Posts Tagged ‘elections’
Posted by Richard on November 10, 2008
While catching up on Big Lizards, I learned some other interesting things about the election. The first post debunked the myth of a big surge in registrations and new voters. It seems that, for the umpteenth time, media pundits were wrong about this being the year when young people would finally flock to the polls.
According to Dafydd, most of the new registrations (8.7 million out of 10 million) are explained by the population increase since 2004. Of the 1.3 million "extra" registrations, only about 300,000 showed up to vote — 0.2% of the vote (emphasis in original):
Bottom line: New voters, felons, and bums did not impact the vote in any significant way. ACORN failed; Obama won the election not by bringing "new blood" to the voting booth but by doing a better job than McCain at wooing the traditional voter, the guys and gals who always vote.
So if McCain didn't lose because of a surge of new voters, which traditional voters cost him the election? According to Dafydd, it was conservatives. He quoted the Associated Press (which I won't do, since they don't recognize fair use and have threatened those who don't pay them for quotes): according to exit polls, they said, the percentage of voters calling themselves conservative was the same as four years ago.
Dafydd then argued (emphasis in original):
Let's hop aboard my Syllogismobile and go for a ride…
- 34% of voters called themselves "conservatives."
- Of that 34%, 20% voted for Barack H. Obama; that means 6.8% of the electorate both called themselves conservatives and also voted for Obama. (Would that include Christopher Buckley and his ilk?)
- Contrariwise, only 10% of self-dubbed liberals voted for John S. McCain. Conservatives defected at twice the rate of liberals.
- Suppose, just for a giggle, conservatives had only voted for Obama at the same percentage that liberals voted for McCain… in other words, that conservatives were no more likely to defect than liberals. In that case, half of the conservative defectors would have remained loyal, and 3.4% of votes would shift from Obama to McCain.
- According to the most recent quasi-official unofficial tally, the popular tallies for the two nominees were 52.6% for Obama and 46.1% for McCain.
- Switching 3.4% from left to right yields 49.2% for Obama and 49.5% for McCain. (Note McCain number higher than Obama number.)
- Conclusion: Had conservatives defected at the same rate as liberals, instead of twice the rate, then John McCain would have won this election.
Thanks, guys!
That's a bit of over-simplification. It looks only at the popular vote, not the Electoral College — which would make the analysis much more complicated. But as a rough approximation, it sounds about right. It's very likely that Christopher Buckley and those like him elected Obama.
Bill Buckley is spinning so fast in his grave that it may warp the space-time continuum.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: conservatives, elections, obama, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 10, 2008
Dafydd at Big Lizards:
It's a serious question: If a candidate like John S. McCain can be beaten by an empty suit with no experience spouting policies that "seem vague but are in fact meaningless," then what the heck are we supposed to do in order to win next time?
Surprisingly enough, I'll tell you what we should do. So there.
It's a long, thoughtful, and comprehensive post, covering both general strategic principles and tactical specifics. There's no way to summarize it or condense it into a few excerpts. You really need to read the whole thing. Especially if you have any influence (local or national) in the Republican Party.
I think he's spot on.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, gop, politics, republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 10, 2008
Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr got half a million votes. It's not the million-plus his supporters had hoped for, or the 922,000 that Ed Clark got in 1980 (the Libertarian high-water mark). But it's the second-best Libertarian showing, besting Harry Browne's 485,000 in 1996 and Ron Paul's 431,000 in 1988.
According to Newsmax, Barr is pleased with his showing. And it looks like he cost McCain North Carolina:
When The Associated Press declared Obama the winner in the state, he had a 13,693-vote edge over McCain. By then Barr had already tallied more than 25,200 votes in North Carolina, according to the Boston Globe.
Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, is thought to have siphoned far more votes from McCain than from Obama.
No Democratic presidential candidate had won North Carolina since Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976.
For a time, Barr was also the difference in Indiana. With almost all precincts reporting, he had 1.1 percent of the vote while Obama had 49.9 percent and McCain had 49 percent. In the end, however, Obama totaled 50 percent, McCain 49 percent, and Barr 1 percent.
“This is just the beginning of the new Libertarian Party,” Barr said in a statement.
“In these next four years, there will be an even greater need for a political party fully dedicated to lower taxes, smaller government, and more individual freedom — a voice for liberty.”
I certainly agree with that! If only the Libertarians didn't have their heads in the sand regarding the Islamofascist enemies of Western Civilization.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: barr, elections, libertarian party, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 5, 2008
The moon has set. The night is dark.
This would be a good time to bury the guns and gold. Just in case.
