Also, could not justify why one of the most inside Washingtonians as he is would be the best agent of change within the Republican presidential field. Saying that he changed the course in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofascist Terror is not enough.
Fred Thompson may not be electrifying, but he is the one candidate who says what he means, explains his positions in simple English and basically lets it all out there. But, it may not be enough in this tough field. I wish he had gotten in earlier.
Rudy Giuliani has some good points to make, but kind of sort of falls short when the subject of middle-class angst came up.
And, one of the correct points the Rev. Mike does bring up is that there is anxiety among many in the middle class. The problem with the Rev. Mike, is solutions would add not just more to their anxiety, but possibly to their being put on an unemployment line. Again, in the overall, the Rev. Mike is just out of his league. He even looked hostile when Mitt Romney was giving an answer. It is never good to fold your arms and look like you are ready for a rumble, and the Rev. Mike did just that at one point.
And Mr. Romney?
He hit it out of the park and looked, sounded and acted presidential. Mr. Romney had command of facts and even turned the discussion on "attack" ads to his advantage. A winner tonight.
And, if you think that I am just shilling for Mr. Romney, a Frank Luntz focus group of 30 undecided Republican voters more or less agreed and it appeared that Mr. Romney changed some people's mind towards his direction.
So, I think Mr. Romney gave a great performance and may have staved off defeat from Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Mr. Thompson was a good second, but the Luntz focus group did not agree. When you sound like you would rather be somewhere else, I think it shows and no matter how much sense you make, people just do not gravitate towards you. I think that was Mr. Thompson's problem tonight. Mayor Rudy was alright and actually had a good point about the whole discussion of change. He said it depends on what kind of change. That is an excellent point. As noted, Sen. "F--- You" McCain was on his best behavior, but he just does not understand that he is talking to the Republican electorate. And the Rev. Mike? Well, he had a couple of lousy nights and I think that once the results come in on Tuesday evening, we will see that halo drop from the Rev. Mike's head.
And, here is another fearless prediction. It will be Mr. Romney winning the Republican primary and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) winning the Democrat primary on Tuesday.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
If Mitt Is NOT The GOP Front Runner, Why The Gang-Up?
Tonight and tomorrow night the Republicans debate each other once again before the citizens of New Hampshire vote on Tuesday.
I have but one question.
If Mitt Romney is NOT the Republican front runner, why are all of the other Republican candidates ganging up on him?
The obvious answer is that Mr. Romney is the front runner and while it is possible he will lose in the primary on Tuesday, all the others know he has the money to go on. John "F--- You" McCain does not. And, Sen. "F--- You" McCain may have to take federal campaign matching funds if by some outside chance he is the Republican nominee. And the Rev. Mike? The shoestring should end in New Hampshire on Tuesday. Fred Thompson? Well, he may finish in second place. It could be a huge boost to South Carolina, but he won't get the cash he would need to keep up with Sens. Obama and or Clinton. And Mayor Rudy? Maybe the only other candidate who could raise the kind of money to keep up with the Democrats.
Also, it does not help to sound the populist drum in a Republican debate.
Conservatives and Republican people in the know realize that the party can not nominate some one like Sen. "F--- You" McCain. He will be another Bob Dole in 1996. And, we see how well that worked out. The Rev. Mike? Iowa was the big dance and he should fall on the floor on Tuesday and be a non-factor. Fred Thompson? He would be the Republican dream but he has been a nightmare and the slow style of campaigning is going to be a drag. Mayor Rudy? Now, he has been on a tightrope from the get-go because he has made no peace with the social conservative wing of the Republican party. One has to figure that once the Rev. Mike is gone and they look to someone else to champion their cause, it will either go to Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Even if it is a split, it helps Mr. Romney.
Also, keep this in mind.
George W. Bush won Iowa in 2000 and suffered quite a few defeats at the hand of Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Then came South Carolina and it was off to the races for then Gov. Bush.
This campaign will not have a firewall until Super Duper Tuesday, February 5.
But, the fact that all the candidates still standing are gunning for Mitt Romney shows that he is the front runner and someone, or all, have to stop him. But, as more candidates go down, no one maybe able to stop Mr. Romney.
I have but one question.
If Mitt Romney is NOT the Republican front runner, why are all of the other Republican candidates ganging up on him?
The obvious answer is that Mr. Romney is the front runner and while it is possible he will lose in the primary on Tuesday, all the others know he has the money to go on. John "F--- You" McCain does not. And, Sen. "F--- You" McCain may have to take federal campaign matching funds if by some outside chance he is the Republican nominee. And the Rev. Mike? The shoestring should end in New Hampshire on Tuesday. Fred Thompson? Well, he may finish in second place. It could be a huge boost to South Carolina, but he won't get the cash he would need to keep up with Sens. Obama and or Clinton. And Mayor Rudy? Maybe the only other candidate who could raise the kind of money to keep up with the Democrats.
Also, it does not help to sound the populist drum in a Republican debate.
Conservatives and Republican people in the know realize that the party can not nominate some one like Sen. "F--- You" McCain. He will be another Bob Dole in 1996. And, we see how well that worked out. The Rev. Mike? Iowa was the big dance and he should fall on the floor on Tuesday and be a non-factor. Fred Thompson? He would be the Republican dream but he has been a nightmare and the slow style of campaigning is going to be a drag. Mayor Rudy? Now, he has been on a tightrope from the get-go because he has made no peace with the social conservative wing of the Republican party. One has to figure that once the Rev. Mike is gone and they look to someone else to champion their cause, it will either go to Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Even if it is a split, it helps Mr. Romney.
Also, keep this in mind.
George W. Bush won Iowa in 2000 and suffered quite a few defeats at the hand of Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Then came South Carolina and it was off to the races for then Gov. Bush.
This campaign will not have a firewall until Super Duper Tuesday, February 5.
But, the fact that all the candidates still standing are gunning for Mitt Romney shows that he is the front runner and someone, or all, have to stop him. But, as more candidates go down, no one maybe able to stop Mr. Romney.
Romney Wins Wyoming
As expected, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the Wyoming Republican party caucus today, getting the lions share of delegates and the first win of the campaign.
According to those on the ground http://trib.com, it was because Mr. Romney visited the state and out of those that did, including Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, they also won one delegate each.
It is important in this sense.
Mr. Romney is the only candidate that can visit every nook and cranny that will be needed to defeat the Democrat presidential nominee. None of the other so-called front runners have the finances to keep up with what will be a Democrat Tsunami of cash on hand.
Another aside. Today on "Weekend Live" on Fox News Channel, Washington Examiner writer Bill Sammon said that even if Romney should lose the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday and is in second place, he will show consistency and may end up being the anti-Huckabee and or the anti-McCain.
These are all things to keep in mind. A win in a state like Wyoming may not seem like much. But it shows some ability to do what the DDBMSM claims the Rev. Mike Huckabee does-connect with people.
Those that are running on identity politics such as the Rev. Mike and Arizona senator John "F--- You" McCain can only go so far. They are not running as Republicans. They are not trying to show any appeal beyond their special groups. The Republicans will need a serious candidate with the temperament and ability to reach all groups within the conservative-Republican coalition.
Mitt Romney is showing that. One win down, on to a win in New Hampshire on Tuesday!
According to those on the ground http://trib.com, it was because Mr. Romney visited the state and out of those that did, including Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, they also won one delegate each.
It is important in this sense.
