I guess they didn’t have the Acorn-style infrastructure or the SEIU-style goons.
Posts Tagged ‘elections’
Posted by Richard on March 18, 2015
Posted by Richard on November 6, 2014
Judging from yesterday’s press conference, it’s pretty clear what President Obama, our delusional narcissist-in-chief, believes caused the Democrats’ cataclysmic collapse on Tuesday: tens of millions of Americans are dispirited, disheartened, and disillusioned because he hasn’t been able to fundamentally transform America faster, so they stayed home.
Go with that, Democrats.
Posted by Richard on September 18, 2014
The latest Quinnipiac poll of likely Colorado voters must have Republicans cheering. GOP challenger Cory Gardner leads Sen. Mark Udall by 8 points, 48-40%. That’s well outside the 2.8% margin of error. Independent Steve Shogan, who recently began running TV ads, gets 8%. With Shogan out of the race, Gardner’s lead jumps to 10 points (63% of Shogan supporters say they may change their mind, and they prefer Gardner as their second choice by 10 points).
But wait. Three other recent polls have significantly different results:
- The Suffolk/USA TODAY poll gives Udall a 1-point lead, 43-42%, well within its 4.4% margin of error.
- The Myers/Project New America poll has Udall leading 48-46%, within its 2.7% margin of error. PNA is a “progressive” political consulting firm. (By the way, if you want a good laugh, open their press release (PDF) for this poll, scroll to the bottom, and check out where the link to www.projectnewamerica.com really goes.)
- The SurveyUSA/Denver Post poll (9/8-9/10) shows Udall leading 46-42%, with a 3.9% margin of error.
Three of the polls show Udall with significantly higher negatives (from 47-50%) than Gardner (from 36-42%). Even Myers has Udall’s negatives slightly higher at 43% versus Gardner’s 39%. This surprises me, considering that I’m seeing about a bazillion highly negative anti-Gardner ads a day.
According to the Secretary of State’s August voter registration numbers (PDF), active voters’ party affiliation is approximately 35% Independent, 33% Republican, and 31% Democrat. The Suffolk sample mirrors that almost exactly. The other three slightly undersample Independents. Quinnipiac slightly oversamples Republicans, and the other two slightly oversample Democrats.
Of course, turnout is likely to be more important than the party affiliation percentages. Today, most analysts see GOP voters nationwide as more energized/engaged. But the leadership of the stupid party is certainly capable of destroying that advantage.
Posted by Richard on November 6, 2012
My optimism of the past few months was sadly mistaken. I had this gut feeling that, when push came to shove, the majority of Americans would choose freedom, opportunity, and growth over entitlement, redistribution, and stagnation. I was wrong. Voters have chosen to emulate the sinking ship that is Europe (to borrow a metaphor from Dennis Prager).
If the President sticks by his campaign promise to continue doing what he’s been doing, the best-case scenario is that the United States will become France. The worst-case scenario is that we’ll become Greece.
I predict bull markets in guns, gold, and silver.
Assuming that the economy manages to limp along OK for another four years, I’ll be ready to retire around the end of the second Obama term. I don’t look forward to becoming a frail old man living in a major metropolitan area when the monetary system collapses and the social order breaks down. I may have to consider Plan B (“B” for Belize) or Plan C (“C” for Costa Rica). Assuming they don’t confiscate my wealth if I try to leave the country.
Posted by Richard on November 4, 2012
Michael Barone, one of the more astute observers of the political scene, doesn’t think the election will be all that close. He’s predicting that Romney will carry North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and will end up with 315 electoral votes.
I hope he’s right, but it’s all going to depend on turnout. If you’re in one of those states (and you’re not a socialist), I sure hope you’ve voted already or are definitely going to vote. For Romney, of course.
If you’re in some state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, I encourage you to vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
But if you’re in one of these “swing states,” don’t do something that may help move us further toward a stagnant socialist future.
