If conservative Californians didn't think the sweep of statewide offices by progressive Democrats in 2010 wasn't bad enough, yesterday was worse.
For all practical purposes, the state of California voted to become France + Greece - a Euro-statist entity that has decided to accelerate down the path of fiscal irresponsibility in the name of 'social justice' and 'fairness'.
California has been heading down this path pretty much since Jerry Brown's first term as Governor in 1975. The recall of Grey Davis in 2003 did little to halt the embracing of the progressive statist agenda - and California seems to be right back at the forefront the country in terms of the sense of entitlement, embracing 'social justice', and the fallacy of government enforced 'fairness'.
Despite running $16-$25 billion annual deficits, government spending running 30% more today than it did in 2003, and the size and scope of government also being nearly a third larger than it was a decade ago, a majority of Californians not only embraced Proposition 30 - advertised as a tax increase on the rich for the benefit of education - but appears to have provided a super-majority of progressive votes in the State Senate and Assembly which permits the Legislature to pass tax increases without requiring a single Republican vote.
The two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases has vexed the progressives for years. They blamed the economic challenges of the state on inadequate revenues caused by not getting needed tax increases - while ignoring the effects of increased government spending and ever increasing 'paybacks' to the public sector unions in the guise of jobs, wages, benefits, and pensions.
The lock has been taken off the cookie jar - and a ladder has been conveniently placed nearby to facilitate access to that cookie jar.
Governor Brown, faced with $16B to $25B in annual budget deficits [and this is before the $100 billion boondoggle known as high speed rail], and seeking to increase revenues, embarked on the farce known as Proposition 30. The goal of Prop 30 - to raise $8.5 billion in additional revenues for the state coffers to offset the current annual budget deficit. In fact, not only would it offset a deficit double the size of the expected revenue increase - it would also restore $6 billion in funding to education - funding the state pulled back because it was more important to use those funds to reward public sector unions and their workers than to use for students.
How would these revenues be raised? Why, mainly on the backs of the 'wealthy' - as well as a 0.5% increase in the nation's largest state sales tax [which is paid by everyone].
If Prop 30 wouldn't get passed - the Governor promised not to cut redundant government programs and agencies, not cut government staffing and overreach, not cut government salaries, pensions, and benefits - but cut further funds to the school districts in the state - and close all schools 3 weeks earlier.
Yes, we were extorted to pass Prop 30 or else the school-aged children in the state would get it. Nearly 60% of the State decided to vote to pay the bill - because we were told it's only affecting the 'wealthy'.
But since Prop 30 isn't enough to really address the size and scope of the state's fiscal irresponsibility- more 'revenues' will be needed. Prop 39 - a new tax on multistate businesses operating in CA was also passed - this is 'promised' to raise another $1 billion in new revenues. But we're still short - so we're likely to see this fiscal year an effort to end Prop 13 - and the cap it imposes on property taxes as well as more income tax increases and fee increases.
Who will stop Excremento? The voter no longer has a recourse as the fiscal conservatives are well outnumbered in CA. In fact, the only remaining course for many in the middle class and upper middle class who will be the next tax targets is to flee the state for one of the few remaining red states that are not embracing progressivism, entitlementism, or statism.
Over the last five years - California has lost several million of the middle class / upper middle class to other states - as well as thousands of businesses. The tax base has shrunk because those coming into California are immigrants and generally low income people. Tax revenues shrink - increasing the pressure for more revenues - which drives more people out - shrinking tax revenues.
California owes more than any other state in the union. It's debt service costs are the highest of any state. It has the most resources, but between environmentalism and excessive regulations / fees, they are far underdeveloped. But it can still borrow money. It can still cook the fiscal books. It can now pass even more taxes, oops, I'm sorry, revenue enhancement plans. And if all else fails - it can get a bail out from the US government - just like GM, Chrysler, AIG, and Goldman Sachs.
Where's the downside?
There is none - California has become Greece + France.
Isn't it ironic that it rushes down this path even as Greece + France are failing? But then reality doesn't come into play when people want stuff and things - including entitlements from the government. Traditional American values are becoming extinct within America - and California, once again, is leading the way.
Summary of California's Propositions -
Prop 30 - Tax increase on wealthy / state sales tax increase - Passed
Prop 31 - Reform of State Local Government Budgets - Rejected
Prop 32 - End Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction - Rejected
Prop 33 - Auto Insurance Rates based on Driver History - Rejected
Prop 34 - Repeal of Death Penalty - Rejected
Prop 35 - Increased Human Trafficking Penalties - Passed
Prop 36 - Weaken Three Strikes Law - Passed
Prop 37 - Food Labeling - Rejected
Prop 38 - Tax increase across the board - Rejected
Prop 39 - Multistate Business tax increase - Passed
Prop 40 - Accept gerrymandered boundaries - Passed
LA County Propositions
A - Advisory Vote - Keep County Assessor an Elected Position - Yes
B - Require condom use by porn actors - Yes
J - MTA Sales Tax Extension - Rejected
Measure J requires a 2/3rd majority to pass - it only got 64.72% of the vote - so it missed by just over 1.25%.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Los Angeles County, California Sample Ballot
With 4 days to go before Election Day, it's time to take a look at my sample ballot - for Los Angeles County, California. We'll see the choices / considerations that need to be made - and I'll offer my recommendations on not only the candidates - but also the numerous ballot measures that have become so commonplace in California elections.
As regular readers know, I see California as being in a major fiscal crisis - brought on primarily by years (decades?) of progressive political leadership, agendas, and policies. We have some of the highest state income taxes in country - at both the personal and corporate levels. The state government is bloated, inefficient, and filled with waste. It is also in the pocket of special interests ranging from environmentalists to public and private sector unions. If California would be a country, we would be in the top 10 in the world in terms of GDP - but we would also be very similar to Greece or Spain in terms of our debt, excessive government spending, and challenges.
Today, every single holder of an elected State-wide office is a Democrat - a progressive Democrat at that. Only a few Republican legislators and a two-thirds majority requirement on tax increases that is part of our State Constitution protects us from annual tax increases to try to bring revenues up to the level of our excessive spending. In a year where we have between a $16 billion and $20 billion budget deficit - our Governor wants to drive full speed ahead to spend between $66 billion and $120 billion on a high speed rail boondoggle that has no viable business plan or any private investors.
With that, let's look at the state wide ballot initiatives.
Proposition 30 - 'Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Initiative Constitutional Amendment'
This is Governor Brown's $8 billion tax increase - levied primarily on the 'wealthy' (except for an across the board .25 point state sales tax increase) that is to address a $16 billion (today) budget deficit - ensuring adequate funding for education and first responders across the state. If it doesn't pass, the Governor has promised an additional $5.5 billion cut in education funds, closure of state parks, and layoff's of first responders / prison guards in order to 'balance' the budget.
The Governor's approach is simply base extortion. It does nothing to repair the fundamental brokenness of the state or address our fiscal crisis. It just tries to kick the can down the road a few more years. It reflects the contempt the left / progressives / Democrats have to the voters and residents of California.
VOTE NO on PROP 30
Proposition 31 - 'State Budget, State and Local Government Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute'
This is an amendment to the State Constitution that establishes a 2 year state budget, sets rules for offsetting expenditures - and where the Governor needs to cut the budget during fiscal emergencies. Returns to local governments $200 million that the State appropriates for its budget challenges.
This places more and stricter controls on the state budget process and attempts to limit some of the games being played by the Governor and Legislation to address the fiscal crisis - including dipping their hands into the pockets of local governments. We need something to change - and this is as good of a first step as we can do at this time. Far more is needed, but that would mean voting out the progressives that run this State.
VOTE YES on Prop 31
Proposition 32 - 'Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction, Contributions to Candidates Initiative Statute'
This prohibits unions and corporations from using payroll deducted funds, including union dues, for political purposes. This is designed to end companies and unions from forcing payroll deductions from workers paychecks to fund political advocacy by the entity (company or union).
This is one of the most contentious propositions we face - and one that the unions, in particular the public sector unions, are spending over $60 million in adverts to prevent its passage. It will hit right at the power of the unions to buy the government - and protect workers / union members from having to fund political causes and candidates that they do not wish to support.
VOTE YES on Prop 32
Proposition 33 - 'Auto Insurance Companies - Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage Initiative Statute'
This amends a current law in California to allow auto insurance companies to set premium pricing based on whether the insured previously was insured with any other auto insurance carrier. It also allows drivers with previous coverage to receive a discount for having that coverage.
This is based on the calculation that those with auto insurance and maintain auto insurance coverage as required by state law - are more responsible drivers than those who do not have insurance or maintain continuous coverage. The left hates this because it ranks new drivers and immigrant drivers as higher risks and need to pay higher premiums.
VOTE YES on Prop 33
Proposition 34 - 'Death Penalty Initiative Statute'
This proposition repeals the death penalty in California and commutes the death sentences of over 700 who are on California's death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The proposition is being promoted by those who are anti-capital punishment. They cite the risk of false convictions as an added concern. They are also using a fiscal argument - saying that it will be less expensive to keep these convicts in general population than on the segregated death row.
Another factor to consider is that California, while having a large death row population, does not execute its death row population. The State Supreme Court is very progressive and anti-capital punishment. With the appeals and legal processes, it can easily be 20-30 years before a convict has run out of options and is cleared to stand for their execution.
We have far better technology and information to take all reasonable precautions to ensure we only convict the guilty. Once convicted, there are numerous appeals, new hearings, and new trials that take place before a convict would be executed. So the odds of an innocent person being convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit is pretty remote. Furthermore some crimes are so heinous that committing them means that the person who did so has eliminated their right to remain alive.
VOTE NO on Prop 34
Proposition 35 - 'Human Trafficking Penalties Initiative Statute'
This proposition increases prison sentences and fines for those convicted of engaging in human trafficking. In addition, those convicted have to register as sex offenders - and live under the limits and requirements of being registered sex offenders.
This should be a no-brainer to support.
VOTE YES on Prop 35
Proposition 36 - 'Three Strikes Law, Repeat Felony Offenders Penalties Initiative Statute'
This revises the current 'three strikes' law that imposes a life sentence on persons receiving the third felony conviction to only impose the life sentence when the third felony conviction is deemed serious or violent. Permits judges to re-sentence those convicted of a three strikes violation when the third felony was not serious or violent.
Today, DA's and Judges already have considerable leeway in not imposing a third strike life sentence if the felony committed was not serious or violent. Imposing it into law via the proposition will create more challenges and more limitations on this leeway. Evidence shows that those who commit repeated felonies will continue to do so - and the only real way to stop those repeat crimes is to incarcerate them for life. Keep the law as it is today.
VOTE NO on Prop 36
Proposition 37 - 'Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative Statute'
This requires California establish a totally unique and California food labeling process that increases government control and regulation, increases costs on food producers, and offers little or now additional safety or viable information to protect the consumer. California already has regulated itself into a nightmare for companies to do business in the state - and this is just another major step deeper into that nightmare. Our gas is already among the most expensive in the 48 continental states - and this would go a long way to make our food among the most expensive in the 48 continental states.
VOTE NO on Prop 37
Proposition 38 - 'Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs Initiative Statute'
This is the alternative to Proposition 30 - with 2 main differences. First, the tax increases are spread across the board as opposed to being focused on just the 'wealthy'. Second it mandates all revenues from this tax increase is dedicated to K-12 education - and for the first four years - also for paying down the state deficit (actually slowing the growth in debt slightly - very slightly). Tax increase to be in effect for 12 years.
As with Prop 30 it is fundamentally flawed because of how its structured and the 'out' to be used to 'pay down' the state debt - which in other words is being fired into the maw of the State's general fund. It does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the state when it comes to both fiscal structure and the broken education system which rewards only unions / administrators and not teachers, and clearly not students.
VOTE NO on Prop 38
Proposition 39 - ' Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding Initiative Statute'
The 'justification' of this - to permit California to collect corporate taxes from companies based on the sales that they do in California even if they do not have a physical presence in California - and then allocate the revenues from these taxes strictly to clean energy / environmental projects over the next 5 years.