Mr. Romney is the only candidate that can visit every nook and cranny that will be needed to defeat the Democrat presidential nominee. None of the other so-called front runners have the finances to keep up with what will be a Democrat Tsunami of cash on hand.
Another aside. Today on "Weekend Live" on Fox News Channel, Washington Examiner writer Bill Sammon said that even if Romney should lose the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday and is in second place, he will show consistency and may end up being the anti-Huckabee and or the anti-McCain.
These are all things to keep in mind. A win in a state like Wyoming may not seem like much. But it shows some ability to do what the DDBMSM claims the Rev. Mike Huckabee does-connect with people.
Those that are running on identity politics such as the Rev. Mike and Arizona senator John "F--- You" McCain can only go so far. They are not running as Republicans. They are not trying to show any appeal beyond their special groups. The Republicans will need a serious candidate with the temperament and ability to reach all groups within the conservative-Republican coalition.
Mitt Romney is showing that. One win down, on to a win in New Hampshire on Tuesday!
Friday, January 04, 2008
Wyoming Could Be First Win For Romney
Did you know that tomorrow will be a another Republican caucus? Of course not because it is in Wyoming.
And, Wyoming did what so many others did in moving their caucus up in hopes of having some influence on the nominating process.
In a strange way, it may happen.
Of the major Republican candidates running, only former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has put any face time here. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is making a phone calling effort. And congressman Ron Paul of Texas is going to try to pull off an upset.
But, according to Jim Geraghty http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com, Mr. Romney should get the most delegates when the caucusing is all said and done. According to Mr. Geraghty, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter could get one or two delegates each.
But, Mr. Romney will have the lions share and a victory going into Tuesday's New Hampshire primary.
Look for Mr. Romney to play that up. He can also point out that the Rev. Mike Huckabee has not even stepped foot in Wyoming. Neither has Sen. John "F--- You" McCain nor former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. So much for a 50-state campaign from any of the so-called front runners.
And that is a strength of Mr. Romney.
Unlike any of the so-called front runners, he is the only Republican candidate that will be able to have a 50-state strategy. Unlike the Rev. Mike, Sen. "F--- You" McCain or Mayor Rudy, he will have the funds and ability to compete in marginal Democrat states and keep the 35 red states. What Democrat state does the Rev. Mike think he will take? What Democrat states does Sen. "F--- You" McCain expect to win and keep the red states in his corner? Same for Mayor Rudy.
The only other candidate that had that possibility was former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. But, he got in way too late and it shows.
Something that Mr. Romney knows that the other candidates do not is that unlike 2000 and 2004 this is a 50-state contest. No where is safe for either side. No George W. Bush on the ballot or lingering. No Al Gore, or John Kerry. It is a fresh, new ballgame. Everything must be taken seriously, even a small state like Wyoming. After all, look at all the attention paid to another small state, Iowa.
Mitt Romney should get victory number one tomorrow in Wyoming. Hopefully, it will lead to number two in New Hampshire on Tuesday.
And, Wyoming did what so many others did in moving their caucus up in hopes of having some influence on the nominating process.
In a strange way, it may happen.
Of the major Republican candidates running, only former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has put any face time here. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is making a phone calling effort. And congressman Ron Paul of Texas is going to try to pull off an upset.
But, according to Jim Geraghty http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com, Mr. Romney should get the most delegates when the caucusing is all said and done. According to Mr. Geraghty, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter could get one or two delegates each.
But, Mr. Romney will have the lions share and a victory going into Tuesday's New Hampshire primary.
Look for Mr. Romney to play that up. He can also point out that the Rev. Mike Huckabee has not even stepped foot in Wyoming. Neither has Sen. John "F--- You" McCain nor former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. So much for a 50-state campaign from any of the so-called front runners.
And that is a strength of Mr. Romney.
Unlike any of the so-called front runners, he is the only Republican candidate that will be able to have a 50-state strategy. Unlike the Rev. Mike, Sen. "F--- You" McCain or Mayor Rudy, he will have the funds and ability to compete in marginal Democrat states and keep the 35 red states. What Democrat state does the Rev. Mike think he will take? What Democrat states does Sen. "F--- You" McCain expect to win and keep the red states in his corner? Same for Mayor Rudy.
The only other candidate that had that possibility was former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. But, he got in way too late and it shows.
Something that Mr. Romney knows that the other candidates do not is that unlike 2000 and 2004 this is a 50-state contest. No where is safe for either side. No George W. Bush on the ballot or lingering. No Al Gore, or John Kerry. It is a fresh, new ballgame. Everything must be taken seriously, even a small state like Wyoming. After all, look at all the attention paid to another small state, Iowa.
Mitt Romney should get victory number one tomorrow in Wyoming. Hopefully, it will lead to number two in New Hampshire on Tuesday.
Obama Hurts McCain
While surfing the net and looking at the mind-numbing analysis of the Iowa caucus results, my theory is that the smashing win in the Democrat caucus by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) hurts Sen. John "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire.
The reason is that New Hampshire is an open primary state. That means independents can vote in any party primary they want.
In 2000, it is how Sen. "F--- You" McCain won a crushing victory over then Gov. George W. Bush in the Republican primary. Gov. Bush won Republican voters in that primary. The same in Michigan. And in Virginia. And, Sen. "F--- You" McCain is trying the same pony once again, appealing to independents because he has little if any support in the Republican base.
But, that Obama win last night has put the chances of a repeat in 2008 in danger.
For the Democrats, it was a 2-1 participation in the caucus. Roughly about 239,000 for the Dems and about 103,000 for the Republicans. Both are very large increases in participation.
But, at least in Iowa, the momentum was with the Democrat candidates. Even Sen. Hilary Clinton, who came in an underwhelming third.
Thus, the independent voter in New Hampshire may feel much more inclined to influence the outcome of the Democrat primary rather than go for yesterday's news, Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
More than likely, if the New Hampshire independents go into the Democrat booth, the beneficiary of that will be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who did suffer a serious setback last night in Iowa. There are no guarantees, but this one. It will not be the Rev. Mike Huckabee.
It is very possible that with less independent voters participating, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson could break through with a second place finish, ahead of his old senate colleague, "F--- You" McCain. The Rev. Mike might not even finish in the top four, possibly fifth place.
The hard part for insurgents like the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain is that as the season moves on, the independents will have less say in primaries and caucuses. That means the more that actual Republicans get to vote, the two look less likely to win the nomination.
The other fascinating aspect of the Iowa outcome is that it is even clearer that there is something going on with the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain. As I noted in an earlier post, they are clearly tag teaming to try to derail Mr. Romney, Mr. Thompson and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. It looks more and more that way.
But, it may not work. And in a strange way, Republicans opposed to both may have Sen. Obama to thank for that.
The reason is that New Hampshire is an open primary state. That means independents can vote in any party primary they want.
In 2000, it is how Sen. "F--- You" McCain won a crushing victory over then Gov. George W. Bush in the Republican primary. Gov. Bush won Republican voters in that primary. The same in Michigan. And in Virginia. And, Sen. "F--- You" McCain is trying the same pony once again, appealing to independents because he has little if any support in the Republican base.
But, that Obama win last night has put the chances of a repeat in 2008 in danger.
For the Democrats, it was a 2-1 participation in the caucus. Roughly about 239,000 for the Dems and about 103,000 for the Republicans. Both are very large increases in participation.
But, at least in Iowa, the momentum was with the Democrat candidates. Even Sen. Hilary Clinton, who came in an underwhelming third.