Posted by Richard on November 4, 2012
Gallup has compiled demographic data on 2012 likely voters (sample size 9424, margin of error 1%), and in most respects the electorate is essentially unchanged from 2008. The only exception is party identification. The electorate this year is significantly more Republican (and leaning Republican) and less Democratic (and leaning Democratic). Here are the numbers:
Of course, state-by-state distributions matter. But basically, it looks to me like success for the Romney campaign depends on getting their supporters to the polls.
It concerns me a bit, therefore, that I’m still getting robocalls from both the Romney campaign and the RNC urging me to vote. I cast my ballot a week ago, and they should know that and stop wasting time on me.
Posted by Richard on July 30, 2012
The narratives of the left:
The strategy of the left: Throw whatever excrement you can come up with against the wall and hope something sticks.
Posted by Richard on July 11, 2012
Eric Holder spoke at the NAACP convention in Houston yesterday, and he railed against voter ID laws:
Attorney General Eric Holder pledged to aggressively fight new voter-identification laws during a speech Tuesday to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which has argued the policies make it harder for minorities to vote.
The Obama administration is arguing before a panel of three federal judges in Washington, D.C., this week that Texas’s new voter law is too restrictive and, under its identification requirements, will make it hard or impossible for poor people to vote.
Hypocrisy alert: In order to get into the convention to report on the speech, members of the media had to present not just press credentials, but a “government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license).”
The Obama administration has been aggressively fighting any and all state efforts to clean up voter registration rolls or require voters to identify themselves at the polls, arguing that these are efforts to “disenfranchise” people. Yes, they are — they disenfranchise dead people, felons, and non-citizens.
Posted by Richard on June 5, 2012
Much earlier than I had expected (less than 2 hours after the polls closed), Fox News projected that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had survived his recall election. NBC, CBS, and CNN soon followed. This is a tremendous victory for the Tea Party movement and a crushing defeat for organized labor and the Socialist Democrats.
Apparently, according to Fox News, earlier projections that the vote would be incredibly close were based on exit polling, and when the vote totals started coming it, it soon became clear that there was a significant difference between the actual votes and what the exit polls predicted. In other words, either many of the people being exit-polled lied, or (much more likely) the exit polling didn’t question a representative sample.
I’m thrilled, but cautiously so. With 55% reporting, Walker leads 57-42. That’s bound to tighten as more of Madison and Milwaukee come in. So I just hope Walker’s margin of victory ends up being big enough to avoid a recount or challenge. Because you know if it’s close, challenger Tom Barrett and the unions will try to pull an Al Franken.
UPDATE: Here’s the biggest laugh of the night. David Axelrod looked at the Obama-Romney numbers from the Wisconsin exit polls and tweeted that “WI raises big questions for Mitt” — shortly before the actual vote totals completely discredited the exit polls.
Axelrod must have also fashioned the Obama campaign’s response. According to Politico, they’re claiming that a “strong message” was sent to Walker. As Joshua Sharf tweeted, these are the folks who said a “strong majority” passed Obamacare. “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”
UPDATE 2: According to the AP, with 97% of precincts reporting, it’s Walker 53%, Barrett 46%. So Walker’s margin of victory tonight is greater than the 5% margin he had in 2010. Woohoo! Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch also beat the recall with 53%.
Oh, and as for the four Republican state senators facing recall — they all won, with 55-61% of the vote.
Does it get any better than this?
Posted by Richard on May 9, 2012
I’m not sure what these things mean, but I suspect they mean something.
In the West Virginia Democratic presidential primary, Keith Judd, a convicted felon imprisoned in Texas, got 41% of the vote in his run against President Obama, who got 59%.
In the Indiana Republican senatorial primary, incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar got 39% of the vote against challenger Richard Mourdock, endorsed by Tea Party groups and the Club for Growth, who got 61%.
So a convicted felon in West Virginia managed a better showing against the sitting president than an incumbent senator in Indiana managed against a Tea Party challenger.