This is a blatant reach outside the state to collect taxes and punish businesses for doing business in California. It will increase costs for California's consumers and discourage business being conducted in California. Then the revenues raised will be tossed into the 'Clean Energy' and / or 'Environmental' project black hole boondoggles. Pushing 'clean energy' has contributed to California having some of the nation's highest energy costs and the excessive focus on environmentalism is leaving us energy poor and has devastated the state's agriculture industry.
VOTE NO on Prop 39
Proposition 40 - 'Redistricting State Senate Districts Referendum'
In November 2008, voters of California passed 'The Voters First Act', Prop 11, which took away the responsibility of redistricting state districts from the legislature and put it into the arms of a 14 member commission comprising of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 from neither major party. In 2010, the scope of the commission was expanded to also include US Congressional Districts in the state.
While on paper, this is supposed to be as fair / unbiased process as possible, for many, it appears as if this has been about as unbiased as redistricting being done by a Legislature that is 60% Democrat. During the public hearing process, organized efforts by the CA Democrat Party and their key allies, including the public sector unions, to manipulate the redistricting process.
This vote is to accept (Yes) the latest redistricting map or to reject (No) the map. If the map is rejected, the districts will be reviewed and adjusted by officials supervised by the CA Supreme Court.
While not as bad as a legislative redistricting, the process continued to gerrymander district boundaries for political purposes. I believe the voters need to send a message to the commission that this was intended for significant reform - and in delivering that, they failed.
VOTE NO on Prop 40
LA County Measure - A
This is an advisory vote asking voters if we should change the California Constitution and the Los Angeles County Charter to make the position of the Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position. Today, this is an elected position - and the current incumbent is currently being held in prison, unable to make bail, charged with corruption - taking bribes to reduce the tax liabilities of individuals and companies.
An appointed County Assessor would be directly accountable to the LA County Board of Supervisors - and able to be dismissed for inability to execute the job or malfeasance.
VOTE YES on Measure A
LA County Measure - B
This proposes a new County ordinance targeting the adult film industry which is very active in LA County. The ordinance will require producers to obtain a County Health Permit, performers to use condoms, and expand the testing / education of performers on STD's - including regular reporting of results of regular health tests.
The adult film industry is already regulated - with performers undergoing regular monthly testing to ensure they do not have STD's or AID's. The proposal takes the regulations to another level in an effort to protect the performers. Yet, there is not a major problem with the existing regulations and processes. With that, do we really need to expand the existing regulations, oversight, and enforcement? Is that really the proper role of government?
It is only on this expansion of government, apparently above and beyond regulations and oversight that currently work, that I come down on opposing this measure. If the current regulations and oversight were not working - if there were major reported health issues within this industry and with the performers that risked those outside the industry - then I could support this.
VOTE NO on Measure B
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Accelerating Traffic Relief and Job Creation - Measure J
This is a measure offered by the state chartered regional planning agency and public transportation operating agency for the County of Los Angeles which calls for a extension of the expiring .5% sales tax increase for an additional 30 years to fund transportation initiatives in the County. Among the key transportation initiatives targeted, the $3-5B initiative to expand the LA Subway system 'to the sea' - from Downtown LA to the Santa Monica beach area as well as continuing to subsidize and keep fares for the LA Metro / Metrolink from increasing.
Little of the new initiatives will generate the promised benefits - and they are very LA centric as opposed to addressing transportation needs throughout Los Angeles County. The current Metro system does not have a direct connection to Los Angeles International Airport - but building a subway 'to the sea' is the primary focus. It takes over an hour on a commuter train to travel 35 miles into LA - but we aren't investing in better trackage or signals to improve the speed / usefulness while maintaining fares?
This agency has limited accountability to the people / taxpayer and is focusing on the wrong priorities. We should not extend this tax increase until they become more accountable and refocus their attention on real improvements as opposed to progressive 'make work' efforts.
VOTE NO on Measure J
In terms of the individual races - here are my endorsements.
President and Vice President
The current Administration has a record of failure, incompetence, and fecklessness that has been unseen in this country since the Carter Administration. The policies and agenda of the Obama Administration are preventing the economy from entering a robust recovery. They have also increased the divides within this country - pitting 'us vs. them' in far too many areas. It's beyond irresponsible to spend at levels that generate >$1T annual deficits and add over $6 trillion to the national debt. The foreign and national security policy of the current Administration have weakened the US and emboldened our enemies.
VOTE for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan
United States Senator
Democrat Diane Feinstein is seeking her fourth full term as the State's senior Senator. In the Senate, she is a reliable progressive / liberal vote - and is one of the most liberal members in the Senate. Her primary role in the Senate is to be a reliable progressive soldier. She is arrogant and feckless. Throughout the current race, she has refused to engage her opponent in a single debate - probably knowing that in that format, she would be exposed for what she is. California needs a Senator who will work for all of the people of the state, not just the special interests including the unions and illegal immigrants.
VOTE for Elizabeth Emken
United States Representative
I'm in the 25th Congressional District, where we are represented by Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon, who is currently the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. While Buck has faced some additional challenges in the past several years over some minor local issues, he remains a strong conservative and advocate for the district as well as the members of the Armed Forces. He understands what we need to do - where we need to go - and shares the conservative vision to obtain those goals. He deserves another term in office.
VOTE for Howard 'Buck' McKeon
State Senator
I'm in the 27th State Senatorial District - one that has changed because of redistricting. Todd Zink, the Republican candidate, is a decorated Marine Corps officer and Deputy District Attorney. He is a conservative and has conservative vision for California based around fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and restoring the Golden State from the damage caused by decades of progressive leadership.
The state needs a real change - and voting for conservative Republicans is how we start that change process. Plus, we need to prevent the Democrats from passing a two-thirds majority in the Legislature. If we fail, then tax and spend will expand / continue.
VOTE for Todd Zink
Member of the State Assembly
This is a 38th District open seat - vacated by Cameron Smyth (R) who was term-limited out of office. The choices are similar to the other individual races - a choice between a conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat with completely different visions for the future direction of California. In this race, the lesser know Democrat has embraced a highly negative campaign - targeting the GOP candidate who has formerly worked for Buck McKeon and ran his own political consulting company. Scott Wilk, the GOP candidate, defeated 2 other Republican challengers in a very contentious race - but has the skills and vision to represent the 38th District in Sacramento and try to promote change in California.
VOTE for Scott Wilk
Los Angeles County District Attorney
This is the sole County race for unincorporated LA County. The Democrat candidate is the current Chief Deputy DA, Jackie Lacey. The other is Alan Jackson, a gang homicide prosecutor, the Republican candidate. Lacey, would, if elected, become the first woman and first African-American to hold the office of LA County DA. Both are more similar in their approach than different - for example, both support capital punishment. While Lacey is a senior member in the DA's office, Jackson has a track record of successful high-profile prosecutions.
I think that with her experience and some of the intangibles around Jackie Lacy, she would be the better District Attorney - and she edges out Alan Jackson in my mind...but it's really close - because she does support several propositions that I do oppose (like softening three strikes). The current DA, Steve Cooley, has endorsed her.
VOTE for Jackie Lacey
That is my look at the ballot that I am facing on Tuesday. I see both the Country and the State moving in the wrong direction - and I am strongly advocating for changes in that direction. I am also seeking to reduce the size and influence of government - and voting accordingly.
Please get out and vote on Tuesday, November 6.
As regular readers know, I see California as being in a major fiscal crisis - brought on primarily by years (decades?) of progressive political leadership, agendas, and policies. We have some of the highest state income taxes in country - at both the personal and corporate levels. The state government is bloated, inefficient, and filled with waste. It is also in the pocket of special interests ranging from environmentalists to public and private sector unions. If California would be a country, we would be in the top 10 in the world in terms of GDP - but we would also be very similar to Greece or Spain in terms of our debt, excessive government spending, and challenges.
Today, every single holder of an elected State-wide office is a Democrat - a progressive Democrat at that. Only a few Republican legislators and a two-thirds majority requirement on tax increases that is part of our State Constitution protects us from annual tax increases to try to bring revenues up to the level of our excessive spending. In a year where we have between a $16 billion and $20 billion budget deficit - our Governor wants to drive full speed ahead to spend between $66 billion and $120 billion on a high speed rail boondoggle that has no viable business plan or any private investors.
With that, let's look at the state wide ballot initiatives.
Proposition 30 - 'Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Initiative Constitutional Amendment'
This is Governor Brown's $8 billion tax increase - levied primarily on the 'wealthy' (except for an across the board .25 point state sales tax increase) that is to address a $16 billion (today) budget deficit - ensuring adequate funding for education and first responders across the state. If it doesn't pass, the Governor has promised an additional $5.5 billion cut in education funds, closure of state parks, and layoff's of first responders / prison guards in order to 'balance' the budget.
The Governor's approach is simply base extortion. It does nothing to repair the fundamental brokenness of the state or address our fiscal crisis. It just tries to kick the can down the road a few more years. It reflects the contempt the left / progressives / Democrats have to the voters and residents of California.
VOTE NO on PROP 30
Proposition 31 - 'State Budget, State and Local Government Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute'
This is an amendment to the State Constitution that establishes a 2 year state budget, sets rules for offsetting expenditures - and where the Governor needs to cut the budget during fiscal emergencies. Returns to local governments $200 million that the State appropriates for its budget challenges.
This places more and stricter controls on the state budget process and attempts to limit some of the games being played by the Governor and Legislation to address the fiscal crisis - including dipping their hands into the pockets of local governments. We need something to change - and this is as good of a first step as we can do at this time. Far more is needed, but that would mean voting out the progressives that run this State.
VOTE YES on Prop 31
Proposition 32 - 'Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction, Contributions to Candidates Initiative Statute'
This prohibits unions and corporations from using payroll deducted funds, including union dues, for political purposes. This is designed to end companies and unions from forcing payroll deductions from workers paychecks to fund political advocacy by the entity (company or union).
This is one of the most contentious propositions we face - and one that the unions, in particular the public sector unions, are spending over $60 million in adverts to prevent its passage. It will hit right at the power of the unions to buy the government - and protect workers / union members from having to fund political causes and candidates that they do not wish to support.
VOTE YES on Prop 32
Proposition 33 - 'Auto Insurance Companies - Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage Initiative Statute'
This amends a current law in California to allow auto insurance companies to set premium pricing based on whether the insured previously was insured with any other auto insurance carrier. It also allows drivers with previous coverage to receive a discount for having that coverage.
This is based on the calculation that those with auto insurance and maintain auto insurance coverage as required by state law - are more responsible drivers than those who do not have insurance or maintain continuous coverage. The left hates this because it ranks new drivers and immigrant drivers as higher risks and need to pay higher premiums.
VOTE YES on Prop 33
Proposition 34 - 'Death Penalty Initiative Statute'
This proposition repeals the death penalty in California and commutes the death sentences of over 700 who are on California's death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The proposition is being promoted by those who are anti-capital punishment. They cite the risk of false convictions as an added concern. They are also using a fiscal argument - saying that it will be less expensive to keep these convicts in general population than on the segregated death row.
Another factor to consider is that California, while having a large death row population, does not execute its death row population. The State Supreme Court is very progressive and anti-capital punishment. With the appeals and legal processes, it can easily be 20-30 years before a convict has run out of options and is cleared to stand for their execution.
We have far better technology and information to take all reasonable precautions to ensure we only convict the guilty. Once convicted, there are numerous appeals, new hearings, and new trials that take place before a convict would be executed. So the odds of an innocent person being convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit is pretty remote. Furthermore some crimes are so heinous that committing them means that the person who did so has eliminated their right to remain alive.
VOTE NO on Prop 34
Proposition 35 - 'Human Trafficking Penalties Initiative Statute'
This proposition increases prison sentences and fines for those convicted of engaging in human trafficking. In addition, those convicted have to register as sex offenders - and live under the limits and requirements of being registered sex offenders.
This should be a no-brainer to support.
VOTE YES on Prop 35
Proposition 36 - 'Three Strikes Law, Repeat Felony Offenders Penalties Initiative Statute'
This revises the current 'three strikes' law that imposes a life sentence on persons receiving the third felony conviction to only impose the life sentence when the third felony conviction is deemed serious or violent. Permits judges to re-sentence those convicted of a three strikes violation when the third felony was not serious or violent.