Thus, the independent voter in New Hampshire may feel much more inclined to influence the outcome of the Democrat primary rather than go for yesterday's news, Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
More than likely, if the New Hampshire independents go into the Democrat booth, the beneficiary of that will be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who did suffer a serious setback last night in Iowa. There are no guarantees, but this one. It will not be the Rev. Mike Huckabee.
It is very possible that with less independent voters participating, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson could break through with a second place finish, ahead of his old senate colleague, "F--- You" McCain. The Rev. Mike might not even finish in the top four, possibly fifth place.
The hard part for insurgents like the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain is that as the season moves on, the independents will have less say in primaries and caucuses. That means the more that actual Republicans get to vote, the two look less likely to win the nomination.
The other fascinating aspect of the Iowa outcome is that it is even clearer that there is something going on with the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain. As I noted in an earlier post, they are clearly tag teaming to try to derail Mr. Romney, Mr. Thompson and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. It looks more and more that way.
But, it may not work. And in a strange way, Republicans opposed to both may have Sen. Obama to thank for that.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
After All Of This, Is Iowa Really All That Big Of A Deal?
An interesting piece on the New York Observer website http://www.observer.com/2008/brief-history-iowa-new-hampshire-bounce shows that what happens in Iowa does not always translate into much when it comes to New Hampshire.
Some examples on the Republican side show that if the results of the 1988 caucus were taken at face value, we would have had a possible one-term Pat Robertson presidency. For Rev. Robertson finished a strong second behind former Kansas senator Bob Dole. Then Vice-President George H. W. Bush had a dismal 18% of the caucus vote. No Dole or Robertson in the end and Mr. Bush went on to get the nod and the presidency himself.
In more recent history, the 2000 caucus saw a big George W. Bush win over Steve Forbes, 42-30% with Alan Keyes coming in third with 14%. But, on the way to New Hampshire, then Gov. Bush got a sneak attack when Sen. John McCain finished first, 19% ahead of Gov. Bush. Some big mo!
Want to go back to a little ancient history and 1980 and we see that then former U. N. ambassador George H. W. Bush won the Iowa caucus. It is where we got the term "big mo" from. Mr. H. W. Bush thought he had it. A fellow named Ronald Reagan did not back down and when a strange event occurred in New Hampshire during a Republican debate in which a microphone was turned off and Mr. Reagan told the debate moderator "I paid for this microphone" and it was turned back on. And all the Republicans running for president at the time were allowed to join in the debate. Mr. H. W. Bush looked weak and thus the "wimp" factor came into play. Mr. Reagan cruised to victory in New Hampshire and the rest is history.
On the Democrat side, similar results have occurred.
In 1992, we should have had President Tom Harkin, the Iowa senator who had 80% of the caucus vote that year. Of course no one tried to compete in any seriousness in the state.
1988 was a year a lot like this. Three candidates bunched at the top, former Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt, the late former Illinois senator Paul Simon and the former governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis. Well, we all know what happened there.
And in 1984, while former Vice-President Walter Mondale won the caucus, former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart became the anti-Mondale and could have very well won the Democrat nomination that year. But, alas, Mr. Hart did not and the humiliation of a 49-state loss to President Reagan fell to Mr. Mondale.
So, in the end, Iowa matters in the sense that this is but a first indicator on how some Americans vote when they have a chance to actually do so in a booth and not when called by a million pollsters trying to divine the outcome of an election before it occurs.
But, where Iowa falls short is that so few participate in the caucus. For the Republicans, at least there is more of a secret ballot. You have to actually write the candidate's name. For the Democrats, they set it up so that only a candidate that meets the 15% viability minimal is taken
seriously.
And, Iowa is quaint, but not a real reflection of the United States as a whole. And neither is New Hampshire.
So, the first real test maybe in Michigan on January 15. It is a primary for both Democrats and Republicans. For both parties, independents can vote and there is where one can see a real cross section of Americans voting. And there is where we can get a better idea of how this all plays out. This time.
Some examples on the Republican side show that if the results of the 1988 caucus were taken at face value, we would have had a possible one-term Pat Robertson presidency. For Rev. Robertson finished a strong second behind former Kansas senator Bob Dole. Then Vice-President George H. W. Bush had a dismal 18% of the caucus vote. No Dole or Robertson in the end and Mr. Bush went on to get the nod and the presidency himself.
In more recent history, the 2000 caucus saw a big George W. Bush win over Steve Forbes, 42-30% with Alan Keyes coming in third with 14%. But, on the way to New Hampshire, then Gov. Bush got a sneak attack when Sen. John McCain finished first, 19% ahead of Gov. Bush. Some big mo!
Want to go back to a little ancient history and 1980 and we see that then former U. N. ambassador George H. W. Bush won the Iowa caucus. It is where we got the term "big mo" from. Mr. H. W. Bush thought he had it. A fellow named Ronald Reagan did not back down and when a strange event occurred in New Hampshire during a Republican debate in which a microphone was turned off and Mr. Reagan told the debate moderator "I paid for this microphone" and it was turned back on. And all the Republicans running for president at the time were allowed to join in the debate. Mr. H. W. Bush looked weak and thus the "wimp" factor came into play. Mr. Reagan cruised to victory in New Hampshire and the rest is history.
On the Democrat side, similar results have occurred.
In 1992, we should have had President Tom Harkin, the Iowa senator who had 80% of the caucus vote that year. Of course no one tried to compete in any seriousness in the state.
1988 was a year a lot like this. Three candidates bunched at the top, former Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt, the late former Illinois senator Paul Simon and the former governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis. Well, we all know what happened there.
And in 1984, while former Vice-President Walter Mondale won the caucus, former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart became the anti-Mondale and could have very well won the Democrat nomination that year. But, alas, Mr. Hart did not and the humiliation of a 49-state loss to President Reagan fell to Mr. Mondale.
So, in the end, Iowa matters in the sense that this is but a first indicator on how some Americans vote when they have a chance to actually do so in a booth and not when called by a million pollsters trying to divine the outcome of an election before it occurs.
But, where Iowa falls short is that so few participate in the caucus. For the Republicans, at least there is more of a secret ballot. You have to actually write the candidate's name. For the Democrats, they set it up so that only a candidate that meets the 15% viability minimal is taken
seriously.
And, Iowa is quaint, but not a real reflection of the United States as a whole. And neither is New Hampshire.
So, the first real test maybe in Michigan on January 15. It is a primary for both Democrats and Republicans. For both parties, independents can vote and there is where one can see a real cross section of Americans voting. And there is where we can get a better idea of how this all plays out. This time.
And The REAL Winners Are. . .
OK, OK, I will congratulate the Rev. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas for a victory in tonight's Iowa caucus. The Rev. Mike had the momentum and a reservoir of support from evangelical Christians that no one could seriously break and that sums up his win.
Some things to note.
Evangelical Christians make up a disproportionate number, roughly 40% of registered Republican voters. While they were not monolithic in their voting, the majority went with the Rev. Mike.
Look at the county-by-county results http://data,desmoinesregister.com/election08/caucus/rawgopcounties.ph, and you will see that Polk County is where the Rev. Mike got a huge amount of his 34% statewide vote. It is the county where the capital and largest city, Des Moines, is located. The Rev. Mike got a lot of favorable coverage there and it translated. It is the perfect area for a word-of-mouth campaign to get a good buzz.
Having said all of that, a win is a win and the Rev. Mike deserves his moment in the sun. And, it will be a very brief one as there is another caucus Saturday in Wyoming and then New Hampshire. Both are going to be more secular and tougher for the Rev. Mike to crack.