Meanwhile in Wisconsin’s run-up to the June 5 gubernatorial recall election, Democratic voters by a wide margin chose Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett over Kathleen Falk to challenge Gov. Scott Walker, even though Falk had the backing of the labor unions who bankrolled the recall effort and made it possible (and who tried to pressure Barrett, who lost badly to Walker in 2010, into not running).
But here’s what’s interesting: The Democratic primary was hotly contested, while Walker faced no meaningful opposition on the Republican side. Nevertheless, 626,000 Republicans turned out to vote for Walker, despite no compelling reason to do so — almost as many as voted for the four Democratic candidates (665,000). That seems like a good sign for Walker.
Make of all that what you will. Being optimistic by nature, I’m inclined to see these as signs that the American people aren’t ready to emulate France or Greece.
Posted by Richard on May 8, 2012
The French may have embraced socialism, and the Greeks may have embraced default, but Indiana Republicans have embraced Senate challenger Richard Mourdock, who was endorsed by various Tea Party groups and the Club for Growth. Mourdock crushed incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar (dubbed “Obama’s favorite Republican” by Tea Party critics):
With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Lugar had just under 40 percent of the vote to Mourdock’s just over 60 percent.
Playing out in a conservative state, the race illustrated the electorate’s animosity toward many incumbents and anyone with deep ties to Washington. That was clear when Lugar, who hasn’t faced questions about his residency in decades, found himself on the defensive over whether he lived in Indiana or northern Virginia. Lugar also was cast as too moderate for the conservative GOP in Indiana, and he took heat for his work with Democrats on issues such as nuclear nonproliferation, underscoring deep polarization in the country as well as a split in the GOP between the establishment wing and the insurgent tea party.
In a statement, Obama praised his former Senate colleague as someone “who was often willing to reach across the aisle and get things done.”
Yet another sign that the Republican electorate is fed up with the ruling party Republican establishment. And that the Tea Party movement is alive and well.
Posted by Richard on April 10, 2012
The race has been a foregone conclusion for weeks, but Santorum did indicate that the weekend and the illness of his daughter did cause he and his wife to reflect on the race and their responsibility as parents. In defeat he was humble and sincere, and in recapping the race he charted the improbable course of his campaign. For cynics, it was maybe the first speech of his next campaign, an option he leaves open by not fighting to the bitter end and by not making himself a pariah in the race. That he never mentioned Mitt Romney by name or offered congratulations is, well, sadly reflective of a smallness that he revealed from time to time.
Why didn’t he win it? Well, the real question may be how he did so well with virtually no name recognition or money or support at the get go. In part, he won by working his devoted base in Iowa and waiting for others to drop out until he was the the receptacle for the not-Romney voices in the party.
But ultimately his lack of organization, executive prowess (needed to organize a national campaign) and inability to stay on a blue-collar economic message doomed him. He is eloquent but excessively combative. He is well read but condescending toward fellow Americans. He was ultimately his own worst enemy.
Those of us of a libertarian or free-market conservative bent objected to Santorum’s self-described “Big Government conservatism,” history as a spendthrift and pork lover, rabid social conservatism, and comparative disinterest in economic and fiscal matters. In recent weeks, he’s tried to change that, speaking out (sometimes eloquently) more and more about federal spending, regulation, and the financial cliff this country is approaching. But many of us suspected that this was a matter of campaign strategy, not the result of a personal epiphany.
Of course, the same thing could be said about Mitt Romney. Or just about any other prominent politician. Sigh.
Posted by Richard on April 9, 2012
You too can be Eric Holder for a day. Just show up at his polling place on November 6 and say “I’m Eric Holder and I’m here to vote.” James O’Keefe has already shown how easy it is:
In a new video (below) provided to Breitbart.com, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates why Holder should stop attacking voter ID laws–by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s primary ballot. Literally.
The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year–April 3, 2012–and giving Holder’s name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.
The young man then suggests that he should show his ID; the poll worker, in compliance with DC law, states: “You don’t need it. It’s all right. As long as you’re in here, you’re on our list, and that’s who you say you are, you’re okay.”