Today, DA's and Judges already have considerable leeway in not imposing a third strike life sentence if the felony committed was not serious or violent. Imposing it into law via the proposition will create more challenges and more limitations on this leeway. Evidence shows that those who commit repeated felonies will continue to do so - and the only real way to stop those repeat crimes is to incarcerate them for life. Keep the law as it is today.
VOTE NO on Prop 36
Proposition 37 - 'Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative Statute'
This requires California establish a totally unique and California food labeling process that increases government control and regulation, increases costs on food producers, and offers little or now additional safety or viable information to protect the consumer. California already has regulated itself into a nightmare for companies to do business in the state - and this is just another major step deeper into that nightmare. Our gas is already among the most expensive in the 48 continental states - and this would go a long way to make our food among the most expensive in the 48 continental states.
VOTE NO on Prop 37
Proposition 38 - 'Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs Initiative Statute'
This is the alternative to Proposition 30 - with 2 main differences. First, the tax increases are spread across the board as opposed to being focused on just the 'wealthy'. Second it mandates all revenues from this tax increase is dedicated to K-12 education - and for the first four years - also for paying down the state deficit (actually slowing the growth in debt slightly - very slightly). Tax increase to be in effect for 12 years.
As with Prop 30 it is fundamentally flawed because of how its structured and the 'out' to be used to 'pay down' the state debt - which in other words is being fired into the maw of the State's general fund. It does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the state when it comes to both fiscal structure and the broken education system which rewards only unions / administrators and not teachers, and clearly not students.
VOTE NO on Prop 38
Proposition 39 - ' Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding Initiative Statute'
The 'justification' of this - to permit California to collect corporate taxes from companies based on the sales that they do in California even if they do not have a physical presence in California - and then allocate the revenues from these taxes strictly to clean energy / environmental projects over the next 5 years.
This is a blatant reach outside the state to collect taxes and punish businesses for doing business in California. It will increase costs for California's consumers and discourage business being conducted in California. Then the revenues raised will be tossed into the 'Clean Energy' and / or 'Environmental' project black hole boondoggles. Pushing 'clean energy' has contributed to California having some of the nation's highest energy costs and the excessive focus on environmentalism is leaving us energy poor and has devastated the state's agriculture industry.
VOTE NO on Prop 39
Proposition 40 - 'Redistricting State Senate Districts Referendum'
In November 2008, voters of California passed 'The Voters First Act', Prop 11, which took away the responsibility of redistricting state districts from the legislature and put it into the arms of a 14 member commission comprising of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 from neither major party. In 2010, the scope of the commission was expanded to also include US Congressional Districts in the state.
While on paper, this is supposed to be as fair / unbiased process as possible, for many, it appears as if this has been about as unbiased as redistricting being done by a Legislature that is 60% Democrat. During the public hearing process, organized efforts by the CA Democrat Party and their key allies, including the public sector unions, to manipulate the redistricting process.
This vote is to accept (Yes) the latest redistricting map or to reject (No) the map. If the map is rejected, the districts will be reviewed and adjusted by officials supervised by the CA Supreme Court.
While not as bad as a legislative redistricting, the process continued to gerrymander district boundaries for political purposes. I believe the voters need to send a message to the commission that this was intended for significant reform - and in delivering that, they failed.
VOTE NO on Prop 40
LA County Measure - A
This is an advisory vote asking voters if we should change the California Constitution and the Los Angeles County Charter to make the position of the Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position. Today, this is an elected position - and the current incumbent is currently being held in prison, unable to make bail, charged with corruption - taking bribes to reduce the tax liabilities of individuals and companies.
An appointed County Assessor would be directly accountable to the LA County Board of Supervisors - and able to be dismissed for inability to execute the job or malfeasance.
VOTE YES on Measure A
LA County Measure - B
This proposes a new County ordinance targeting the adult film industry which is very active in LA County. The ordinance will require producers to obtain a County Health Permit, performers to use condoms, and expand the testing / education of performers on STD's - including regular reporting of results of regular health tests.
The adult film industry is already regulated - with performers undergoing regular monthly testing to ensure they do not have STD's or AID's. The proposal takes the regulations to another level in an effort to protect the performers. Yet, there is not a major problem with the existing regulations and processes. With that, do we really need to expand the existing regulations, oversight, and enforcement? Is that really the proper role of government?
It is only on this expansion of government, apparently above and beyond regulations and oversight that currently work, that I come down on opposing this measure. If the current regulations and oversight were not working - if there were major reported health issues within this industry and with the performers that risked those outside the industry - then I could support this.
VOTE NO on Measure B
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Accelerating Traffic Relief and Job Creation - Measure J
This is a measure offered by the state chartered regional planning agency and public transportation operating agency for the County of Los Angeles which calls for a extension of the expiring .5% sales tax increase for an additional 30 years to fund transportation initiatives in the County. Among the key transportation initiatives targeted, the $3-5B initiative to expand the LA Subway system 'to the sea' - from Downtown LA to the Santa Monica beach area as well as continuing to subsidize and keep fares for the LA Metro / Metrolink from increasing.
Little of the new initiatives will generate the promised benefits - and they are very LA centric as opposed to addressing transportation needs throughout Los Angeles County. The current Metro system does not have a direct connection to Los Angeles International Airport - but building a subway 'to the sea' is the primary focus. It takes over an hour on a commuter train to travel 35 miles into LA - but we aren't investing in better trackage or signals to improve the speed / usefulness while maintaining fares?
This agency has limited accountability to the people / taxpayer and is focusing on the wrong priorities. We should not extend this tax increase until they become more accountable and refocus their attention on real improvements as opposed to progressive 'make work' efforts.
VOTE NO on Measure J
In terms of the individual races - here are my endorsements.
President and Vice President
The current Administration has a record of failure, incompetence, and fecklessness that has been unseen in this country since the Carter Administration. The policies and agenda of the Obama Administration are preventing the economy from entering a robust recovery. They have also increased the divides within this country - pitting 'us vs. them' in far too many areas. It's beyond irresponsible to spend at levels that generate >$1T annual deficits and add over $6 trillion to the national debt. The foreign and national security policy of the current Administration have weakened the US and emboldened our enemies.
VOTE for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan
United States Senator
Democrat Diane Feinstein is seeking her fourth full term as the State's senior Senator. In the Senate, she is a reliable progressive / liberal vote - and is one of the most liberal members in the Senate. Her primary role in the Senate is to be a reliable progressive soldier. She is arrogant and feckless. Throughout the current race, she has refused to engage her opponent in a single debate - probably knowing that in that format, she would be exposed for what she is. California needs a Senator who will work for all of the people of the state, not just the special interests including the unions and illegal immigrants.
VOTE for Elizabeth Emken
United States Representative
I'm in the 25th Congressional District, where we are represented by Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon, who is currently the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. While Buck has faced some additional challenges in the past several years over some minor local issues, he remains a strong conservative and advocate for the district as well as the members of the Armed Forces. He understands what we need to do - where we need to go - and shares the conservative vision to obtain those goals. He deserves another term in office.
VOTE for Howard 'Buck' McKeon
State Senator
I'm in the 27th State Senatorial District - one that has changed because of redistricting. Todd Zink, the Republican candidate, is a decorated Marine Corps officer and Deputy District Attorney. He is a conservative and has conservative vision for California based around fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and restoring the Golden State from the damage caused by decades of progressive leadership.
The state needs a real change - and voting for conservative Republicans is how we start that change process. Plus, we need to prevent the Democrats from passing a two-thirds majority in the Legislature. If we fail, then tax and spend will expand / continue.
VOTE for Todd Zink
Member of the State Assembly
This is a 38th District open seat - vacated by Cameron Smyth (R) who was term-limited out of office. The choices are similar to the other individual races - a choice between a conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat with completely different visions for the future direction of California. In this race, the lesser know Democrat has embraced a highly negative campaign - targeting the GOP candidate who has formerly worked for Buck McKeon and ran his own political consulting company. Scott Wilk, the GOP candidate, defeated 2 other Republican challengers in a very contentious race - but has the skills and vision to represent the 38th District in Sacramento and try to promote change in California.
VOTE for Scott Wilk
Los Angeles County District Attorney
This is the sole County race for unincorporated LA County. The Democrat candidate is the current Chief Deputy DA, Jackie Lacey. The other is Alan Jackson, a gang homicide prosecutor, the Republican candidate. Lacey, would, if elected, become the first woman and first African-American to hold the office of LA County DA. Both are more similar in their approach than different - for example, both support capital punishment. While Lacey is a senior member in the DA's office, Jackson has a track record of successful high-profile prosecutions.
I think that with her experience and some of the intangibles around Jackie Lacy, she would be the better District Attorney - and she edges out Alan Jackson in my mind...but it's really close - because she does support several propositions that I do oppose (like softening three strikes). The current DA, Steve Cooley, has endorsed her.
VOTE for Jackie Lacey
That is my look at the ballot that I am facing on Tuesday. I see both the Country and the State moving in the wrong direction - and I am strongly advocating for changes in that direction. I am also seeking to reduce the size and influence of government - and voting accordingly.
Please get out and vote on Tuesday, November 6.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
"Wargaming" the 2012 Election - Post-Debate Analysis
Just over one month ago, part three of my 'Wargaming' the 2012 Election series was published as I looked at the state of the Presidential race just after the Republican and Democrat National Conventions. The first of the series was published in December 2011 - well before the Republican Party had selected a Presidential candidate to oppose President Barack Obama.
Between October 3rd and October 22nd, the Presidential candidates met in three debates while the Vice Presidential candidates met in a single debate. Prior to the debates, the race was seen as very close, with President Barack Obama holding onto a slim lead in most polls. But within the collection of polls taken of the Presidential race - the President was also rarely breaking 47% - 48% of support.
As pundits looked at the nature of the race, like I did last December, we identified a collection of battleground states - states where the polls between the candidates were so close, a clear winner of those electoral votes could not be determined. These were the critical states that the core of the election would be fought over.
Here's the battleground states that I originally identified - Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire. All were states won by Barack Obama in 2008. Several of these, specifically Michigan and Pennsylvania, were not identified as battleground or swing states by others as early as I did.
But looking at the polls from those states, including key internals, as well as looking at the economic, social, and political issues within those states - I believed that with the record and actions of the Obama Administration, they could / would become battleground states with a strong Republican ticket to run against the policies, agenda, and record of Barack Obama particularly in the wake of the historic 2010 midterm elections which broke the super majority Democrat control of Congress.
Election Day is now just two weeks away.
The Republican ticket is set - Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Once both slates received and lost their convention bounces - the next key point of the race would be these past three weeks and the four debates. How the debates shook out would have a huge effect on the race.
To quickly recap the debates, President Barack Obama decisively lost the first Presidential debate - and Mitt Romney's performance effectively washed away the months of negative advertising by the Obama campaign. Mitt Romney looked and acted Presidential - and made a very compelling case for his election based on his plan and vision for the country.
In the Vice Presidential debate, VP Joe Biden, desperate to make up for the President's miserable performance, dug an even deeper hole for their campaign as he lost to Paul Ryan.
Barack Obama bounced back strong in the second and third Presidential debate - demonstrating an energy level far above that of the first debate. But he was hamstrung by his record - which is not one that can really be run on - and the failure to offer an agenda for a second term different from what he did in his first term. Mitt Romney continued with his strong debate performances - matching the President, appearing Presidential, and in particular appealing to the undecided's / independents as opposed to the President's strategy of appealing to his base.
As a result of these debates, Mitt Romney has not gotten just a bounce from his strong first debate, but has received a preference surge that Barack Obama has not been able to halt - just slow down somewhat. Independents are moving towards Mitt Romney - in numbers equal to or greater than the number of independents who propelled Barack Obama to the White House in 2008.
GOP enthusiasm, up for the 2010 midterms, is hardly faltering as we approach the 2012 election. In 2008 where the Democrat turnout was 8 points higher than the GOP turnout, we are looking at anywhere from a even party breakdown turnout in 2012 to no worse than a D+3 or 4 party differential.
So with this background - where are we today in the 2012 race?
This is the map as it was just prior to the start of the debate 'season'. The battleground states are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire. The only firm change - New Mexico moved from toss-up to Barack Obama largely on the basis of the state's Hispanic community and their very strong preference for President Obama.