My man Mitt did finish a respectable second and has nothing to be ashamed about. Yes, he probably spent a lot of time in Iowa, but he was following a conventional wisdom. And, it appears that this maybe an election in which neither party will be able to follow conventional wisdom and that leads to the Democrats.
At least here, I got it right.
Sen. Barack Obama ended up easily winning the Iowa Democrat Caucus. The real battle is for second place and at the time of this posting, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards has a one point lead on Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), 30-29%. While Sen. Obama won cruisingly with 38 percent of the "vote".
Since Democrats do not cast ballots as the Republicans, it is by a percentage of people who stood in the candidate's area.
At least here it is clear. Sen. Clinton ain't gonna get that coronation. And, she maybe badly damaged as she staggers into New Hampshire. And, even though he will have finished second, give credit to Mr. Edwards. This at least gets him into New Hampshire. He may not win there, but Mr. Edwards could have another second place finish, and it could be a rerun of tonight's result. It can be much more of a death blow to Sen. Clinton than any of the Republican candidates.
After all, Sen. Clinton has had a commanding lead in the Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com polling average, hovering in the 40s. If Sen. Clinton has another disappointing third place finish, then it appears that the Democrats are really serious about presenting their best candidate and win the White House. One thing about Sen. Obama, like him or not, his negatives are no where near Sen. Clinton's. It is possible that is what is weighing on Democrat voters minds.
So, what to make of this, the first time in this long death march to November?
The Republican race is truly a wide open race. While the Rev. Mike will get a buzz out of the win tonight, it will not be nearly enough for long term viability. He has to win a primary in which real people vote, not caucus. That is a tougher road. Mitt Romney is very much still in this race and may not win New Hampshire, but he will be in for the long haul. Fred Thompson is very much alive and will not bow out anytime soon. Even Sen. John "F--- You" McCain is looking up. Then there is, lurking in the shadows Rudy Giuliani. Do not count him out at all.
For the Democrats, this may be the beginning of the end of the Clinton comeback. When you have as high of negatives as she does, other candidates start to look better. And leading that group is Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama is positive, has a compelling story and just seems to connect with Democrat voters in a real way that everyone knows Sen. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Edwards does not.
This is going to be an interesting race to the finish for both parties and this election takes on more of an importance than ever.
Some things to note.
Evangelical Christians make up a disproportionate number, roughly 40% of registered Republican voters. While they were not monolithic in their voting, the majority went with the Rev. Mike.
Look at the county-by-county results http://data,desmoinesregister.com/election08/caucus/rawgopcounties.ph, and you will see that Polk County is where the Rev. Mike got a huge amount of his 34% statewide vote. It is the county where the capital and largest city, Des Moines, is located. The Rev. Mike got a lot of favorable coverage there and it translated. It is the perfect area for a word-of-mouth campaign to get a good buzz.
Having said all of that, a win is a win and the Rev. Mike deserves his moment in the sun. And, it will be a very brief one as there is another caucus Saturday in Wyoming and then New Hampshire. Both are going to be more secular and tougher for the Rev. Mike to crack.
My man Mitt did finish a respectable second and has nothing to be ashamed about. Yes, he probably spent a lot of time in Iowa, but he was following a conventional wisdom. And, it appears that this maybe an election in which neither party will be able to follow conventional wisdom and that leads to the Democrats.
At least here, I got it right.
Sen. Barack Obama ended up easily winning the Iowa Democrat Caucus. The real battle is for second place and at the time of this posting, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards has a one point lead on Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), 30-29%. While Sen. Obama won cruisingly with 38 percent of the "vote".
Since Democrats do not cast ballots as the Republicans, it is by a percentage of people who stood in the candidate's area.
At least here it is clear. Sen. Clinton ain't gonna get that coronation. And, she maybe badly damaged as she staggers into New Hampshire. And, even though he will have finished second, give credit to Mr. Edwards. This at least gets him into New Hampshire. He may not win there, but Mr. Edwards could have another second place finish, and it could be a rerun of tonight's result. It can be much more of a death blow to Sen. Clinton than any of the Republican candidates.
After all, Sen. Clinton has had a commanding lead in the Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com polling average, hovering in the 40s. If Sen. Clinton has another disappointing third place finish, then it appears that the Democrats are really serious about presenting their best candidate and win the White House. One thing about Sen. Obama, like him or not, his negatives are no where near Sen. Clinton's. It is possible that is what is weighing on Democrat voters minds.
So, what to make of this, the first time in this long death march to November?
The Republican race is truly a wide open race. While the Rev. Mike will get a buzz out of the win tonight, it will not be nearly enough for long term viability. He has to win a primary in which real people vote, not caucus. That is a tougher road. Mitt Romney is very much still in this race and may not win New Hampshire, but he will be in for the long haul. Fred Thompson is very much alive and will not bow out anytime soon. Even Sen. John "F--- You" McCain is looking up. Then there is, lurking in the shadows Rudy Giuliani. Do not count him out at all.
For the Democrats, this may be the beginning of the end of the Clinton comeback. When you have as high of negatives as she does, other candidates start to look better. And leading that group is Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama is positive, has a compelling story and just seems to connect with Democrat voters in a real way that everyone knows Sen. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Edwards does not.
This is going to be an interesting race to the finish for both parties and this election takes on more of an importance than ever.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
And The Winners Are. . .
As I am in the mood the be the seer of 2008, I am extending my all-seeingness? to tomorrow night's Iowa caucus and I will be a seer for both the Democrat and Republican candidates.
REPUBLICANS
Mitt Romney 31%
Fred Thompson 22%
Mike Huckabee 19%
John McCain 10%
Ron Paul 6%
Rudy Giuliani 3%
Tom Tancredo (Withdrew) 1%
Sam Brownback (Withdrew) 1%
Tommy Thompson (Withdrew) 1%
Duncan Hunter 1%
DEMOCRATS
1st Round
Barack Obama 25%
John Edwards 24%
Hilary Clinton 22%
Joe Biden 11%
Chris Dodd 9%
Bill Richardson 4%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
Mike Gravel 1%
2nd Round
Sen. Obama 35%
Sen. Clinton 34%
Mr. Edwards 29%
Because the Democrat caucus is complicated, the "2nd Round" means that once the candidates that do not meet the 15% viability requirement, those that favor the candidates that do can go on and support their second candidate. That will still help Sen. Obama most of all.
Thus, the victors of this beginning of the end of the caucus/primary death march are for the Democrats, Barack Obama and for the Republicans, Mitt Romney.
The reason will be the big mo' and the two winners will have it.
And what about those that do not win?
Well, for the Democrats in could be the end of the road for John Edwards. Look for Mr. Edwards to continue at least to New Hampshire and see where he finishes in an actual primary vote. For Sen Clinton, she has to win in New Hampshire next week or her general election viability will come into serious question. She already has some of the highest negative ratings in national polling data. And for Sen. Obama, who will win Iowa, he will have a better shot at winning in New Hampshire and a full head of steam heading to South Carolina, where he is leading in polls.
For the Republicans, Mr. Romney winning in Iowa may be just enough to fend off a strong challenge from Sen. "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire. It appears that it will be close in New Hampshire for both men. And if Mr. Thompson finishes second in Iowa, he may have a lot of momentum to do the same in New Hampshire and vanquish the McCain candidacy. As for the Rev. Mike, he will go back into the second tier, to also-ran status and probably out of the race. Mr. Giuliani gave up on Iowa and they will have given up on him. A decent showing for Mr. Paul gives him life going into New Hampshire. Mr. Paul will be the one candidate, win or lose, who will be in to the bitter end.