I'm just sayin'.™
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, politics | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 5, 2008
Not everyone is feeling gracious, magnanimous, and conciliatory. For instance, there's John Derbyshire:
All right, I'm sour. The most liberal member of the U.S. Senate! And that shakedown-artist of a wife, with the permanent frown! And Joe Biden! …
I'm sour about the GOP too. What did it all get us, those 8 years of pandering and spending? If GWB had turned his face against from new entitlements, closed the borders, deported the illegals, held the line on calls to loosen mortgage-lending standards, starved the Department of Education, and declined those invitations to mosque functions, would the GOP be in any worse shape now?
What won this election was the packaging skills of David Axelrod, the swooning complicity of the media, the ruthless opportunism of Barack Obama, and the unprincipled thuggishness of his supporters.
What lost this election was the cloth-eared cluelessness of George W. Bush, the timid squeamishness of John McCain, and the deep lack of interest in conservative principles among Republican primary voters.
Sour? You bet I'm sour. Where was conservatism in this election? Where was restraint in government? Where was national sovereignty? Where was liberty? Where was self-support? And where are those things now? Where are they headed this next four years? Down the toilet, that's where. Pah!
Funny thing: I can relate to Derbyshire's bitterness, while at the same time sharing the magnanimous thoughts and good feelings of Potemra and Goldberg. I guess I'm experiencing a mixture of happiness (about the historical significance) and dread (about what the future holds).
I know one thing: the next gun show will be crowded.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, obama, politics | 4 Comments »
Posted by Richard on November 5, 2008
They're on a roll at The Corner. Is this a great country, or what? Mike Potemra at the corner of 125th Street and Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard in Harlem:
The scene was Congressman Charlie Rangel's block party celebrating the election of Barack Obama. People of all races and ages were there on this mild Manhattan evening, and they were in a festive mood even before the big news was announced. American flags abounded; a platform preacher repeated "God bless America, God bless America."
Why was I, a John McCain voter, there? A bit of personal history. I was born in 1964, and on the day I was born the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Prince Edward County in Virginia had to reopen its public schools. The county had closed the schools because they decided it was better to have no public schools at all than to have to admit black kids into them. Here we are, just 44 years later, with an African-American president, a president elected with the electoral votes of that very same Commonwealth of Virginia.
I voted for John McCain because I admire him immensely as a person, and agree with him on many more issues than I do with Senator Obama. And I ask a rhetorical question: Can we McCain voters, without embarrassment, shed a tear of patriotic joy about the historic significance of what just happened? And I offer a short, rhetorical answer.
Yes, we can.
Amen. It's significant and it's special and it's rather moving. At least for those of us who've been around for, say, fifty-odd years and are thrilled by how things have changed.
(But I still wish the first African-American president were Condi Rice. That would have been a twofer!)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, emotions, obama, politics | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 5, 2008
A most gracious and classy concession speech. And a soaring and elegant victory speech. Both quite moving.
Good job, gentlemen.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 5, 2008
Jonah Goldberg:
Look, I expect to be one of the most severe critics of the Obama administration and the Democrats generally in the years ahead (though I sincerely hope I won't find that necessary). But Obama ran a brilliant race and he should be congratulated for it. Moreover, during the debate over the financial crisis, Obama said that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time. Well, I think we members of the loyal opposition should be able to make distinctions simultaneously. It is a wonderful thing to have the first African-American president. It is a wonderful thing that in a country where feelings are so intense that power can be transferred so peacefully. Let us hope that the Obama his most dedicated — and most sensible! — fans see turns out to be the real Obama. Let us hope that Obama succeeds and becomes a great president, for all the right reasons.
Indeed.™
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, obama, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 4, 2008
Rick Moore said "This is What the Election is All About" (emphasis added):
From Virginia Democrat Representative Jim Moran:
"We have been guided by a Republican administration that believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it, and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth."
Video here. In the socialist world of Moran and Obama, you are not entitled to keep your wealth.
Meanwhile, Black Panthers wielding nightsticks are intimidating voters at Philadelphia polling places.
And Chuckie Schumer is talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
And Barack Obama gives special thanks to the "gracious press".
Moran — that's pronounced "moron," right?
For more about the Panthers confronting and intimidating certain voters, go here and here.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: economics, elections, media bias, obama, politics, socialism | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on November 1, 2008
He's Not My President on 10/31 (emphasis added):
I didn’t say it, Senator Obama did. Speaking tonight at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri, Senator Obama said, near the beginning of his speech: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
…
… fundamentally transforming something (in this case the United States of America) means to markedly change the nature, function, or condition of the foundation or base, forming or serving as an essential component of a system.