At this point, Barack Obama holds a 10 point lead in the electoral vote, with 146 electoral votes up for grabs. Both campaigns have a number of paths to victory.
But as the debates took place, and Mitt Romney started to get the benefit of the surge he received from his strong debate performances, there are more battleground states that are making their selection.
North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia are now all showing movement towards Mitt Romney in the majority of the polls. In Maine, which appropriates its electoral votes based on Congressional District, there is one District that could send it's single electoral vote to Mitt Romney.
Barack Obama thusfar has been unable to stop the movement of these states to Mitt Romney - and given the state of the race, and that if the incumbent has not secured the undecided vote by now, it is very unlikely that he will gain it - I am predicting that these states will be won by Mitt Romney.
This is a big part of the battleground states - and swing Mitt Romney into a 49 electoral vote lead over President Obama, 249 to 200.
From this point, Barack Obama has only 9 possible combinations of the remaining swing states that can propel him over 270, and Pennsylvania becomes a MUST WIN state. Lose this traditionally Democrat supporting state, as I've covered before, and Barack Obama will be a one term President.
Mitt Romney, 21 electoral votes shy of 270, has 22 possible winning combinations. There are also 4 possible combinations of the remaining states that would result in an Electoral College tie.
Over the last week - 10 days, there are growing signs that one more of the remaining battleground states will move from the toss-up category into the column of one of the candidates. That state is Colorado, where Mitt Romney is now hitting 50% on several polls...
With Colorado moving to support Mitt Romney, he gains 9 electoral votes, bringing his total to 258 and only 12 shy of the magic number. With this, Barack Obama is down to only 3 possible winning combinations and Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania enter the MUST WIN category. Mitt Romney has 9 possible winning combinations that can deliver the electoral votes he needs to win.
As I look at more of the state specific polls - as well as try to get an impression on the enthusiasm and momentum in the remaining battleground states, I am seeing signs that two more states are going to move out of the toss-up category in the very near future. All of these races are close - so even slight movements can make a huge difference.
In New Hampshire, I'm seeing signs that they are moving slightly, but solidly towards Mitt Romney in the wake of his very strong debate performances.
Nevada, particularly around Las Vegas / Clark County, the Democrat (Obama / Reid) machine, combined with the efforts of the pro-Democrat unions that are strong in that County, and the Hispanic community, appears to be that it will vote once again for Barack Obama.
If we update the map to show these latest moves, and this is what we have.
Mitt Romney is now only 8 electoral votes from victory - and there are 5 states left in the toss-up category. Barack Obama is 64 electoral votes from victory with 70 electoral votes in those remaining toss-up states. He has only 1 path to win, and if he loses any of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, or Pennsylvania - he's lost.
This is how I think the race is today - with two weeks to go.
Pennsylvania, as I've predicted in my earlier looks at the race, is one of the early indicators for Election Day. It has not voted for a GOP Presidential candidate since 1988. Since then, the Democrat strongholds of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and the suburbs of Philadelphia have generated enough votes to offset the PA 'Flyover country' which is primarily between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Another advantage for the Democrats - there are about 1 million more registered Democrats in PA than registered Republicans.
But this is not a normal election. The Obama policies against coal and fossil fuels are hammering the state and its jobs. Polls are showing coal country around Pittsburgh are not supporting the President at the levels he needs. The continuing stagnant economy is also it look as though the Philadelphia suburbs are looking for a change in leadership in an effort to get a real recovery jump started. Democrat enthusiasm in PA is down - just as it is around the country.
With the effects of the debate- I think these cracks in the dam are going to expand- to the point where PA will be won by Mitt Romney. [In neighboring NJ, while Obama will under perform his 2008 levels, there just are not enough enthusiastic Republicans and Independents seeking a change to offset the Democrat strongholds. I think it will remain blue - but if it does not - then we are looking at a very very bad night for Barack Obama. Connecticut, thought at one point to getting close to being in play, will stay blue - but if it doesn't - then it's a very very very bad night for Barack Obama.]
Wisconsin is probably suffering election fatigue - with this being the fourth major election in the last two years between the 2010 statewide election and the recall elections around the reform efforts of Governor Scott Walker and the GOP legislature. Because of these recalls - and the successful elections - the GOP has a strong and capable ground game. They have a record - and Mitt Romney is embracing similar approaches to solve the challenges of the country. Finally, Wisconsin is Paul Ryan's home state.
Most of the polls from Wisconsin are being skewed by samples that are closer to a 2008 party breakdown and enthusiasm level than today. As in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 (Walker recall), things are also getting dirty - with the unions / Democrats leading the way.
I do not envision Wisconsin voting again to elect Barack Obama. The Paul Ryan selection combined with the strong GOP state effort to get out the vote will push Wisconsin into the Romney camp.
Michigan is Mitt Romney's 'home state' - but it is also a major union stronghold - constituency that is in the bag for Barack Obama. It is also 'home' to the US Auto Industry - which the Obama Administration bailed out with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars - ensuring many union jobs and union contracts would remain intact. But Michigan is another state that moved to the GOP in 2010 - and one where the current GOP Governor is working to continue the turnaround he started.
Many of the polls from Michigan are showing 6-9 point leads for Barack Obama - but most of these are also based on 2008 or higher Democrat turnout models. Michigan might follow these polls and vote for Barack Obama - but I think that the undercurrent to vote against Barack Obama and his policies of the last 4 years is stronger than is being measured.
Iowa is another state where the Romney momentum is growing post-debate - and the President, despite many campaign visits cannot close the state out. The undecideds will go to Romney because he answered their questions around the economy and the laid out a strong vision for the future. I do not see them going to Barack Obama at the 11th hour - choosing to stay on the current path.
This brings us to the last battleground state - and Barack Obama's primary 'firewall'. Ohio.
I don't think Ohio will decide the election - it will not be as close as it was in 2004. Ohio tried Wisconsin-like reforms - but in an election to maintain those reforms or reverse them, after a huge investment by unions, the people voted to reference the reforms. But since that point, the GOP Governor is seeing his poll numbers improve. Democrat registrations are down substantially in the state - and the President's policies are really hurting Ohio's jobs and businesses.
The debates are turning the tide -and over the next two weeks, Mitt Romney will make small but steady gains as undecideds move to him and wavering Obama supporters move to Romney as they realize the negative ads by Obama weren't accurate.
So here's my last prediction to what the map will look like early Wednesday morning, November 7th....
Between October 3rd and October 22nd, the Presidential candidates met in three debates while the Vice Presidential candidates met in a single debate. Prior to the debates, the race was seen as very close, with President Barack Obama holding onto a slim lead in most polls. But within the collection of polls taken of the Presidential race - the President was also rarely breaking 47% - 48% of support.
As pundits looked at the nature of the race, like I did last December, we identified a collection of battleground states - states where the polls between the candidates were so close, a clear winner of those electoral votes could not be determined. These were the critical states that the core of the election would be fought over.
Here's the battleground states that I originally identified - Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire. All were states won by Barack Obama in 2008. Several of these, specifically Michigan and Pennsylvania, were not identified as battleground or swing states by others as early as I did.
But looking at the polls from those states, including key internals, as well as looking at the economic, social, and political issues within those states - I believed that with the record and actions of the Obama Administration, they could / would become battleground states with a strong Republican ticket to run against the policies, agenda, and record of Barack Obama particularly in the wake of the historic 2010 midterm elections which broke the super majority Democrat control of Congress.
Election Day is now just two weeks away.
The Republican ticket is set - Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Once both slates received and lost their convention bounces - the next key point of the race would be these past three weeks and the four debates. How the debates shook out would have a huge effect on the race.
To quickly recap the debates, President Barack Obama decisively lost the first Presidential debate - and Mitt Romney's performance effectively washed away the months of negative advertising by the Obama campaign. Mitt Romney looked and acted Presidential - and made a very compelling case for his election based on his plan and vision for the country.
In the Vice Presidential debate, VP Joe Biden, desperate to make up for the President's miserable performance, dug an even deeper hole for their campaign as he lost to Paul Ryan.
Barack Obama bounced back strong in the second and third Presidential debate - demonstrating an energy level far above that of the first debate. But he was hamstrung by his record - which is not one that can really be run on - and the failure to offer an agenda for a second term different from what he did in his first term. Mitt Romney continued with his strong debate performances - matching the President, appearing Presidential, and in particular appealing to the undecided's / independents as opposed to the President's strategy of appealing to his base.
As a result of these debates, Mitt Romney has not gotten just a bounce from his strong first debate, but has received a preference surge that Barack Obama has not been able to halt - just slow down somewhat. Independents are moving towards Mitt Romney - in numbers equal to or greater than the number of independents who propelled Barack Obama to the White House in 2008.
GOP enthusiasm, up for the 2010 midterms, is hardly faltering as we approach the 2012 election. In 2008 where the Democrat turnout was 8 points higher than the GOP turnout, we are looking at anywhere from a even party breakdown turnout in 2012 to no worse than a D+3 or 4 party differential.
So with this background - where are we today in the 2012 race?
This is the map as it was just prior to the start of the debate 'season'. The battleground states are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire. The only firm change - New Mexico moved from toss-up to Barack Obama largely on the basis of the state's Hispanic community and their very strong preference for President Obama.
At this point, Barack Obama holds a 10 point lead in the electoral vote, with 146 electoral votes up for grabs. Both campaigns have a number of paths to victory.
But as the debates took place, and Mitt Romney started to get the benefit of the surge he received from his strong debate performances, there are more battleground states that are making their selection.
North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia are now all showing movement towards Mitt Romney in the majority of the polls. In Maine, which appropriates its electoral votes based on Congressional District, there is one District that could send it's single electoral vote to Mitt Romney.
Barack Obama thusfar has been unable to stop the movement of these states to Mitt Romney - and given the state of the race, and that if the incumbent has not secured the undecided vote by now, it is very unlikely that he will gain it - I am predicting that these states will be won by Mitt Romney.
This is a big part of the battleground states - and swing Mitt Romney into a 49 electoral vote lead over President Obama, 249 to 200.
From this point, Barack Obama has only 9 possible combinations of the remaining swing states that can propel him over 270, and Pennsylvania becomes a MUST WIN state. Lose this traditionally Democrat supporting state, as I've covered before, and Barack Obama will be a one term President.
Mitt Romney, 21 electoral votes shy of 270, has 22 possible winning combinations. There are also 4 possible combinations of the remaining states that would result in an Electoral College tie.
Over the last week - 10 days, there are growing signs that one more of the remaining battleground states will move from the toss-up category into the column of one of the candidates. That state is Colorado, where Mitt Romney is now hitting 50% on several polls...
With Colorado moving to support Mitt Romney, he gains 9 electoral votes, bringing his total to 258 and only 12 shy of the magic number. With this, Barack Obama is down to only 3 possible winning combinations and Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania enter the MUST WIN category. Mitt Romney has 9 possible winning combinations that can deliver the electoral votes he needs to win.
As I look at more of the state specific polls - as well as try to get an impression on the enthusiasm and momentum in the remaining battleground states, I am seeing signs that two more states are going to move out of the toss-up category in the very near future. All of these races are close - so even slight movements can make a huge difference.
In New Hampshire, I'm seeing signs that they are moving slightly, but solidly towards Mitt Romney in the wake of his very strong debate performances.
Nevada, particularly around Las Vegas / Clark County, the Democrat (Obama / Reid) machine, combined with the efforts of the pro-Democrat unions that are strong in that County, and the Hispanic community, appears to be that it will vote once again for Barack Obama.
If we update the map to show these latest moves, and this is what we have.
Mitt Romney is now only 8 electoral votes from victory - and there are 5 states left in the toss-up category. Barack Obama is 64 electoral votes from victory with 70 electoral votes in those remaining toss-up states. He has only 1 path to win, and if he loses any of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, or Pennsylvania - he's lost.
This is how I think the race is today - with two weeks to go.
Pennsylvania, as I've predicted in my earlier looks at the race, is one of the early indicators for Election Day. It has not voted for a GOP Presidential candidate since 1988. Since then, the Democrat strongholds of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and the suburbs of Philadelphia have generated enough votes to offset the PA 'Flyover country' which is primarily between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Another advantage for the Democrats - there are about 1 million more registered Democrats in PA than registered Republicans.
