Redstate

...you will be banned from this website. Are we absolutely clear on this?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...the little () and the bit about us being alone.

I was fairly OUTSPOKEN last time, this was very tongue in cheek.

...all clearer.

For stating their opinion?

Good post Moe. But I think that having a "peacenik" in office might not be such a bad thing. Since we have the most powerful army on the planet why should we be going around using it if we don't absolutely have to? I'm all for protecting our interests with military force as necessary, but using it when it is unnecessary is a waste of lives, money, effort, and time.

Having someone in office who genuinely uses the military as "a last resort" could swing a lot of voters who are dissatisfied with the current tab that military operations are running up through our operations in the world.

Unelectable, I don't agree, but I do agree that people will judge him more on his experience (or lack thereof).

But peaceniks tend to be the type of folk that run around with "War is not the Answer" bumper stickers on their cars. They are not "last resort" people they are "no resort" people. A peacenik values peace above all else - including national security and national sovereignty.

If you believe that "war is not the answer" then you are not to be trusted - because the first response the leader of the free world should have to that statement is "well that depends on what the question is." Some questions/problems leave war as the only proper response. And that is not something a peacenik, from what I can tell, is going to believe.

In your specific case. Please excuse me for snapping at you; the topic is a sore spot with me.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...of ACTUAL outrage and accusation.

There's really no way to mistake my "you are a lying liar who lies" moments.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

But if Obama wins its just a confirmation of P.T. Barnum's thoughts about the habits of the American public.

So when I see an add for making millions in the forclosure market followed up by japanese detoxifying footpads, I worry.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The important thing is that Hillary wins, but in the most smoke-filled-room way possible.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Also, I wonder if Richardson will come out for someone. My guess is that it would be Hillary and that would be a good thing for her.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

...at least until after the New Mexico primary.

the other won't "Veep" him.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

And you start to record data that goes against it. Either the data you're seeing is wrong or the model is wrong.

Obama is defying the models. The polls are more wrong than they have ever been.

I have seen Obama's like often enough, slick young guys who have little experience and no comprehension of the damage they can do. They inevitably peter principle out in spectacular fashion. So in this case there is much to worry about.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

They would be both the boon and the bane for Clinton. Yes, they would put her over the top, but it would almost guarantee a fractured party.

Think about it.....why would the rank-and-file Democrats who voted for change in the person of Obama in sufficient numbers to put him right on the edge, respond well to seeing the nominee decided for them by the "establishment." Talk about disillusionment - what's worse then finding out that all of this "voting" is actually a farce and the party bosses will be the ones who pick the nominee in the end?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

But I believe that Hillary wants to be the nominee that something like that takes a backseat to her winning. I would LOVE to see that happen - Hillary winning in the dirtiest way possible.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

The last count I saw had Clinton with 188 endorsements and Obama with 100. Since he has won more formally pledged delegates it is the superdelegates that are providing her lead.

It gets worse. If neither side has more than (say) 1900 formally pledged delegates given that there are 800 superdelegates and 313 from Michigan and Florida who are not to be seated, the battle really goes on.

If Clinton gets chosen because the super-delegates (the "white establishment") vote to seat Florida and Michigan ("change the rules at the last minute") she is going to have real trouble mobilising Black voters.

Of course, if successfully Obama raises the finger to Florida and Michigan, that's not going to help him much either.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

...which is why I am extemely frustrated with so-called conservatives who want Obama to win the nomination. The down ballot races are where Hillary will the GOP the most.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

We can beat Sen. Obama. I'm not actually impressed with his bandobast: which is not to say that I'm unimpressed with it, either, just that the true test of it takes place tomorrow. Which, comes down to it, is the hallmark of Obama himself: he's a force-grown hothouse flower plucked out of Illinois politics and thrown into the mill (to thoroughly mix the metaphor). If he survives tomorrow the next three months will easily be the most miserable of his life, and it will be instructive to watch his reaction to it. And we'll be taking notes, should he manage to beat Clinton.

All that being said, having Senator Clinton [as the nominee] will be useful in resolving the status of various and sundry House seats currently in possession of first term Democrats.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

We can't beat Obama.