And, if I am right, I should head off to Las Vegas and the sports books!
REPUBLICANS
Mitt Romney 31%
Fred Thompson 22%
Mike Huckabee 19%
John McCain 10%
Ron Paul 6%
Rudy Giuliani 3%
Tom Tancredo (Withdrew) 1%
Sam Brownback (Withdrew) 1%
Tommy Thompson (Withdrew) 1%
Duncan Hunter 1%
DEMOCRATS
1st Round
Barack Obama 25%
John Edwards 24%
Hilary Clinton 22%
Joe Biden 11%
Chris Dodd 9%
Bill Richardson 4%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
Mike Gravel 1%
2nd Round
Sen. Obama 35%
Sen. Clinton 34%
Mr. Edwards 29%
Because the Democrat caucus is complicated, the "2nd Round" means that once the candidates that do not meet the 15% viability requirement, those that favor the candidates that do can go on and support their second candidate. That will still help Sen. Obama most of all.
Thus, the victors of this beginning of the end of the caucus/primary death march are for the Democrats, Barack Obama and for the Republicans, Mitt Romney.
The reason will be the big mo' and the two winners will have it.
And what about those that do not win?
Well, for the Democrats in could be the end of the road for John Edwards. Look for Mr. Edwards to continue at least to New Hampshire and see where he finishes in an actual primary vote. For Sen Clinton, she has to win in New Hampshire next week or her general election viability will come into serious question. She already has some of the highest negative ratings in national polling data. And for Sen. Obama, who will win Iowa, he will have a better shot at winning in New Hampshire and a full head of steam heading to South Carolina, where he is leading in polls.
For the Republicans, Mr. Romney winning in Iowa may be just enough to fend off a strong challenge from Sen. "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire. It appears that it will be close in New Hampshire for both men. And if Mr. Thompson finishes second in Iowa, he may have a lot of momentum to do the same in New Hampshire and vanquish the McCain candidacy. As for the Rev. Mike, he will go back into the second tier, to also-ran status and probably out of the race. Mr. Giuliani gave up on Iowa and they will have given up on him. A decent showing for Mr. Paul gives him life going into New Hampshire. Mr. Paul will be the one candidate, win or lose, who will be in to the bitter end.
And, if I am right, I should head off to Las Vegas and the sports books!
The Rev. Mike, Hypocrite
It is actually painful to write this about the dear ol' Rev. Mike Huckabee, but the former governor of Arkansas is a hypocrite and it is going to cost hi, a probable victory in the Iowa caucuses tomorrow night.
The reason is simple.
You do not hold a press conference, tell the assembled media that you have decided to pull a response to broadcast ads from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and then show the ad to "prove that it was really done". But, the Rev. Mike did just that.
This past Monday, the Rev. Mike told a press conference that he decided at the last minute to pull a very personal attack ad against Mr. Romney. The Rev. Mike feels that Mr. Romney has distorted his record as governor of Arkansas. So, the Rev Mike took a holier-than-thou attitude and said that he could not in good conscience run such an ad. But, to make sure that the assembled media knew that he did indeed produce such an ad, he proceeded to show it.
According to the Politico website http://politico.com, the assembled reporters were howling with laughter.
But, taking $30,000 to produce an ad that you claim not to run and "show" it to reporters is the height of hypocrisy.
Where the Rev. Mike gets personal is when he accuses Mr. Romney of being a liar and that if a candidate would lie like Mr. Romney, he would lie as president. Cheap shot, Rev. Mike.
Going by the Rev. Mike scale, most if not all of the 42 men who have been president would not qualify because they may have lied.
But, is it a lie to point out deficiencies in an opponents record, as Mr. Romney did on his broadcast ads regarding the Rev. Mike? NO! It is what the commercials are all about. It is the voters responsibility to determine if they are accurate or not.
In seeing the commercial on Fox News Channel's Special Report http://FoxNews.com yesterday, the Rev. Mike showed his legendary thin-skin and it is very unbecoming of a candidate who loves to say, "I am a conservative, but I'm not angry. Too bad that he slipped into Pat Buchanan role to slam Mr. Romney as a liar.
Here is the problem.
The Rev. Mike can not have it both ways. He can not say that he is pulling an ad because he does not want to go negative and then show the ad, knowing that it will get free airtime and try to do a "Yuck, yuck, yuck !!!" as if he did not have a clue as to what would happen.
I trust the Republican voters in Iowa. If there is one thing other than an aversion to "negative" advertising, it is an aversion to a Huckster.
The reason is simple.
You do not hold a press conference, tell the assembled media that you have decided to pull a response to broadcast ads from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and then show the ad to "prove that it was really done". But, the Rev. Mike did just that.
This past Monday, the Rev. Mike told a press conference that he decided at the last minute to pull a very personal attack ad against Mr. Romney. The Rev. Mike feels that Mr. Romney has distorted his record as governor of Arkansas. So, the Rev Mike took a holier-than-thou attitude and said that he could not in good conscience run such an ad. But, to make sure that the assembled media knew that he did indeed produce such an ad, he proceeded to show it.
According to the Politico website http://politico.com, the assembled reporters were howling with laughter.
But, taking $30,000 to produce an ad that you claim not to run and "show" it to reporters is the height of hypocrisy.
Where the Rev. Mike gets personal is when he accuses Mr. Romney of being a liar and that if a candidate would lie like Mr. Romney, he would lie as president. Cheap shot, Rev. Mike.
Going by the Rev. Mike scale, most if not all of the 42 men who have been president would not qualify because they may have lied.
But, is it a lie to point out deficiencies in an opponents record, as Mr. Romney did on his broadcast ads regarding the Rev. Mike? NO! It is what the commercials are all about. It is the voters responsibility to determine if they are accurate or not.
In seeing the commercial on Fox News Channel's Special Report http://FoxNews.com yesterday, the Rev. Mike showed his legendary thin-skin and it is very unbecoming of a candidate who loves to say, "I am a conservative, but I'm not angry. Too bad that he slipped into Pat Buchanan role to slam Mr. Romney as a liar.
Here is the problem.
The Rev. Mike can not have it both ways. He can not say that he is pulling an ad because he does not want to go negative and then show the ad, knowing that it will get free airtime and try to do a "Yuck, yuck, yuck !!!" as if he did not have a clue as to what would happen.
I trust the Republican voters in Iowa. If there is one thing other than an aversion to "negative" advertising, it is an aversion to a Huckster.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Thanks For A Great 2007
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in this blog.
I want to really thank those that take the time to comment. I read them all and occasionally it provides new blogging material. I do like the ones that are from the other side. That is the point of this blog. For me to comment and some to take issue and both of us are happy for getting our point of view to a wide audience.
And a big thanks to Pat Jenkins, Closet Republican and those who regularly read and comment. We are in for a big 2008.
It is with great humility that I thank you all for your interest and please, keep reading and commenting.
I want to really thank those that take the time to comment. I read them all and occasionally it provides new blogging material. I do like the ones that are from the other side. That is the point of this blog. For me to comment and some to take issue and both of us are happy for getting our point of view to a wide audience.
And a big thanks to Pat Jenkins, Closet Republican and those who regularly read and comment. We are in for a big 2008.
It is with great humility that I thank you all for your interest and please, keep reading and commenting.