But this is not a normal election. The Obama policies against coal and fossil fuels are hammering the state and its jobs. Polls are showing coal country around Pittsburgh are not supporting the President at the levels he needs. The continuing stagnant economy is also it look as though the Philadelphia suburbs are looking for a change in leadership in an effort to get a real recovery jump started. Democrat enthusiasm in PA is down - just as it is around the country.
With the effects of the debate- I think these cracks in the dam are going to expand- to the point where PA will be won by Mitt Romney. [In neighboring NJ, while Obama will under perform his 2008 levels, there just are not enough enthusiastic Republicans and Independents seeking a change to offset the Democrat strongholds. I think it will remain blue - but if it does not - then we are looking at a very very bad night for Barack Obama. Connecticut, thought at one point to getting close to being in play, will stay blue - but if it doesn't - then it's a very very very bad night for Barack Obama.]
Wisconsin is probably suffering election fatigue - with this being the fourth major election in the last two years between the 2010 statewide election and the recall elections around the reform efforts of Governor Scott Walker and the GOP legislature. Because of these recalls - and the successful elections - the GOP has a strong and capable ground game. They have a record - and Mitt Romney is embracing similar approaches to solve the challenges of the country. Finally, Wisconsin is Paul Ryan's home state.
Most of the polls from Wisconsin are being skewed by samples that are closer to a 2008 party breakdown and enthusiasm level than today. As in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 (Walker recall), things are also getting dirty - with the unions / Democrats leading the way.
I do not envision Wisconsin voting again to elect Barack Obama. The Paul Ryan selection combined with the strong GOP state effort to get out the vote will push Wisconsin into the Romney camp.
Michigan is Mitt Romney's 'home state' - but it is also a major union stronghold - constituency that is in the bag for Barack Obama. It is also 'home' to the US Auto Industry - which the Obama Administration bailed out with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars - ensuring many union jobs and union contracts would remain intact. But Michigan is another state that moved to the GOP in 2010 - and one where the current GOP Governor is working to continue the turnaround he started.
Many of the polls from Michigan are showing 6-9 point leads for Barack Obama - but most of these are also based on 2008 or higher Democrat turnout models. Michigan might follow these polls and vote for Barack Obama - but I think that the undercurrent to vote against Barack Obama and his policies of the last 4 years is stronger than is being measured.
Iowa is another state where the Romney momentum is growing post-debate - and the President, despite many campaign visits cannot close the state out. The undecideds will go to Romney because he answered their questions around the economy and the laid out a strong vision for the future. I do not see them going to Barack Obama at the 11th hour - choosing to stay on the current path.
This brings us to the last battleground state - and Barack Obama's primary 'firewall'. Ohio.
I don't think Ohio will decide the election - it will not be as close as it was in 2004. Ohio tried Wisconsin-like reforms - but in an election to maintain those reforms or reverse them, after a huge investment by unions, the people voted to reference the reforms. But since that point, the GOP Governor is seeing his poll numbers improve. Democrat registrations are down substantially in the state - and the President's policies are really hurting Ohio's jobs and businesses.
The debates are turning the tide -and over the next two weeks, Mitt Romney will make small but steady gains as undecideds move to him and wavering Obama supporters move to Romney as they realize the negative ads by Obama weren't accurate.
So here's my last prediction to what the map will look like early Wednesday morning, November 7th....
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Wargaming the 2012 Election - Part 3
This is the post-convention look at the state of the Presidential election - the third part in a series that I started in December 2011.
One of the better sources for viewing the state of the Presidential race is RealClearPolitics. In addition to political news, the site features a collection of key polls for each individual state as well as an average of all of the polls to define in which direction each state is currently leaning. Here, using the map from the website, 270toWin.com, is how RealClearPolitics sees the race today based on their RealClearPolitic averaging of each state's polling results.
In this view, President Obama holds a clear electoral college lead, 237 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 191. The critical swing states are identified as New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada - totalling 110 undecided electoral votes.
However, one of the challenges with the RealClearPolitics average is that they determine where a state leans based on the average of the recent polls taken within the state. The problem with this is that if some of the polls used to compute the average as based on a skewed polling sample - that poll will then skew the average and could impact the where the state is.
I consider this a major issue. Throughout many of my daily posts, I've highlighted numerous polls from what one would expect to be unbiased organizations, basing their samples not only on the outlier 2008 turnout, but on a stronger pro-Democrat turnout model today than we saw in 2008 which was a D+7 turnout.
For polling, the sampling data is critical. Here's a look at the historical party turnout data:
Historically, there has been more Democrats voting than Republicans - when measured by party identification. But 2008 was a huge swing, 7 point change from the previous Presidential election year. Only in the 10 point decrease in Democrat turnout between 1980 and 1984 surpassed the 7 point change of 2008.
Where do we stand today?
If we only look at the Presidential elections, then one can try to make a case to use either an average or to work around the 1996 and 2000 level which reflects a similar divided government to what we have today. Hugh Hewitt, the conservative talk radio host, had a very interesting interview with the Public Polling Director of the Marist Institute, Lee Miringoff, earlier this week where Miringoff made the case to justify, statistically speaking, the D+8-12 polls that we are commonly seeing today. The link is for the transcript of the interview.
I am as skeptical as Hewitt when it comes to the justification made by Miringoff for the D+8 or more poll samples that we are commonly seeing...and are part of the RealClearPolitic average.
For one point, this justification does not take into consideration that massive electoral blowback the Democrats and President Barack Obama received in the 2010 mid-term elections. The policies of the first two years of the Obama Administration and Democratic control of Congress swung the pendulum far in the other direction. Independents and Republicans were highly motivated to express their dissatisfaction with the policies and agenda of the Democrats leading our country.
Despite the assurances of the mainstream media that this level of dissatisfaction doesn't remain at the same levels in 2012, I believe that they do.
This is more than just a gut feeling of someone who is a self-professed conservative.
When I look closely at these polls with the D+8 or more sample skews, almost every time I see 2 factors that reflect on the race being significantly different than what we are being told by the 'experts' is the case.
The first aspect is that even with these D+8 or more samples, President Barack Obama holds a very small, tenuous lead - usually within the polls margin of error of 2 to 4 points.
The second aspect is that with these slight leads held by Barack Obama, in nearly every one of these polls, the independent voter is by a range of 8 to 12 points (or more), choosing Mitt Romney over the President. In both parties, their candidate enjoys a roughly 90% support level of their own party faithful. The keys to this election, therefore lie with the independents and their vote. In 2008, the independents went strongly to supporting Barack Obama over John McCain. In 2010, the independents went strongly to support the local Republican candidate over the Democrat candidate. In 2012, it appears that the independents are significantly lining up to vote against the reelection of Barack Obama - as is shown in these polls.
Given this, I see the map as starting at this point:
This map has three main differences from the first map. In addition to the other states listed as swing, I've added Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to the list. This moves 32 electoral votes from Barack Obama into the undecided list - and makes the race a virtual tie, 191 to 189 in electoral votes.
Recent polls from Connecticut are starting to show a move in that state away from Barack Obama and the Democrat senate candidate seeking to gain the seat of the retiring Senator Joe Lieberman. The GOP Senate candidate, Linda McMahon, who lost to Richard Blumenthal in 2010, has had a number of polls showing her with a lead and the state's fiscal crisis, behind a tax and spend Governor seeking to increase taxes once again, are providing fuel for those who oppose progressive Democrats.
We are seeing a similar move in New Mexico. This was undoubtedly assisted by the superb speech given by the state's Republican Governor Susana Martinez during the Republican National Convention.
Pennsylvania remains a critical bell weather state for the President. With strong minority and union worker support in the key cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, this has usually been sufficient to offset the more conservative support from the rest of the state for the GOP. But Pennsylvania is being hit hard by the economic challenges we face as well as the effects of progressive policies. Add to this the effects in Pennsylvania by the EPA's 'War on Coal', and we have a state that is very well a battleground.
I also moved Michigan to the swing state category for very much the same reasons as both Connecticut and Pennsylvania. There are polls that are showing Romney in a slight lead - and the economic conditions combined with the economic policies of the progressive Democrats are impacting voters. While the union supporters around Detroit are applauding the auto industry bailout which Obama claims 'saved the US auto industry', there are still some major issues in play. Michigan is also very much like Wisconsin in terms of the now GOP controlled state government trying to reverse the economic challenges - and Wisconsin's success has provided a viable road map.
In this first cut of winnowing down the battleground states, I believe there are three that look strongly as if they are going in this direction. Barack Obama should be able to hold onto Connecticut at the Presidential level. The elite progressives outnumber the independents and conservatives. If he cannot hold onto Connecticut, then we are looking at an extremely bad night for Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
From what I am seeing, I project that New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and New Mexico are very good bets to vote for Mitt Romney as President. All will be relatively close, but in each case, they will reject Barack Obama's request for a 2nd term in office on largely economic grounds. North Carolina has suffered under both progressive Democrat policies and the agenda of the Obama Administration. Wisconsin is acclaimed the birthplace of progressivism, but under the policies of GOP Governor Scott Walker, fiscal responsibility has been restored - and he remains in his office because of winning a recall election earlier this year that reflected the power of the GOP in the state.
New Mexico, under GOP Governor Susana Martinez, has also addressed some significant fiscal challenges her progressive predecessor created. Combine this with a superb RNC speech, and Martinez will help propel Mitt Romney to win her state.
While Mitt Romney has a lead, at this point, in the electoral college, both sides have over 20 possible winning combinations to push them over the 270 mark. The race is still at the point where the remaining battleground states will determine who will lead the US for the next four years.
As I noted, if Pennsylvania goes to Mitt Romney, as is a strong possibility, then Barack Obama realistically does not have a viable option (a mathematical option, but not a viable one) to propel him to reelection. This was the 'old' worst case scenario for Barack Obama - the 'new' one includes losing Connecticut (and perhaps some other traditionally liberal states in a Reagan-like election).
If the President retains Pennsylvania, that's 20 more electoral votes to his column. But on the east coast, we have 2 other battleground states. Despite the RealClearPolitics average of the polls, what I am seeing, particularly when I look beyond skewed polls, are Virginia and Florida both very likely to swing to Mitt Romney. I am seeing Tea Party strength in both states and stronger pro-Republican enthusiasm in campaign events in each. With the possible exception of the GOP Senate candidate in Florida, Connie Mack, I am also seeing signs of both states strongly supporting the GOP Congressional candidates.
In this event, the future looks very grim for Barack Obama. Mitt Romney would be only 3 electoral votes from the 270 needed to win - with 55 electoral votes remaining.
This sets the stage for how I see the election ending in the early hours of November 7th...
With the exception of Colorado, I see all of the remaining undecided states ending in the column for Mitt Romney. Colorado is a state that has trended more towards liberalism - and while there is a vocal and active conservative population in the state, they are becoming increasingly outnumbered - as well as gaining new liberal support from many who are relocating to the state. While not likely enthralled by 'Hope and Change' over the past four years, I think Coloradans are going to fall for the false bet that Barack Obama will do a Bill Clinton-esque triangulation in a second term - and support that second term.
Just as Wisconsin is rejecting progressivism and the challenges it created for the state, Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa will also reject progressivism. For Ohio and Michigan, it is their last opportunity to avoid falling down the same path as New York, Illinois, and California. They have a clear choice - to follow those states or to follow Wisconsin.
I suspect many Nevadans believed they made a huge mistake when they sent Harry Reid back to the Senate - particularly given Reid's record over the past 2 years. That said, they also didn't have the best possible alternative in the GOP candidate. No state has been hit harder by the failed policies of the progressives and Barack Obama than Nevada has been hit.
As I've noted in many of my daily QH posts, the mainstream media is actively shilling for Barack Obama's reelection. The level of bias and propaganda is incredible. They are pulling out all of the stops to try to spin reality and save progressivism. But reality for far too many Americans is too hard to spin.
Unemployed, under-employed, reduced wages and personal wealth, the distractions of class, gender, and race warfare, the real wars with radical islam, on energy, and the concept of equality of results over equality of opportunity cannot be easily spun away.