Our only hope at this point is McCain vs. Hillary.
That I can see winning.

Obama would handily crush whomever the GOP chooses at this point.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Just for fun if you want....I'll wager you a $20 donation to RedState that Obama beats Hillary in Missouri.

Deal?

It's not like you haven't seen me in action. It was dismissive, but what did you expect? There's a point beyond which we're-all-doomed isn't helpful anymore. Great, we're doomed. Good to know. So step out of the way and let the people with the lances get to work charging the windmills.

As to your suggested bet, let me put it this way: since the birth of my child, that amount's a week's pay for me. And no, I'm not exaggerating. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...our a Southern Democrat version of Biden.

...it will be annoying to watch Crissy Matthews slobber all over those two for 8 months.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Chris will be a dehydrated shell of a man by November.

Wouldn't that be the end of McCain in the Republicans who are actually Republicans camp?

Understand that the only thing that matters is the War On Terror, no?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Repubicans who are actually Republicans understand that the only thing that matters is the War On Terror, no?

I don't think that's a very sizable group you are talking about there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And I don't think he's got any interest in being anybody's VP.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

But a southern Democrat version of Biden might pack a punch.

Or maybe someone like Ed Rendell or Bill Owens.

If he is merely not dumb (that is, picks someone "respected" if unexciting) I see him winning after a tough slog. If he picks the heavy hitting equivalent of a Dick Cheney...

Man. Start your diaries about how we need to run Jeb Bush in 2016 now.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Assuming McCain finishes off Romney I will be saying this for the next several months about both parties: a Senator can't pick another Senator as a running mate. It was stupid when Kerry did it and it would be stupid now, except maybe if it was a Hillary-Obama ticket, which might be necessary for party unity.

With public approval ratings for Congress in the 20s, doesn't it make sense for a Senator to take a running mate from outside the Beltway?

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

What about a Congressman? I've seen lots of RedStaters mention some fine GOP congressmen or women for VP slots. I think a Rep is even less appealing than a Senator. They are still members of Congress so you still have that problem. Plus, no matter how popular they might be, they aren't likely to help you carry an entire state.

in 1960?

Turned out that JFK needed Texas as well as some Southern votes. I believe Mississippi was key in that 1960 election along with the 10,000 votes Mayor Daley found in Chacago....

If McCain is the nominee (and I think he will be) then Obama certainly and Hillary probably would pick a Senator who had some kind of military background/experience/cred. In that case Webb would be a reasonable choice, since he would bring Virginia and maybe a few other Southern States, Tennesse, Georgia, etc, to the Democrat side in the general, states which otherwise they have no chance for.

Webb has remarked that he is the only statewide elected official in Virginia who has "a union card, two Purple Hearts and three tattoos". This is the John Edwards demographic which John E, ironically, was not able to win -- the class warfare, pro-military, patriotic Democrats.

I don't expect the Democrats and certainly not Obama to be smart enough to pick Webb, however.

...newcomer (even more so than Obama), which is why, though his demographics are correct, I don't think he'll get the nod. It'll more likely be someone with two or three congressional terms under their belt, caucasian, and from as close to the mason/dixon line as possible.

and FWIW, LBJ won that election by stealing votes in Texas.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

For a party that displays little consistency and less sanity in its policies the Democrats have admirable consistency in their methods.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...lately?

If you wish to change the topic thats fine.

But to go back pensylvania 2006 and NJ 2006 are rather good examples of questionable elections.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That's a statement that asks for documentation. Maybe link "pennsylvania 2006" and "NJ 2006" to articles or something. Not to threadjack or anything. But it seems like the Democratic winners in the top two races in Pennsylvania, for instance, won by 833,000 votes (Rendell) and 698,000 (Casey). Questionable" implies that those two races shouldn't have been victories absent cheating - and that's cheating of epic proportions.

All had seriously out of whack voting practices. I won't even go into NJ's lovely practice of using bars as polling places. Thats a thread unto itself.

In philly especially there were reports of ballot boxes being misplaced wholesale.