HAPPY 2008 And Some Predictions To Go With That Toast
Since everyone else thinks that they are seers into the future and it is the last day of 2007, I will take a stab at some predictions for 2008.
Of course this is all done with a wee bit of just guessing and a little silliness. You will have to figure out what is serious and is my just being silly.
So, here are some fearless predictions for 2008 in categories no less!
POLITICS
1) Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president.
2) Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee for president.
3) Mike Bloomberg, so-called independent mayor of New York City will run for president as an independent. He will ask soon to be former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be his veep and Sen. Hagel will say aye.
4) Mitt Romney will as former senator and current Republican opponent Fred Thompson to be his vice-president and Mr. Thompson will accept.
5) Barack Obama will graciously ask Sen. Hilary Clinton to be his vice-president and she will say no. In a daring move to try to win some southern states, Sen. Obama will ask Arkansas Democrat Sen. Blanche Lincoln to be his veep. It will be seen as a not-so-subtle slap at Sen. Clinton. Sen. Lincoln will accept.
6) Because Mr. Bloomberg is a liberal, he will take away crucial votes from Sen. Obama.
7) California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will endorse Mayor Bloomberg for president.
8) Mitt Romney will be elected the 44th president of the United States. Mr. Romney will keep the core of red states and possibly take three marginally blue states due to the Bloomberg candidacy.
9) Mr. Bloomberg will not win one state. He will be the liberal Ross Perot.
10) President-elect Romney will make a very serious attempt to include Democrats in his transition team and the cabinet.
THE WAR AGAINST ISLAMOFACSIST TERROR
1) The situation in Pakistan will get worse and the January parliamentary elections will be postponed until February at the earliest.
2) The situation in Iraq will continue to improve but with some hiccups. There will be more political accommodation between the factions and the will be a 25,000 troop reduction by the end of 2008.
3) There will be a serious terrorist attack on the United States just before the presidential election. It will be spectacular and some of it will be stopped, but enough will happen that will be very serious.
4) Osama bin-Laden and none of his cronies will be captured in 2008.
SPORTS
1) The Green Bay Packers will meet the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 42 and the Packers will win.
2) The Boston Celtics will play the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA Finals and win the NBA championship, 4 games to 2.
3) The Detroit Red Wings will play the Ottawa Senators in the NHL Stanley Cup Finals and Ottawa will win the cup, 4 games to 3. Sorry Anaheim Ducks fans!
4) The Los Angeles Dodgers will be in the World Series in 2008. Not sure who they will play. And even less certain is that they will win the World Series. But, it will have been 20 years since the Dodgers last won the World Series defeating the Oakland A's. Hope springs eternal.
5) There will be a winner of horse racing's triple crown (The Kentucky Derby, The Preakness Stakes and The Belmont Stakes).
ENTERTAINMENT
1) Britney Spears will end up in jail due to a DUI charge and for good measure child endangerment. Lil sis, Jamie Lynn Spears will have a miscarriage.
2) Three strikes and yer out and that will be the fate of Lindsey Lowlife, er Lohan. She will end up with her friend, Britney, in the slammer.
3) An anti-war movie will be nominated and win the Academy Award. Do not know which one. American Gangster and or 3:10 To Yuma should be nominated, but neither one will be.
4) There will be many more celebrities that come out of the closet and announce their homosexuality. They will do so to oppose Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney because of his support for a federal law banning same-sex marriage.
5) Congress will get involved and try to pass legislation against the paparazzi. It will not get far and cement this congress as a "do-nothing" congress.
6) More big names will get caught on video and or audio tape saying awful things and "rehabs" will be working overtime.
WEATHER
1) Despite predictions of an abnormally high hurricane season, there will be less hurricanes than in 2007.
2) The drought gripping Atlanta and much of Georgia will end in 2008.
3) It will be colder than normal in the west, warmer than normal in the east. The Midwest and the plains will be colder.
4) More and more scientists will come out to debunk "global warming".
5) California will have a normal rainfall this season.
Well, those are my predictions. You will have to guess as to which ones are serious predictions and which ones are in jest. Please offer some of your own. And, most of all, have a safe and sane and a
Of course this is all done with a wee bit of just guessing and a little silliness. You will have to figure out what is serious and is my just being silly.
So, here are some fearless predictions for 2008 in categories no less!
POLITICS
1) Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president.
2) Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee for president.
3) Mike Bloomberg, so-called independent mayor of New York City will run for president as an independent. He will ask soon to be former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be his veep and Sen. Hagel will say aye.
4) Mitt Romney will as former senator and current Republican opponent Fred Thompson to be his vice-president and Mr. Thompson will accept.
5) Barack Obama will graciously ask Sen. Hilary Clinton to be his vice-president and she will say no. In a daring move to try to win some southern states, Sen. Obama will ask Arkansas Democrat Sen. Blanche Lincoln to be his veep. It will be seen as a not-so-subtle slap at Sen. Clinton. Sen. Lincoln will accept.
6) Because Mr. Bloomberg is a liberal, he will take away crucial votes from Sen. Obama.
7) California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will endorse Mayor Bloomberg for president.
8) Mitt Romney will be elected the 44th president of the United States. Mr. Romney will keep the core of red states and possibly take three marginally blue states due to the Bloomberg candidacy.
9) Mr. Bloomberg will not win one state. He will be the liberal Ross Perot.
10) President-elect Romney will make a very serious attempt to include Democrats in his transition team and the cabinet.
THE WAR AGAINST ISLAMOFACSIST TERROR
1) The situation in Pakistan will get worse and the January parliamentary elections will be postponed until February at the earliest.
2) The situation in Iraq will continue to improve but with some hiccups. There will be more political accommodation between the factions and the will be a 25,000 troop reduction by the end of 2008.
3) There will be a serious terrorist attack on the United States just before the presidential election. It will be spectacular and some of it will be stopped, but enough will happen that will be very serious.
4) Osama bin-Laden and none of his cronies will be captured in 2008.
SPORTS
1) The Green Bay Packers will meet the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 42 and the Packers will win.
2) The Boston Celtics will play the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA Finals and win the NBA championship, 4 games to 2.
3) The Detroit Red Wings will play the Ottawa Senators in the NHL Stanley Cup Finals and Ottawa will win the cup, 4 games to 3. Sorry Anaheim Ducks fans!
4) The Los Angeles Dodgers will be in the World Series in 2008. Not sure who they will play. And even less certain is that they will win the World Series. But, it will have been 20 years since the Dodgers last won the World Series defeating the Oakland A's. Hope springs eternal.
5) There will be a winner of horse racing's triple crown (The Kentucky Derby, The Preakness Stakes and The Belmont Stakes).
ENTERTAINMENT
1) Britney Spears will end up in jail due to a DUI charge and for good measure child endangerment. Lil sis, Jamie Lynn Spears will have a miscarriage.
2) Three strikes and yer out and that will be the fate of Lindsey Lowlife, er Lohan. She will end up with her friend, Britney, in the slammer.
3) An anti-war movie will be nominated and win the Academy Award. Do not know which one. American Gangster and or 3:10 To Yuma should be nominated, but neither one will be.
4) There will be many more celebrities that come out of the closet and announce their homosexuality. They will do so to oppose Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney because of his support for a federal law banning same-sex marriage.
5) Congress will get involved and try to pass legislation against the paparazzi. It will not get far and cement this congress as a "do-nothing" congress.
6) More big names will get caught on video and or audio tape saying awful things and "rehabs" will be working overtime.