I continue to see and feel an undercurrent around the United States where people are starting to look at the places that are succeeding and those who are not, and determining for themselves why some are winning and some are losing. I think there are those in swing states, and states that will become swing states (the Oregon's, Washington's, New Jersey's) who are seeing that the fundamental problem with liberalism / progressivism is in the fundamentals of the ideology - not just in the implementation.
Barack Obama's victory in 2008 was hailed as the start of decades of Democrat / Progressive leadership in the United States. But I think that Obama's term in office, comparable in modern times only to the debacle that was the Carter presidency, will actually fuel another decade of conservative leadership and the start of a move, not to the compassionate conservativism of Bush 43, but far closer to the conservativism of smaller government, a safety net as opposed to an entitlement state, a strong national defense and foreign policy, and supporting the private sector.
At some point, reality will hit home in New York, Illinois, and California when they run out of other people's money. When that happens, what will the progressives do then?
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Fighting back against Mediscare
It's doubtful that the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign was caught unsuspecting by the tactics of the Obama campaign when it came to Paul Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare. The evidence?
This excellent ad was released earlier today by the Romney campaign -
In 1965, Medicare was created as part of President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' initiatives - Title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
The Social Security Act was enacted on this day by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935.
Social Security is, today, 77 years old.
Medicare is 47 years old.
Both were created in different times. The Medicare actuarial trustees, in this year's report, raise a major concern with the program, saying it will be insolvent by 2024. That grim pronouncement did not include the impact to the plan by the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) pulling out $716 billion over the next decade to help cover the costs associated with the Affordable Healthcare Act.
The overall Social Security financial report worsened significantly in 2012 - from the 2012 report...
If we as voters are to be scared of anything, what we should be frightened of is four more years of the same anti-business, pro-big government, 'shared prosperity', social justice, stagnant economy, and misplaced priorities of the Obama Administration.
November 2012 is when we need to take action to start righting the course of our ship of state. If we do not win in November, we may be too far down (as are Greece, Spain, and perhaps California and Illinois) to solve these problems without far more pain that we are willing to undertake.
This excellent ad was released earlier today by the Romney campaign -
In 1965, Medicare was created as part of President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' initiatives - Title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
The Social Security Act was enacted on this day by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935.
Social Security is, today, 77 years old.
Medicare is 47 years old.
Both were created in different times. The Medicare actuarial trustees, in this year's report, raise a major concern with the program, saying it will be insolvent by 2024. That grim pronouncement did not include the impact to the plan by the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) pulling out $716 billion over the next decade to help cover the costs associated with the Affordable Healthcare Act.
The overall Social Security financial report worsened significantly in 2012 - from the 2012 report...
“Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare,” the trustees wrote. “If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.Contrary to the 'scare' tactics of the Democrats, the GOP, and in particular Romney / Ryan are not proposing that either of these plans be eliminated. They do, however, insist that fiscal changes need to be taken to address the fiscal challenges of our country. They also propose, in the case of Medicare, to reform the program so that it will remain viable well beyond 2024. This includes ensuring that those 55 and older are exempted by any reforms while those under 55 have several options available to them, including remaining in Medicare as it is now or selecting the same health insurance options and coverages as currently provided employees of the federal government.
If we as voters are to be scared of anything, what we should be frightened of is four more years of the same anti-business, pro-big government, 'shared prosperity', social justice, stagnant economy, and misplaced priorities of the Obama Administration.
November 2012 is when we need to take action to start righting the course of our ship of state. If we do not win in November, we may be too far down (as are Greece, Spain, and perhaps California and Illinois) to solve these problems without far more pain that we are willing to undertake.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Tale of Two Campaign Events
Over 10,000 in High Point, North Carolina greeted GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and GOP Vice Presidential selection Paul Ryan, when they arrived for an afternoon campaign rally.
The Daily Caller reports here -
Meanwhile, in Chicago, President Barack Obama held a fundraiser intended for his younger supporters - a $51 / head event at the Bridgeport Arts Center - a collection of studio and gallery space south of Chicago's downtown. Author Jodi Kantor tweets about the status of this Presidential campaign fundraiser...
Hmm, room half full. In the President's hometown...and at an event targeting a key element of his base.
Sounds a lot like the fall of 2010....
What shape would the Obama reelection be in without the nonstop shilling of the lamestream media - which can account for 5-7 points of support on an election day?
Well, we've had the 'Romney killed my wife' advert - how long before the Obama campaign or Priorities USA gives us the modern day version of this...
The Daily Caller reports here -
Campaign officials for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tell The Daily Caller that well over 10,000 people attended a campaign rally at High Point’s Absolute Style Furniture showroom Sunday. The campaign estimates that 1,200 people were inside the venue while another 10,000 were outside.Scott Johnson, at Powerline, notes the huge overflow crowd and adds some video of the event which highlights the excited crowd waiting to greet Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan...
The event, part of the campaign’s “Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class” bus tour, came a day after Romney named Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Guilford County Republican Party chairman Al Bouldin told the Greensboro, N.C. News & Record in advance of the event that enthusiasm for the ticket is high following the Ryan pick.
“I think that most Americans will be very excited over this ticket, and I think that the crowds that are going to show up in High Point will be a good example of that excitement level,” he said.
Cornell Law Professor William A. Jacobson, who runs the blog Legal Insurrection, highlighted the experience of one of his readers who attended the High Point event, noting that it was the first campaign event the reader, Tim, had ever attended.
“Going into the doors. Holy moly I can’t believe the people,” Tim relayed to Jacobson. “One picture is the front of the line, one picture kinda the back, EXCEPT my camera can’t capture two and a half blocks of people. Many are actually women (the shock).”
Meanwhile, in Chicago, President Barack Obama held a fundraiser intended for his younger supporters - a $51 / head event at the Bridgeport Arts Center - a collection of studio and gallery space south of Chicago's downtown. Author Jodi Kantor tweets about the status of this Presidential campaign fundraiser...
Hmm, room half full. In the President's hometown...and at an event targeting a key element of his base.
Sounds a lot like the fall of 2010....
What shape would the Obama reelection be in without the nonstop shilling of the lamestream media - which can account for 5-7 points of support on an election day?
Well, we've had the 'Romney killed my wife' advert - how long before the Obama campaign or Priorities USA gives us the modern day version of this...
Monday, July 30, 2012
Mitt Romney is learning....to deal with the MSM
Mitt Romney settled in the day before the Olympic Opening Ceremony for an 'in-depth' interview with NBC New's Brian Williams.
To get a gauge on the interview, the usual festering hotbeds of extreme progressivism, Huffington Post and the Democratic Underground, were whinging over the 'softball' questions that Williams tossed towards the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee.
But what was most interesting in this interview were the answers of Mitt Romney - which continued to demonstrate that he is might not be the reserved, quiet, boring evil businessman that the left is portraying him as. In fact, Mitt might actually have a sense of humor and timing as he, about 9 minutes into this interview, embraces his inner Newt Gingrich and hit's Brian Williams with a classic 'zinger'....
Williams, quoting an unnamed Republican official who, according to the lefty site Politico, has official knowledge of the Romney campaign's search and vetting process for a Vice President candidate, said that the campaign is looking for 'an incredibly boring white guy', and asks Mitt Romney to comment on the Politico report.
Without missing a beat, and with a perfect deadpan delivery, Romney's response was, 'They told me you were not available....' to which Williams could only reply, 'Touche' as Romney chuckled. Mitt Romney then went onto to say the obvious, 'I can't given you anything on that front whatsoever'.
The zinger made it's point to Williams - and seems to reflect Romney's increasing comfort with the campaign and dealing with a generally hostile press. It's not Ronald Reagan zinger level - but it's a big step towards that direction to disarm the hostility with a laugh / zinger.
To get a gauge on the interview, the usual festering hotbeds of extreme progressivism, Huffington Post and the Democratic Underground, were whinging over the 'softball' questions that Williams tossed towards the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee.
But what was most interesting in this interview were the answers of Mitt Romney - which continued to demonstrate that he is might not be the reserved, quiet, boring evil businessman that the left is portraying him as. In fact, Mitt might actually have a sense of humor and timing as he, about 9 minutes into this interview, embraces his inner Newt Gingrich and hit's Brian Williams with a classic 'zinger'....
Williams, quoting an unnamed Republican official who, according to the lefty site Politico, has official knowledge of the Romney campaign's search and vetting process for a Vice President candidate, said that the campaign is looking for 'an incredibly boring white guy', and asks Mitt Romney to comment on the Politico report.
Without missing a beat, and with a perfect deadpan delivery, Romney's response was, 'They told me you were not available....' to which Williams could only reply, 'Touche' as Romney chuckled. Mitt Romney then went onto to say the obvious, 'I can't given you anything on that front whatsoever'.
The zinger made it's point to Williams - and seems to reflect Romney's increasing comfort with the campaign and dealing with a generally hostile press. It's not Ronald Reagan zinger level - but it's a big step towards that direction to disarm the hostility with a laugh / zinger.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
"Obama's View on Business 'Explains Nearly Everything'"
President Obama's campaign stump speech in Virginia where he noted that 'if you got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen' continues to reverberate. Fox News Senior Political Analyst, Brit Hume, editorialized last night that Barack Obama's view on business 'Explains Nearly Everything'...
Chair of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan also took the President's embracement of liberal fascism to task in a discussion with James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute...
What the President is offering is not surprising - given his point of view... As the Investor's Business Daily notes in one of their editorials today...
The statement from Barack Obama does, as Brit Hume notes, 'explain everything'. This is how Barack Obama views the United States, views capitalism, and believes to his core - that government is the solution and property / wealth belongs to government. What individuals are 'permitted' to retain, are done so because of either the government's generosity or the cheating of the individual. The state is the primary focal point for all - and we citizens are subservient to the state.
It is, as John Sununu, a Romney campaign surrogate, notes in this video - 'I wish this President would learn to be an American...'
In the Fiscal Times, there is a commentary that notes that President Obama is now adding the U.S. Economy and it's recovery to those being tossed under the bus...
While the President will not see his comment as a gaffe - after all, he is only speaking from his own deeply held beliefs - this is another major turning point that will damage the President's campaign. He might want to continue to press the meme of class warfare, to demonize the wealthy (and Mitt Romney in particular), to make a base play for the 50% of Americans who don't pay any taxes, and appeal to those captured in the government's quicksand of dependency - but this statement is so contrary to fundamental American values that it will ultimately turn even a number of those who are dependent on the government.
They will also, I believe, see the complete vapidity and fallacy around the standard arguments being made to excuse the President's telling comment - with the efforts to point out the exceptions to the rule and using those examples, like Obama's effort to use the DARPA development of the Internet, as proof that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other internet conglomerates only got where they are because the government built the Internet.
The government might have built the Internet. But it took entrepreneurs, visionaries, and risk takers from the private sector to build the powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Amazon, etc which took that basic foundation and turned it into so many jobs and so much wealth creation.
This election is about a very simple choice - Are we a people who exist to serve the government? Or are we a people who has a government that is in place to serve us and help protect our inalienable rights? If you believe in the former, then you will be voting for President Barack Obama and his continued expansion of the power and reach of the government. You will be voting for liberal fascism and a version of socialism. And with your vote for socialism, remember this...
It is fair to say that we know more tonight than we ever have about the president's view of business and the economy. His assertion over the weekend that, 'If you got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen' explains nearly everything. He wasn't talking about God, he was talking about government.
Here is a man that believes not just that the government provided framework of roads, bridges, defense and law enforcement helps the private sector. He believes these things are are the nerve center, the driving force. More important than any individual, talent, enterprise or initiative. As he put it: 'There are a lot of smart people out.' As for diligence: 'There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.' Success? 'You didn't get there on your own.'
This is a view that successful businessmen, women are merely the ones who did better at taking advantage of the benefits that government has bestowed. Therefore, he thinks they should be glad to pay an even greater share of federal taxes than they do. He calls that, 'giving back,' as if the government conferred all that they have and they shouldn't mind returning a bit more of it where it came from.
This explains why so much stimulus money was spent to protect government and why his legislation on healthcare and financial reform involved extending the reach and power of, you guessed it, government.