I don't understand the concept of its not voter fraud if you think you would have won anyway.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

is a good start. Alaska Governor in '94 probably. Most any election in any Democrat controlled city.

There is a reason the Ds screamed so loudly about alleged Republican voter fraud and nebulous stuff like "vote suppression." Republican constituencies aren't the kind of people who can be bused around and paid to vote early and often. R operatives aren't the kind of people who walk around nursing homes with absentee ballots that they'll be happy to fill out and mail for someone who doesn't know what planet they're on. Whenever the Democrats are accusing the other guy of something, especially if it is patently untrue, you can be sure that they're doing lots of that thing.

In Vino Veritas

That one party is entirely composed of people bad faith and venality and their victims, and has never won an honest victory (especially in a city), while the other is right and honorable and pure? That way we know that when one side wins, they must have cheated, and when the other side wins, it's a popular mandate. Makes things simpler.

Isn't it funny that one party always fights to improve polling so its more honest. That same party fights for things like voter ID, proper purging of the voter rolls making certain that voters are voters. The other party seems to only discover that voter fraud is an issue when the first party wins.

I wont even go into the travesty that was election 2000. Why not litigate your way to victory, see if you can get military votes tossed out because they vote for the opposing party.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We Rs have a very limited toolbox. Laundering campaign contributions through businesses is about the only thing we have; we do it, and get caught at it from time to time. The Ds on the other hand have their unions, their Black churchs, their "activist" groups, their hopelessly corrupted voter lists, their complicit public employees who can give them all sorts of lists - I can go on awhile and in great detail because I used to be one and I well know how to count votes until I get them right.

In Vino Veritas

I think I'm done trying to have the fight over whether the Democrats are or are not inherently mendacious election-stealers whose electoral successes are inherently illegitimate, and Republicans are exactly the opposite.

However, I can't help but look at this a little funny:
I can go on awhile and in great detail because I used to be one and I well know how to count votes until I get them right.
Um, really? You took part, as a Democratic activist, in actual outright illegal vote-counting in order to win an election? Apparently I'm not going to the right meetings or the right precincts.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Who were busy buying the votes of bums with cartons of cigarettes and slashing the tires of the all the GOP GOTV vans on election day in 2004. I think they ended up with probation and a small fine for all their misdeeds.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...conspiracy requires silence and MASS conspiracy requires MASS silence, so in a world in which you suggest THOUSANDS of voters are bussed around and told to vote multiple times there should b THOUSANDS of people who could be found and uncovered and paid or cajoled into talking. Go find them and then you'll have a case, but vote early and vote often is, BY FAR, the least effective way to win a modern election because it would leave a trail of witnesses so large as to be unmistakable.

But if you've got some proof that the Alaska Governor's election was stolen due to multi-voting, I'd love to see it written about.

it merely requires unwillingness of law enforcement to investigate it. There are lots of things that are only illegal when the AG or DA is of the other party. Unless the AG or DA is willing to act, allegations of voter fraud are nothing more than rumors stirred by disgruntled losers. Winners mount investigations - or not - and winners write history.

It also doesn't take many people to do it. It just takes a good crew, a good list, and poll workers of your party helps a lot. If there is no ID requirement, and there usually isn't in Blue places, a good crew can vote early and often all over the city.

In the very, very close '94 Gubernatorial election here, the Native Corps strongly backed the Democrat Knowles and had staked some serious issues regarding pending court appeals on his winning. Arctic Slope Regional went so far as to pay voters to go to the polls and there were widespread allegations of impropriety. Of course, it all went away as soon as Knowles took his hand off the Bible and appointed his AG.

By way of demonstration, in the current corruption cases here there is little that wasn't widely suspected or even known, but there was no interest in State level investigation. Even constant formal complaints to the Alaska Public Offices Commission got short shrift, because nobody wanted to deal with it and too many had their hooves in the trough. Only when the FBI got involved for their own reasons not really related to State politics did the whole thing come unraveled.

In Vino Veritas

Mostly because I don't like the idea that something like that could happen here.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

In that case there should be an equal argument that the South Carolina primary was bad.

Mis-figured polls does not get you to the starting gate of a bad election.