WEATHER
1) Despite predictions of an abnormally high hurricane season, there will be less hurricanes than in 2007.
2) The drought gripping Atlanta and much of Georgia will end in 2008.
3) It will be colder than normal in the west, warmer than normal in the east. The Midwest and the plains will be colder.
4) More and more scientists will come out to debunk "global warming".
5) California will have a normal rainfall this season.
Well, those are my predictions. You will have to guess as to which ones are serious predictions and which ones are in jest. Please offer some of your own. And, most of all, have a safe and sane and a
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The Rev. Mike And Sen. McCain And Tag Teamming
Is just me or does the Rev. Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor of Arkansas and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, current Republican senator from Arizona sound an awful lot alike? Do you not notice that in their harsh criticisms of former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, they go a lot out of their way to say how bad Mr. Romney has been to each of them?
Well, in a cursory look at today's New York Times http://nytimes.com, one those candidate comparisons show that the Rev. Mike and Sen."F--- You" McCain take rather eerily similar stands on major issues.
Both are in agreement, as are the other major Republican candidates featured, in not having a withdrawal timetable for troops in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. All except Ron Paul that is.
Both men are for a free market solution to health care access. There are a little bit o' differences, but both are right on this issue.
As an aside. There is not a health care "crisis" in the United States. It is access to affordable health care. When the DDBMSM spouts out numbers like there are 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance, there is no breakdown as to reasons why. And that is very important to have a clear understanding as to what the issue of health care is all about.
On taxes is where the two differ.
We know that the Rev. Mike favors the so-called "fair tax" which is a regressive 23 to 30% sales tax on all Americans. And in a strange twist the Rev. Mike would give cash payments to every family to cover sales taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. That clashes with the fact that he voted against all the Bush tax cuts. And there is the usual trying to eliminate deficit spending. Also, he wants to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and exempt estate taxes on estates under $10 million dollars in value.
Neither the Rev. Mike or Sen. "F--- You" McCain talks about the flat tax, which is the fairest, correct way to raise revenue.
On the issue of whether or not the Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed, both favor that. Both men favor sending the terrorist detainees to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. And, once on American soil they would eventually be given lawyers and muck up the civilian legal system for years. Also, the suspects are better protected on the military base in Cuba than if they were in the United States. And, if God forbid there was any kind of assault by terrorists trying to free those held, one should rather that happen in Cuba than on American soil.
And on interrogation, no difference as both men oppose "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include waterboarding. For the record, interrogators should be allowed to carry out what they can to prevent any potential future terror attacks on the United States. A little waterboarding to Khalid Sheik Mohammad led to the capture of many terrorists. Both men are absolutely wrong in this issue.
On illegal immigration, both men are changing their tune on it.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain was a co-sponsor of the near-disaster Kennedy-McCain "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. And he has long been in favor of the so-called path to citizenship. And yet, he does not have the guts to call it amnesty, which is what then President Reagan said it was in 1986.
It was during the tumultuous debate that Sen. McCain showed disdain for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) questioning anything about the bill that he tore into Sen. Cornyn beginning with "F--- You! I know more about this bill than you do." Hence, Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
The Rev. Mike also supported this bill-scam.
But now, Sen. McCain is a light hawk as he favors the border fence and says that "Securing the border is the first and foremost priority." And the Rev. Mike wants you to believe that he would be even tougher as he would give illegal aliens 120 days to leave the United States and register so that they could return. And the Rev. Mike would deploy more border patrol agents, 23,000 in fact. And, to his credit, he would finish the border fence by 2010.
However, both came to this epiphany when every bit of reputable polling data showed that Republican voters and activists were against the "comprehensive" bill-scam and want the fence built now, in its 851 mile entirety. And, most want no "path to citizenship." To quote radio talk show host Laura Ingraham "ETL"-Enforce The Law.
And, for those who believe in the globalony warming scam, both men favor a mandatory can-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause so-called global warming.
The fact is that there is little difference between the two men, which leads to speculation that if either were to become the Republican nominee for president, God forbid, the vice-presidency is good for the taking. Why else would both talk each other up while tearing down the most serious threat to either's candidacy, Mr. Romney?
And, all of that is why neither will gain the Republican nomination for president and will not be considered for the second spot. Both the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain are running on the backs of potential independent voters, not Republicans. It may be a great general election strategy, but not a primary strategy. Which is what party people vote on. And, Republican voters will vote for the Republican they believe will win the general election. Independents could care less.
Well, in a cursory look at today's New York Times http://nytimes.com, one those candidate comparisons show that the Rev. Mike and Sen."F--- You" McCain take rather eerily similar stands on major issues.
Both are in agreement, as are the other major Republican candidates featured, in not having a withdrawal timetable for troops in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. All except Ron Paul that is.
Both men are for a free market solution to health care access. There are a little bit o' differences, but both are right on this issue.
As an aside. There is not a health care "crisis" in the United States. It is access to affordable health care. When the DDBMSM spouts out numbers like there are 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance, there is no breakdown as to reasons why. And that is very important to have a clear understanding as to what the issue of health care is all about.
On taxes is where the two differ.
We know that the Rev. Mike favors the so-called "fair tax" which is a regressive 23 to 30% sales tax on all Americans. And in a strange twist the Rev. Mike would give cash payments to every family to cover sales taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. That clashes with the fact that he voted against all the Bush tax cuts. And there is the usual trying to eliminate deficit spending. Also, he wants to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and exempt estate taxes on estates under $10 million dollars in value.
Neither the Rev. Mike or Sen. "F--- You" McCain talks about the flat tax, which is the fairest, correct way to raise revenue.
On the issue of whether or not the Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed, both favor that. Both men favor sending the terrorist detainees to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. And, once on American soil they would eventually be given lawyers and muck up the civilian legal system for years. Also, the suspects are better protected on the military base in Cuba than if they were in the United States. And, if God forbid there was any kind of assault by terrorists trying to free those held, one should rather that happen in Cuba than on American soil.
And on interrogation, no difference as both men oppose "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include waterboarding. For the record, interrogators should be allowed to carry out what they can to prevent any potential future terror attacks on the United States. A little waterboarding to Khalid Sheik Mohammad led to the capture of many terrorists. Both men are absolutely wrong in this issue.
On illegal immigration, both men are changing their tune on it.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain was a co-sponsor of the near-disaster Kennedy-McCain "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. And he has long been in favor of the so-called path to citizenship. And yet, he does not have the guts to call it amnesty, which is what then President Reagan said it was in 1986.
It was during the tumultuous debate that Sen. McCain showed disdain for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) questioning anything about the bill that he tore into Sen. Cornyn beginning with "F--- You! I know more about this bill than you do." Hence, Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
The Rev. Mike also supported this bill-scam.
But now, Sen. McCain is a light hawk as he favors the border fence and says that "Securing the border is the first and foremost priority." And the Rev. Mike wants you to believe that he would be even tougher as he would give illegal aliens 120 days to leave the United States and register so that they could return. And the Rev. Mike would deploy more border patrol agents, 23,000 in fact. And, to his credit, he would finish the border fence by 2010.
However, both came to this epiphany when every bit of reputable polling data showed that Republican voters and activists were against the "comprehensive" bill-scam and want the fence built now, in its 851 mile entirety. And, most want no "path to citizenship." To quote radio talk show host Laura Ingraham "ETL"-Enforce The Law.
And, for those who believe in the globalony warming scam, both men favor a mandatory can-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause so-called global warming.