Chair of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan also took the President's embracement of liberal fascism to task in a discussion with James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute...
But Obama said it all. And Ryan absolutely tore into the president in a chat I had with him earlier today. Among the highlights:
– “The idea that these entrepreneurs owe all their success to some government bureaucrat or some centralized planner just defies reality.”
– “Every now and then, President Obama pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets the veil slip from time to time.”
– “We believe in free communities and this is a statist attack on free communities.”
– “He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these crazy individualists who believe in some dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a list of scapegoats to blame for his failures.”
– “As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a statist vision of government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of the 20th century.”
– “Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has limits. We want government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and families can flourish on their own and do well and achieve their potential.”
– “He wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the entire Reagan revolution.”
What the President is offering is not surprising - given his point of view... As the Investor's Business Daily notes in one of their editorials today...
He blasted Wall Street, big business, big banks, big oil, "excess profits," "corporate profits" and "fat contracts," "millionaires" and the "wealthy."
He called out the "corporation executive" for not paying his "fair" share.
He attacked "GOP" tax cuts that "spare the rich" and "benefit millionaires."
He trumpeted the public sector over the private sector.
He advocated wealth redistribution from greedy "corporations" to "health insurance" and "public works projects."
He favored taxpayer-funding of universal health care. He supported government stimulus to rescue America from (allegedly) another Great Depression.
He wanted to rid America of "huge funds" finding their way into the "pockets" of "Wall Street." "Instead," he declared, "money should be spent for the benefit of the people instead of the corporations."
He supported nationalization and singled out General Motors for government action.
He favored the Russians at the expense of countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia.
He rejected Winston Churchill, and wanted the heralded prime minister nowhere within the White House.
He insisted that American foreign policy was about "big profits" for big oil.
He cited the American Founders and the U.S. Constitution, and described himself and his policies as "progressive," while his detractors accused him of being a communist.
He adopted slogans like "Forward" and "Change." He wanted to transform America through what he called "fundamental change."
Who is this man?
If you answered "Barack Obama," you're only half right. The answer is Frank Marshall Davis, Hawaii mentor to Barack Obama, and Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member No. 47544.
The statement from Barack Obama does, as Brit Hume notes, 'explain everything'. This is how Barack Obama views the United States, views capitalism, and believes to his core - that government is the solution and property / wealth belongs to government. What individuals are 'permitted' to retain, are done so because of either the government's generosity or the cheating of the individual. The state is the primary focal point for all - and we citizens are subservient to the state.
It is, as John Sununu, a Romney campaign surrogate, notes in this video - 'I wish this President would learn to be an American...'
In the Fiscal Times, there is a commentary that notes that President Obama is now adding the U.S. Economy and it's recovery to those being tossed under the bus...
President Obama will stop at nothing to win four more years in the White House – including cracking this fragile egg shell of a recovery and sending the U.S. into recession. With every sign that the economy is slowing, our Campaigner in Chief is creating even more anxiety by taking an unwavering stand -- he will not, he affirms proudly, extend current tax rates on all Americans. Instead, he demands the wealthy pay more. That’s it. That’s his grand plan for getting the country moving again. A more harmful and negative campaign has surely never been waged.
Nearly every day there are new signs that the country may topple into recession. Today we read that retail sales fell 0.5 percent in June – the third consecutive monthly downturn. That hasn’t occurred since the fall of 2008, when the country was paralyzed with fear over the financial crisis. Think of that; consumers are reacting today just as they did when it looked like the world was coming to an end. That says volumes – about the tone set by the White House, the confidence this president has inspired in our citizenry, and about his inability to lead the country forward.
…
The people of the United States deserve better. We need a cheerleader and advocate. We do not need our president hoping to ignite anger and envy against our most productive citizens. We need to extend the Bush tax cuts, undertake serious tax reform and all the other issues – immigration, education, infrastructure investment, entitlements reform – that have been sidelined as President Obama focuses on being reelected.
While the President will not see his comment as a gaffe - after all, he is only speaking from his own deeply held beliefs - this is another major turning point that will damage the President's campaign. He might want to continue to press the meme of class warfare, to demonize the wealthy (and Mitt Romney in particular), to make a base play for the 50% of Americans who don't pay any taxes, and appeal to those captured in the government's quicksand of dependency - but this statement is so contrary to fundamental American values that it will ultimately turn even a number of those who are dependent on the government.
They will also, I believe, see the complete vapidity and fallacy around the standard arguments being made to excuse the President's telling comment - with the efforts to point out the exceptions to the rule and using those examples, like Obama's effort to use the DARPA development of the Internet, as proof that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other internet conglomerates only got where they are because the government built the Internet.
The government might have built the Internet. But it took entrepreneurs, visionaries, and risk takers from the private sector to build the powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Amazon, etc which took that basic foundation and turned it into so many jobs and so much wealth creation.
This election is about a very simple choice - Are we a people who exist to serve the government? Or are we a people who has a government that is in place to serve us and help protect our inalienable rights? If you believe in the former, then you will be voting for President Barack Obama and his continued expansion of the power and reach of the government. You will be voting for liberal fascism and a version of socialism. And with your vote for socialism, remember this...
'Socialism - Ideas so good that they have to be mandatory'
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
FLASH - Obama's FY2013 Crashes and Burns in Senate - UPDATED
In March, the House of Representatives unanimously rejected the President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget by a vote of 0-414.
Earlier today, in the US Senate, the President's FY 2013 budget was unanimously rejected by a vote of 0-99.
This is a clean sweep rejection of the President's fiscal plan - as it failed to garner a single vote in either the House or Senate.
It is also the second year in a row where the Senate has unanimously rejected the President's budget - as it voted down the President's FY2012 budget by a vote of 0-97.
The Senate, which has not passed a budget in over 1,115 days, will be holding votes on 4 GOP budget proposals - the result of the GOP Senate leadership forcing the Harry Reid Senate to hold votes on a budget. None of these plans are expected to get the 51 votes needed to pass.
The Senate is comprised of 51 Democrats, 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 47 Republicans.
Majority Leader Reid is on record as saying that he has no intent to offer a Democrat budget from the Senate before this November's election - continuing the unprecedented case of the Senate not passing a budget for over 3 years.
UPDATE -
The House passed budget bill authored by Representative Paul Ryan was defeated in its Senate vote by a margin of 41 - 58. Five Republicans joined the Democrats in voting against this budget - at least one of whom voted against it because it did not go far enough to address the current fiscal challenges.
Republican Senator Pat Toomey's budget proposal was defeated 42-57, as were 2 other Republican proposed budgets - each gaining unanimous Democrat votes to reject.
Earlier today, in the US Senate, the President's FY 2013 budget was unanimously rejected by a vote of 0-99.
This is a clean sweep rejection of the President's fiscal plan - as it failed to garner a single vote in either the House or Senate.
It is also the second year in a row where the Senate has unanimously rejected the President's budget - as it voted down the President's FY2012 budget by a vote of 0-97.
The Senate, which has not passed a budget in over 1,115 days, will be holding votes on 4 GOP budget proposals - the result of the GOP Senate leadership forcing the Harry Reid Senate to hold votes on a budget. None of these plans are expected to get the 51 votes needed to pass.
The Senate is comprised of 51 Democrats, 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 47 Republicans.
Majority Leader Reid is on record as saying that he has no intent to offer a Democrat budget from the Senate before this November's election - continuing the unprecedented case of the Senate not passing a budget for over 3 years.
UPDATE -
The House passed budget bill authored by Representative Paul Ryan was defeated in its Senate vote by a margin of 41 - 58. Five Republicans joined the Democrats in voting against this budget - at least one of whom voted against it because it did not go far enough to address the current fiscal challenges.
Republican Senator Pat Toomey's budget proposal was defeated 42-57, as were 2 other Republican proposed budgets - each gaining unanimous Democrat votes to reject.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
What side of the fence are you on?
Which side of the fence are you on?
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a Democrat is down and out, he wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a Democrat doesn't lake a talk show host, he demands that those he doesn't like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a Democrat is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it,
or may choose a job that provides it.
If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
If a Democrat reads this, he will delete it because he's "offended".
Some observations from Thomas Sowell that fit with this....
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a Democrat is down and out, he wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a Democrat doesn't lake a talk show host, he demands that those he doesn't like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a Democrat is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it,
or may choose a job that provides it.
If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
If a Democrat reads this, he will delete it because he's "offended".
Some observations from Thomas Sowell that fit with this....
"Since this is an era when many people
are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?"
"There are few talents more richly
rewarded with both wealth and power, in countries around the world, than the
ability to convince backward people that their problems are caused by other people who are more advanced."
"Weighing benefits against costs is the
way most people make decisions — and the way most businesses make decisions, if
they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost,
however large."
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Breaking News - Rick Santorum to Suspend Presidential Campaign
Rick Santorum is scheduled shortly to make an announcement from Gettysburg, PA where he will announce that he will suspend his campaign for the GOP Presidential nomination.
Fox News will be streaming the announcement live here...
This decision comes from Rick Santorum after reviewing his options and considering the future path towards the GOP nomination - including a critical primary on April 24th in his home state of Pennsylvania.
Rick Santorum had taken a few days off campaigning earlier this week as his daughter Bella was readmitted to the hospital.
Rick Santorum was a candidate was not a favorite or a frontrunner last summer as the GOP Presidential campaigns kicked off. He focused his campaigning on a small format basis in Iowa - surprising the field with a win in that state. As Newt Gingrich slipped, Rick Santorum ultimately became the primary challenger to the Mitt Romney candidacy - and in early February, scored wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri to jump to the lead.
However, Romney fought back hard - winning in Michigan and Arizona to stop the Santorum momentum. While Santorum also performed well in the south, winning Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana - Romney's win's in Ohio and Illinois combined with his own 'hat trick' one week ago today, put Rick Santorum in a huge hole in terms of both delegates and momentum going into Pennsylvania.
By many accounts, Rick Santorum did a strong job rehabilitating his political career during this campaign effort - reversing the 16 point defeat he suffered in 2006 seeking reelection as a Senator from Pennsylvania. However, many also raised issues that by Santorum remaining in the race - and the turning of the tide against him in Pennsylvania (where a double digit lead has evaporated) - could damage the rehab if he lost to Mitt Romney in his home state.
The majority of the GOP has wanted to start unifying behind the nominee for President - and this has led to calls for both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to step down as they have a near impossible task to gain the 1,144 delegates needed for the nomination.
Evangelical Christians and hard right conservatives have been hesitant to support Mitt Romney - concerned about his positions and policies being conservative enough - but last week's primary showed for the first time that Mitt Romney was starting to get support from these groups.
This will allow the GOP to focus on their main goals for the November election - 1) Maintaining the majority in the House, 2) gaining the majority in the Senate, and 3) defeating Barack Obama for the White House.
Fox News will be streaming the announcement live here...
This decision comes from Rick Santorum after reviewing his options and considering the future path towards the GOP nomination - including a critical primary on April 24th in his home state of Pennsylvania.
Rick Santorum had taken a few days off campaigning earlier this week as his daughter Bella was readmitted to the hospital.
Rick Santorum was a candidate was not a favorite or a frontrunner last summer as the GOP Presidential campaigns kicked off. He focused his campaigning on a small format basis in Iowa - surprising the field with a win in that state. As Newt Gingrich slipped, Rick Santorum ultimately became the primary challenger to the Mitt Romney candidacy - and in early February, scored wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri to jump to the lead.
However, Romney fought back hard - winning in Michigan and Arizona to stop the Santorum momentum. While Santorum also performed well in the south, winning Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana - Romney's win's in Ohio and Illinois combined with his own 'hat trick' one week ago today, put Rick Santorum in a huge hole in terms of both delegates and momentum going into Pennsylvania.
By many accounts, Rick Santorum did a strong job rehabilitating his political career during this campaign effort - reversing the 16 point defeat he suffered in 2006 seeking reelection as a Senator from Pennsylvania. However, many also raised issues that by Santorum remaining in the race - and the turning of the tide against him in Pennsylvania (where a double digit lead has evaporated) - could damage the rehab if he lost to Mitt Romney in his home state.