In FL 2000 or OH 2004
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

For reasons Joliphant explains...

you might want to drop John Kerry a note about the subject, specifically exit polling and actual results.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...Santa Monice and Venice, which are neither "black" nor "latino", which will go for Obama. And then the Suburbs of San Diego, which are pretty conservative, which will go... who knows.

As I've said too many times, in the non-minority part of the party, this is about age not race or sex.

Those the affluent, predominantly white places that I expect to go for Obama. Unfortunately for him, those types of places do not represent a large percentage of the entire Dem electorate in California.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

...I apologize.

TN will use a modified proportional system. I believe that the only way to take it all in TN is to win at least 2/3 of the vote in the district or state. Given 3 candidates still in it, that's unlikely, so I believe that each district will be a 2-1 split between the top two and the state will have a proportional breakdown between the 3 candidates.

AL will also be proportional in the statewide allocation and will also probably have 2-1 splits in each congressional district (they require a 50% threshhold to take all 3 district delegates).

MA is the only state that uses a straight-up proportional system based only on statewide results (without factoring in any individual CD results).

I believe TN's system is district level proportional that becomes WTA if a candidate carries 50% +1. With three candidates competing in southern states and some residual votes for Thompson I can see it being unlikely that candidates will meet that hurdle in many districts, but the final result becomes difficult to call without district level polling.

In fact district level proportional is very awkward to apportion, as there are only three delegates per district. If all three candidates get over 20% in each district I could see all districts giving one delegate to each candidate. But there are many formulae for proportional allocation. Modified d'Hondt is the best, but with just three delegates it becomes a bit pointless.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

To your comment about how you (and the Democratic establishment) knows better than everyone else. Unless, of course, I missed some notion of sarcasm.

...he's certainly not the Democratic Establishment. Nor even the Republican Establishment.

Of knowing that, particularly after seeing the following in Moe's post...

which means that I (and more to the point, the Democratic Establishment) know that he's ultimately unelectable*

I do not know Moe, and only had this post to go on, which is why I chose to respond the way that I did.

I'm glad that you were able to finally come out with what you meant to say.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I am a disadvantage for not having prior knowledge of the writing style which you employ. I was only responding to you based on this singular post, without knowledge of your political leanings or beliefs, and chose to contribute. It is my hope that you will give me the benefit of the doubt in this matter, rather than resort to further commentary which was obviously meant to elicit a negative response.

Further, I come to Red State to gain a broader understanding of politics at large, rather than rely on blogs and sources with which I happen to have more in common. I believe it is important to see an issue from multiple views in order to form a more balanced opinion on those views.

You obviously have longevity and superiority on this site, and I commend you for that. I would ask, however, that instead of taking offense at what I say, that you keep in mind from where I speak. I mean no disrespect what-so-ever, and look forward to continuing other discussions with you and other members of Red State.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...full of it, on general principles: except that he currently has a better record than I do in reading the tea leaves. I do think that California is - not unpredictable; but obscured - but we'll see.

As to your second paragraph: I didn't say the "leadership." I said the Establishment. And nothing personal, Seth D, but I'd rather that you didn't figure out what I meant until it's too late anyway. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Merely offering a little tweak to your Kremlinology, which I usually admire. I'd be curious to see the names and vote-moving powers that constitute your definition of said Establishment.

You and I can agree on one thing, at least: the race for the Democratic nomination will not in any sense be decided tomorrow.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, personally, as I'm saving my energy for the fall; I'll be the guy in the stands with the popcorn and the pennant that just says "sports," rooting for an interesting game and a long enough night to give me an excuse to be unproductive at work on Wednesday.*

*This may make two things we can agree on.

Mind you, the boy thinks that midnight is a peachy time to go to bed. Can't imagine where he got that idea.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...in that the delegates are awarded on a proportional basis by congressional district, these polls don't give us the whole story. As I laid out earlier, Obama would win the state but Hillary could grab more delegates by virtue of her winning more districts (this is what we saw in Nevada, with Hillary winning the popular vote, but Obama got more delegates). The polls would be a lot more useful if these primaries (on the Dem side) were winner-take-all.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

on this:
The polls would be a lot more useful if these primaries (on the Dem side) were winner-take-all.