The fact is that there is little difference between the two men, which leads to speculation that if either were to become the Republican nominee for president, God forbid, the vice-presidency is good for the taking. Why else would both talk each other up while tearing down the most serious threat to either's candidacy, Mr. Romney?
And, all of that is why neither will gain the Republican nomination for president and will not be considered for the second spot. Both the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain are running on the backs of potential independent voters, not Republicans. It may be a great general election strategy, but not a primary strategy. Which is what party people vote on. And, Republican voters will vote for the Republican they believe will win the general election. Independents could care less.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Please, Pollsters, Let US Vote!
Can you believe it? It is almost here! The Iowa caucuses and the first opportunity for Americans to vote for their preferences in the 2008 presidential contest between the Democrats and Republicans.
But, those pesky pollsters are ruining the great American franchise by imperfect data and swaying people based on said imperfect data.
In the last presidential election, erroneous exit-polling data gave a false impression that the Democrat nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass) was going to win the election. Because of that and the semi-close vote in Ohio, many conspiracy theorists say that the election was, once again, "stolen". And, some of the claims are based on. . .bad exit polling data.
Therein lies a huge problem in the American body politic.
There are so many polling organizations out there and each has a "scientific" way of divining the will of the people.
Each major broadcast network does polling, usually with a newspaper. You know, ABC-Washington Post. CBS-New York Times. NBC-Wall Street Journal. Then the news networks also have one. Opinion Dynamics for the Fox News Channel and the granddaddy of pollsters, Gallup for CNN/USA Today. And, lesser newspapers also have polling firms that work with them. And lest we forget the "independent" pollsters like Scott Rasmussen, John Zogby and the like. One election cycle and John Zogby was the go-to guy because of his "accuracy" then the next cycle it is Scott Rasmussen. And on, and on , and on it goes.
The public is all but convinced that the polling data is so accurate that when it goes the other way, then there must be something wrong.
No, that is not the case for there is one thing that all pollsters seem to forget. The most important poll of all is when said voter actually casts their vote in a booth or the privacy of their own home via absentee ballot.
If pollsters were right, the 1980 presidential contest may have turned out more like 2000 as all the major pollsters of the time said that the election was too close to call. Republican Ronald Reagan vanquished President Jimmy Carter taking 44 states and 51% of the vote in a three-man race.
If pollsters were right, there should have been a President Michael Dukakis in 1988. After all, once the respective party nominating conventions were over, then Gov. Dukakis, the Democrat, had a 17 point lead over then Republican Vice-President George H. W. Bush.
But my all-time favorite is the 1982 election for governor of California. It pitted the then mayor of Los Angeles, Democrat Tom Bradley against the Republican state Attorney General, George Deukmejian. Mr. Bradley was black and Mr. Deukmejian was Armenian. All the polling data showed that Mr. Bradley was going to beat Mr. Deukmejian and rather handily. Come election night and all said pollsters still said, based on "exit" polls of voters leaving the voting booth that the election was in the bag for Mr. Bradley. All but one stuck to it. ABC News took a hard look at their data and concluded that Mr. Deukmejian had indeed won the election. The others had to say that it was too close to call. ABC was correct. Why?
Because they were the only ones who accounted that there was something new called absentee balloting. The Republicans took advantage in the liberalizing of how one could obtain an absentee ballot and many of those that requested and received them were Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Deukmejian. And, he needed every vote as he went on to win the governorship by a scant 50,000 plus votes. That election ushered in a 16-year era of Republican governors in Sacramento.
The reality is that polling, for the most part, is a totally inexact science. And, it never really accounts for people telling a pollster what they think they want to hear. And that voters really do change their minds. Voters lie.
Oh, sure, the polling companies make sure to cover themselves with a "margin of error" of anywhere from three to five percent, depending on the sample polled.
It really does not matter.
Next Thursday, thousands of Iowans will go to certain areas of the state and caucus for the candidate they like and that is the first semi-vote. The real vote comes a week later in the snow-driven mountain state of New Hampshire.
No matter what happens I hope that those in each state confound the pollsters and vote the way they want to vote.
That would be one way to get back at the pollsters!
But, those pesky pollsters are ruining the great American franchise by imperfect data and swaying people based on said imperfect data.
In the last presidential election, erroneous exit-polling data gave a false impression that the Democrat nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass) was going to win the election. Because of that and the semi-close vote in Ohio, many conspiracy theorists say that the election was, once again, "stolen". And, some of the claims are based on. . .bad exit polling data.
Therein lies a huge problem in the American body politic.
There are so many polling organizations out there and each has a "scientific" way of divining the will of the people.
Each major broadcast network does polling, usually with a newspaper. You know, ABC-Washington Post. CBS-New York Times. NBC-Wall Street Journal. Then the news networks also have one. Opinion Dynamics for the Fox News Channel and the granddaddy of pollsters, Gallup for CNN/USA Today. And, lesser newspapers also have polling firms that work with them. And lest we forget the "independent" pollsters like Scott Rasmussen, John Zogby and the like. One election cycle and John Zogby was the go-to guy because of his "accuracy" then the next cycle it is Scott Rasmussen. And on, and on , and on it goes.
The public is all but convinced that the polling data is so accurate that when it goes the other way, then there must be something wrong.
No, that is not the case for there is one thing that all pollsters seem to forget. The most important poll of all is when said voter actually casts their vote in a booth or the privacy of their own home via absentee ballot.
If pollsters were right, the 1980 presidential contest may have turned out more like 2000 as all the major pollsters of the time said that the election was too close to call. Republican Ronald Reagan vanquished President Jimmy Carter taking 44 states and 51% of the vote in a three-man race.
If pollsters were right, there should have been a President Michael Dukakis in 1988. After all, once the respective party nominating conventions were over, then Gov. Dukakis, the Democrat, had a 17 point lead over then Republican Vice-President George H. W. Bush.
But my all-time favorite is the 1982 election for governor of California. It pitted the then mayor of Los Angeles, Democrat Tom Bradley against the Republican state Attorney General, George Deukmejian. Mr. Bradley was black and Mr. Deukmejian was Armenian. All the polling data showed that Mr. Bradley was going to beat Mr. Deukmejian and rather handily. Come election night and all said pollsters still said, based on "exit" polls of voters leaving the voting booth that the election was in the bag for Mr. Bradley. All but one stuck to it. ABC News took a hard look at their data and concluded that Mr. Deukmejian had indeed won the election. The others had to say that it was too close to call. ABC was correct. Why?
Because they were the only ones who accounted that there was something new called absentee balloting. The Republicans took advantage in the liberalizing of how one could obtain an absentee ballot and many of those that requested and received them were Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Deukmejian. And, he needed every vote as he went on to win the governorship by a scant 50,000 plus votes. That election ushered in a 16-year era of Republican governors in Sacramento.
The reality is that polling, for the most part, is a totally inexact science. And, it never really accounts for people telling a pollster what they think they want to hear. And that voters really do change their minds. Voters lie.
Oh, sure, the polling companies make sure to cover themselves with a "margin of error" of anywhere from three to five percent, depending on the sample polled.
It really does not matter.
Next Thursday, thousands of Iowans will go to certain areas of the state and caucus for the candidate they like and that is the first semi-vote. The real vote comes a week later in the snow-driven mountain state of New Hampshire.
No matter what happens I hope that those in each state confound the pollsters and vote the way they want to vote.
That would be one way to get back at the pollsters!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)