The majority of the GOP has wanted to start unifying behind the nominee for President - and this has led to calls for both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to step down as they have a near impossible task to gain the 1,144 delegates needed for the nomination.
Evangelical Christians and hard right conservatives have been hesitant to support Mitt Romney - concerned about his positions and policies being conservative enough - but last week's primary showed for the first time that Mitt Romney was starting to get support from these groups.
This will allow the GOP to focus on their main goals for the November election - 1) Maintaining the majority in the House, 2) gaining the majority in the Senate, and 3) defeating Barack Obama for the White House.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Outlook for the 2012 Campaign
"The campaign is underway and it could be the dirtiest in the nation's history" - Bill O'Reilly
I cannot disagree with this at all.
This could be one of the last chances for the progressive / hard left ideology in the US to maintain power in order to 'fundamentally change' this country - to 'redefine the relationship between the American people and the Federal Government' in a manner that erodes freedom, liberty, and the concept of limited government.
Already in this campaign we are seeing all stops being pulled by the Administration and their ideological partners to:
We thought 2004 and 2008 were bad? Or the 1800 Presidential contest? or the 1860 Presidential contest?
This will be worse because the stakes are so high.
I cannot disagree with this at all.
This could be one of the last chances for the progressive / hard left ideology in the US to maintain power in order to 'fundamentally change' this country - to 'redefine the relationship between the American people and the Federal Government' in a manner that erodes freedom, liberty, and the concept of limited government.
Already in this campaign we are seeing all stops being pulled by the Administration and their ideological partners to:
- encourage and faciliate campaign finance fraud
- encourage and facilitate voter fraud
- manipulate media / tapes / facts to promote and encourage racial politics
- blatantly lie, mispresent, and distort data and facts to promote a pro-Administration meme
- a complete double standard towards conservatives and progressives
- Domestic and foreign policies defined and determined by politics / political factors
- those who put politics and what's good for the party ahead of what's good for the country
- a willful ignorance and contempt towards law and the Constitution
- a willingness to damage the country in order to support a political meme
- a willingness to savage and demonize those who speak out against the Administration
We thought 2004 and 2008 were bad? Or the 1800 Presidential contest? or the 1860 Presidential contest?
This will be worse because the stakes are so high.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
GOP Presidential Primary Contests - March 13, 2012 - UPDATED
Today brings the GOP Presidential primary / caucus contests in the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Hawaii in addition to the US territory of American Samoa.
The two southern states represent an interesting bell weather for the three main GOP Presidential candidates.
Newt Gingrich, who won on Super Tuesday in his home state of Georgia but otherwise did poorly, needs a very strong performance (ie WIN) in each of these contests in order to have a viable candidacy for the nomination.
Rick Santorum, hopes to have momentum from his win in Kansas, to do well with the traditional / religious conservatives that he counts on. He trails significantly in the delegate count and needs a large gain in delegates to keep his mathematical hopes alive.
Mitt Romney is calling these races an 'away game' - his way of saying that his expectations are to be competitive in the popular vote and delegate counts - but is not expecting a win in the south after being blasted for months as a 'Massachusett's moderate'.
Polls still have not closed in these contests, but exit poll information highlighted on The Drudge Report is showing that Alabama is a close fought battle between these three candidates while Romney appears to be on the path for a win in Mississippi.
This post will be updated as the results come in.
UPDATED 8:20 PM PDT
Rick Santorum is the winner in both Alabama and Mississippi - all major media outlets call both of the major Southern primaries for Santorum.
2nd / 3rd place in both Alabama and Mississippi are still close to call between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul finishes a very distant 4th place.
Alabama was the first state called - and at this hour, with 88% of the precincts reporting, Rick Santorum has 35% of the vote, Newt Gingrich as a 1,400 vote lead for 2nd place (29%) over Mitt Romney (29%), and Ron Paul has just 5% support.
Mississippi was a closer race called just before the 8:00PM PDT hour. With 97% of the precincts reporting, Rick Santorum has 33% of the vote (88,127 votes), Newt Gingrich 31% (83,391) is in 2nd, Mitt Romney is currently in 3rd place, 30% (80,864 votes), and Ron Paul in a distant 4th with 4% of the vote.
Romney is expected to do well in the contests in American Samoa (9 delegates) and Hawaii. Last week he won all of the delegates from the caucuses in Guam and the territory of the Northern Marianas. I suspect that he will also do well in Hawaii.
Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have very challenging paths to the GOP nomination based on the way the delegates have fallen so far. While both have a mathematical chance to get the 1,144 delegates needed for the nomination, the odds of doing so become more and more distant each week.
Rick Santorum continues to insist that if Newt Gingrich drops out of the race he has the ability to defeat Mitt Romney for the nomination - but with all due respect to the candidate, he's getting far too whiny about this - and his whinging about both the Romney campaign and the candidate is starting to turn people off considering Santorum as a valid candidate.
Newt Gingrich is no better either. He seems locked on putting his own personal ego before the best interests of the GOP with his insistence to stay in the race to the convention - and fighting at the convention.
The process thus far has not really damaged the GOP - despite the pontification of the progressive mainstream media pundits - but both of these candidates could damage the party to the point that they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if they continue down the path they are taking.
Analysis Update:
Tonight was a good night for Rick Santorum. He needed to do very well with the conservatives in the South - and did. He also gains some momentum for his case that the conservative vote needs to be consolidated in order to stand against Romney. However, that point also depends a lot on the mindset of Newt Gingrich. Santorum has whittled away some of Romney's momentum from Super Tuesday with Kansas and now Alabama / Mississippi - but with the proportional allotment of delegates, he will not make huge inroads on Romney's delegate lead.
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand did not have that good of a night even with 2 2nd place finishes. The former speaker needed to win both of these contests - and was not able to do so despite being a 'favorite son'. However, as evidenced by an interview he is giving now on FNC, his ego is such that he will not step back. He doesn't see a real path to the nomination at this point via the electoral / delegate process for himself - but seems intent to try to force the issue at the convention if possible - and doing all he can to ensure that Romney is a damaged candidate if he is the nominee. Hubris and ego seem to be the main driver for the former Speaker - and that reflects very poorly on Gingrich.
I don't think either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich are electable on a national / general election basis - and nothing from either of them tonight has changed that viewpoint. Many seem to think the same way as well - in Mississippi's exit polls, regardless of whom they voted for 49% of those who did vote believe Romney is the most electable of the GOP candidates.
Mitt Romney could have gotten a real additional momentum jump with even just one 'road win'. He did not get a win in either state, but made the race extremely competitive and close. Exit poll results show that Romney did very well with those who felt that 'electability' was the biggest issue they were facing. That's Romney's big advantage - and this point will be crucial as the primary season continues.
The other big advantage that will pay dividends for Romney is that the majority of his focus and comments on the campaign trail are directed towards Barack Obama and his policies / agenda. His competitors are focusing on running him down with only secondary considerations towards the real target - Barack Obama.
The biggest loser in tonight's southern primaries has to be Ron Paul. He finishes well back in single digits in both contests - far less than he even usually polls at for his 7-9% fringe support. However, like Gingrich, Paul is marching to the beat of a different drum and is not likely to suspend his campaign until he starts to get many more weeks like this one - and even then Paul might just continue on to the convention to see what's in it for Ron Paul.
The race will continue - with these same faces - for the next several weeks. .
The two southern states represent an interesting bell weather for the three main GOP Presidential candidates.
Newt Gingrich, who won on Super Tuesday in his home state of Georgia but otherwise did poorly, needs a very strong performance (ie WIN) in each of these contests in order to have a viable candidacy for the nomination.
Rick Santorum, hopes to have momentum from his win in Kansas, to do well with the traditional / religious conservatives that he counts on. He trails significantly in the delegate count and needs a large gain in delegates to keep his mathematical hopes alive.
Mitt Romney is calling these races an 'away game' - his way of saying that his expectations are to be competitive in the popular vote and delegate counts - but is not expecting a win in the south after being blasted for months as a 'Massachusett's moderate'.
Polls still have not closed in these contests, but exit poll information highlighted on The Drudge Report is showing that Alabama is a close fought battle between these three candidates while Romney appears to be on the path for a win in Mississippi.
This post will be updated as the results come in.
UPDATED 8:20 PM PDT
Rick Santorum is the winner in both Alabama and Mississippi - all major media outlets call both of the major Southern primaries for Santorum.
2nd / 3rd place in both Alabama and Mississippi are still close to call between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul finishes a very distant 4th place.
Alabama was the first state called - and at this hour, with 88% of the precincts reporting, Rick Santorum has 35% of the vote, Newt Gingrich as a 1,400 vote lead for 2nd place (29%) over Mitt Romney (29%), and Ron Paul has just 5% support.
Mississippi was a closer race called just before the 8:00PM PDT hour. With 97% of the precincts reporting, Rick Santorum has 33% of the vote (88,127 votes), Newt Gingrich 31% (83,391) is in 2nd, Mitt Romney is currently in 3rd place, 30% (80,864 votes), and Ron Paul in a distant 4th with 4% of the vote.
Romney is expected to do well in the contests in American Samoa (9 delegates) and Hawaii. Last week he won all of the delegates from the caucuses in Guam and the territory of the Northern Marianas. I suspect that he will also do well in Hawaii.
Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have very challenging paths to the GOP nomination based on the way the delegates have fallen so far. While both have a mathematical chance to get the 1,144 delegates needed for the nomination, the odds of doing so become more and more distant each week.
Rick Santorum continues to insist that if Newt Gingrich drops out of the race he has the ability to defeat Mitt Romney for the nomination - but with all due respect to the candidate, he's getting far too whiny about this - and his whinging about both the Romney campaign and the candidate is starting to turn people off considering Santorum as a valid candidate.
Newt Gingrich is no better either. He seems locked on putting his own personal ego before the best interests of the GOP with his insistence to stay in the race to the convention - and fighting at the convention.
The process thus far has not really damaged the GOP - despite the pontification of the progressive mainstream media pundits - but both of these candidates could damage the party to the point that they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if they continue down the path they are taking.
Analysis Update:
Tonight was a good night for Rick Santorum. He needed to do very well with the conservatives in the South - and did. He also gains some momentum for his case that the conservative vote needs to be consolidated in order to stand against Romney. However, that point also depends a lot on the mindset of Newt Gingrich. Santorum has whittled away some of Romney's momentum from Super Tuesday with Kansas and now Alabama / Mississippi - but with the proportional allotment of delegates, he will not make huge inroads on Romney's delegate lead.
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand did not have that good of a night even with 2 2nd place finishes. The former speaker needed to win both of these contests - and was not able to do so despite being a 'favorite son'. However, as evidenced by an interview he is giving now on FNC, his ego is such that he will not step back. He doesn't see a real path to the nomination at this point via the electoral / delegate process for himself - but seems intent to try to force the issue at the convention if possible - and doing all he can to ensure that Romney is a damaged candidate if he is the nominee. Hubris and ego seem to be the main driver for the former Speaker - and that reflects very poorly on Gingrich.
I don't think either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich are electable on a national / general election basis - and nothing from either of them tonight has changed that viewpoint. Many seem to think the same way as well - in Mississippi's exit polls, regardless of whom they voted for 49% of those who did vote believe Romney is the most electable of the GOP candidates.
Mitt Romney could have gotten a real additional momentum jump with even just one 'road win'. He did not get a win in either state, but made the race extremely competitive and close. Exit poll results show that Romney did very well with those who felt that 'electability' was the biggest issue they were facing. That's Romney's big advantage - and this point will be crucial as the primary season continues.
The other big advantage that will pay dividends for Romney is that the majority of his focus and comments on the campaign trail are directed towards Barack Obama and his policies / agenda. His competitors are focusing on running him down with only secondary considerations towards the real target - Barack Obama.
The biggest loser in tonight's southern primaries has to be Ron Paul. He finishes well back in single digits in both contests - far less than he even usually polls at for his 7-9% fringe support. However, like Gingrich, Paul is marching to the beat of a different drum and is not likely to suspend his campaign until he starts to get many more weeks like this one - and even then Paul might just continue on to the convention to see what's in it for Ron Paul.
The race will continue - with these same faces - for the next several weeks. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)