Especially given how gerrymandered the districts in CA are, it's pretty difficult to get a reasonable, useful sample size to figure out how they're doing by district. Because CA is so close, we could see either one win the state and get fewer delegates.

I think the same can be said for Republicans in respect to electability. The latest example was Dole. He was "electable" and lost. He wasn't an ideologue so many conservatives didn't feel too bad when he lost.

Jack Bauer For President 2008

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

1. Early voting - one of my ol' hosses is working in Cali now in GOTV. His sense is that the early GOP vote is pretty even, maybe a slight edge to Romney.

2. Call me crazy, but I think all bets are off on Bradley Effects.

If you look at the numbers for each contest so far, Obama has yet to under-perform in any real sense. He got what the polls were giving him just before NH, closing a 10+ point gap from Dec. He closed ~15 points in 2 weeks in Nevada, and blew all the polls out of the water in SC.

Only HRC has underperformed relative to pre-Iowa expectations: In every state but Nevada, arguably (she was well over 40% in NH, pre-Iowa). If anything, we're seeing the birth of an all-new Election phenomenon: The Hillary Effect - whereby a prohibitive frontrunner has built seemingly dominant poll advantages based on fear and name rec, only to have them evaporate before her eyes once her own party realizes they actually have a viable choice as said 'frontrunner' goes about reminding them of why they never really liked her anyway...

And I still think the Mormon thing is a red herring. Mitt just sounds and acts too much like a politician, in the icky sense - a marketing problem in a year like 2008...as for the polls vs. results, I can't really find a discernible pattern for Mitt that says he's getting shorted...

3. Agreed, and i'll double up on the the Hucksters falling in with McCain (2-1 or close to it)once the die is cast tomorrow - but I think Huck's gonna hold his own in the Dirty South...

4. There IS a degree to which many seem just ready to give Johnny Mac his due - i.e, THAT'S making the decision for them; a default setting, if you will...which is curious, since it seems like he's come full circle from this time last year. We flirted with Rudy, Fred, Huck, and Mitt (the Paulists over in the corner flirting with themselves), and in the end we came back to where we started. Ah well - "The devil we know..." and all that. But McCain, to his credit, seemed to be fine with letting go of his frontrunner status - almost like he figured it would come back around if it was really meant to be; like he could take it or leave it.

By contrast, HRC was the default starting out, and has fought the loss of that status tooth and nail, as though she knew that once she lost it, it would be gone for good and she'd be finished. (Hey, darlin', it's OK. We'll give you Teddy's honored seat in our shooting gallery once he hangs it up, so there's something to look forward to if you have to live out your days as a cranky Senator...)

The Dems have their finger poised on the eject button. We'll see tomorrow if they're ready to push it.

5. Way disagree on this one. Obama's ground game, cross-country, is unlike anything we've seen in over 20 years. It's at least twice as big and maybe even better organized than HRC's. When her operation targets and advances a state, they're hard to beat - see NH and Nevada. The problem is, they didn't count on having to target more than 10 states altogether.

Cleverly, Obama's team raided the red states early, knowing Clinton would write them all off, and has ramped up it's blue-state operations impressively in the last month. It has managed to match or beat Clinton's top-heavy network at pretty much every contest, and now it appears to be reaching critical mass at just the right moment. Clinton's McAuliffe Plan has been dangerously exposed and they are spread to thin to cover even half of their bases on Tuesday. Again, tomorrow's results will tell the tale.

Don't even get me started on the media battle. Let's just say the contrasts are striking.

6. Sacrlett - yes. Let's get one of her.

McCain will answer with Debbie Reynolds. Just smile, forward the Youtube to your friends and keep working the phones...

Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny

.... had been secured previous to the onset of obamamania .... resistance was futile back when the inevitability of HRC blotted out the horizon.

... i'm sure the temptation to ride the obama wave will be strong with some of hillary's superdelegates. i'm trying to imagine how much fun it would be to sit down and tell her you've decided to go with Mr. Right Now.