…As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple–and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws.
Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they’ve also shown people can use celebrity names like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
A few years ago, Hugh Hewitt wrote a book entitled If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat. But in a number of critical precincts, districts, and states, it’s almost always close. And they do cheat.
It’s not just the outcome of a given election. Bad laws that aren’t enforced and can’t be enforced breed cynicism and contempt for our system of justice, and they encourage more law-breaking. Likewise, bad election rules that aren’t enforced and can’t be enforced breed cynicism and contempt for our democratic process, and they encourage more cheating and subversion of that process.
Posted by Richard on March 7, 2012
Hugh Hewitt quoted Romney supporter David Parker as having crunched the numbers and concluded that “there is NO scenario wherein Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, or anyone else other than Mitt Romney can accumulate the needed 1,144 delegates; unless of course that Mitt Romney withdraws, which is not likely!” The nut of the argument:
… With proportional allocations and 851 of 2,286 delegates having been through the primary/caucus process; Mitt Romney has won nearly 50% (he has also won 14 of 22 states), Rick Santorum has won about 19% and Gingrich has won about 12%. From another vantage point, Mitt has to win approximately 50% of the remaining delegates, Santorum and Gingrich have to win approximately 70% and 73%, respectively. …
Those numbers, if correct, don’t quite mathematically eliminate Santorum and Gingrich, but they sure make Romney’s eventual victory highly likely.
I suppose I’m OK with that. I’ve expressed before my strong dislike for Santorum’s big-government social conservatism. And Gingrich strikes me as narcissistic, unpredictable, and too clever by half (as demonstrated by his partnering with Nancy Pelosi on the issue of “climate change,” for instance).
Ideally, I’d like to see the Republicans nominate someone with a Reaganesque vision of a brighter future, not just a competent executive to “manage the decline,” in Gingrich’s memorable phrase. But, like many people today (most, I hope), I’ll settle for someone who can defeat Obama — and who’ll hopefully have a majority in both houses of Congress, where people like Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan can provide the vision.
Posted by Richard on January 10, 2012
In their quest for the Republican nomination, it seems these “conservatives” will embrace any idea in order to attack another candidate. The latest is an assault on capitalism… yes, capitalism! What’s next? Supporting higher taxes and bigger government?
As noted in a story on CNSNews.com, GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is under attack by his fellow opponents, namely Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Why, you ask? Because Romney ran Bain Capital, which would restructure and reorganize companies in order to make them profitable. In doing so, everything that would be involved in saving a company was on the table: selling assets, trimming work staff, modernizing… you name it.
Oh the horror of it all! Gingrich and Perry are blasting Romney for not relying on the government, not going for corporate bailouts, but rather, for handling corporate woes in the private sector.
In National Review, Jay Nordlinger writes, “The last two presidential election cycles have revealed a stinking hypocrisy in conservatives: They profess their love of capitalism and entrepreneurship, but when offered a real capitalist and entrepreneur, they go, ‘Eek, a mouse!’ And they tear him down in proud social-democrat fashion.”
I’m not writing this column as a Romney supporter. I too would prefer someone more conservative. But in this race, the so-called conservatives are sure NOT sounding conservative to me. They are blasting Romney for engaging in capitalism. They are hounding him for turning companies around. That was his job, and apparently, he was good at it.
I said there’s no Reagan in this Republican field and no clearly best choice. The “conservative alternatives to Romney” have been making themselves less and less palatable to me.
Ron Paul is great on economic and fiscal issues and on the size and scope of the federal government, but he has some serious flaws: (1) that unfortunate association with the Lew Rockwell paleo-libertarians, (2) flirtations with 9/11 Trutherism and Bilderberger/CFR conspiracy theories, and (3) a dangerously mistaken and ignorant view of the Islamofascists.
I hate to say it, but Romney is beginning to look like the best (or least bad) that the GOP can offer this year.