So what is it, exactly, that Senator Obama needs to markedly change? What is the foundation or base of the United States of America, the essential component of our system (our government)? I would argue it is the Constitution of the United States of America. But does the U.S. Constitution need to be markedly changed? I would argue, of course it does not. …
I'm a Libertarian and thus not exactly a fan of the status quo. But Obama crowing about "fundamentally transforming" America gives me a chill. When I factor in his 2001 interview in which he regretted that the Supreme Court has failed to "transform" the Constitution by embracing "positive rights" and income redistribution, I become very, very disturbed. This is dangerous stuff.
If you value the Constitution, if you value the founding (fundamental) principles of this country, if you value liberty — hold your nose and go vote for McCain.
Unless you're in a state where it clearly won't matter (like Massachusetts or New York). In that case, do me a favor and vote for Libertarian Bob Barr on my behalf. Regrettably, I can't. Colorado is close, and there's too much at stake.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, obama, politics, socialism | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on November 1, 2008
HillBuzz has some sage advice for Republicans: Don't fall for the three head games the media and the Obama campaign are playing. And don't be an Eeyore:
The same pattern that unfolded during our primaries is happening again, because the media has just one tattered old used playbook (written by David Axelrod, of course), and they have not deviated from it yet. What the media and Obama campaign did, in concert, to Hillary Clinton before every major primary is what they are doing to McCain/Palin now. Here are the top three media/Obama head tricks to watch out for in the last days before the election.
If you, collectively, can keep Republicans and other McCain voters from falling for these, we believe there’s nothing Obama can do to win this election. The ONLY way McCain loses is if you Eeyores allow the media to keep you from the polls.
Read the whole thing.
I was pleased to see that something I'd been thinking regarding one of those head games occurred to them, too. Head game #3 is "Repeated insistance that blacks and young people will decide this election, and they are all going to vote in record numbers for Obama." The unintended consequence of this game that occurred to both of us (great minds think alike) is that:
… the Obamedia’s constant drumbeat that Obama’s so far ahead will, ironically, keep a lot of these people from actually voting — since they think he will win in a landslide without them, and one vote doesn’t matter. “Oh, we meant to vote, but we got, like, busy. And stuff.”
According to a news report I heard last night, in the early voting, young people have (yet again) not turned out in the large numbers predicted by the pundits. So the outcome of this election may depend on this: Will the media trumpeting of an inevitable Obama victory keep more McCain supporters away from the long lines on election day or more Obama supporters?
HillBuzz summed up:
It’s all a head game, a fake out. All of this talk about Obama being ahead is just garbage the Obamedia shovels to make you give up and sit home so Obama can win. That’s what breeds Eeyores. And Eeyores giving up and staying home is why Hillary Clinton won Indiana by only 1% when she should have won it by 9%. It really is as simple as that.
So, heads up out there — if you can get Rush to talk about this stuff on air, it would do Republicans a world of good. Make as many people see the media for what they are — a paid extension of the Obama campaign — as humanly possible, keep your heads up, and let’s put another crack in the glass ceiling by making Sarah Palin the nation’s first female Vice President, while putting a good and decent man we trust behind the Resolute Desk where all of us Democrats know he’ll work effectively with Senator Clinton and other Democrats to fix our economy, create good jobs, and make America energy independent for good.
If we work hard, we will win.
Check out other recent posts at HillBuzz — they've been blogging up a storm. For instance, they say "Pennsylvania’s Democrats voting for McCain will decide this election," and think this flyer being widely distributed in Pennsylvania is significant. And there's this update — the Obama campaign has been charging the press thousands of dollars for backstage access (isn't it interesting that none of the national news organizations shaken down like this thought it was worth reporting). Now they're holding an illegal lottery offering a chance at similar access to contributors!
I've been so impressed by the work being done by HillBuzz that I donated $100. You can donate, too, right on the home page.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, mccain, media bias, obama, politics, polls | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on October 31, 2008
Last night, ABC's Nightline featured another attempt to smear Gov. Sarah Palin. But I think they made a strategic mistake. They interspersed their reports of purported anonymous McCain campaign insiders purportedly criticizing Palin for going "off the reservation" in recent appearances with actual footage of Palin speaking at those appearances.
I thought she was great in those clips and cheered what she said. I suspect I'm not the only one who had that reaction.
If the McCain-Palin campaign emerges victorious (which the less-rigged polls suggest is a real possibility), I think much of the credit belongs to Sarah Palin.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, mccain, media bias, palin, politics | 6 Comments »
Posted by Richard on October 30, 2008
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (research arm of the National Taxpayers Union) compared the campaign platforms of the U.S. Senate candidates in Colorado, Nebraska, and New Mexico, and assessed the fiscal impact of their promises. In the Colorado race, Mark Udall's promises are far more expensive than Bob Schaffer's:
In preparing the study, NTUF reviewed the candidates' campaign Web sites and news reports to find any proposals that would impact the federal budget. Cost estimates come from a variety of independent sources, including Congressional Budget Office reports and data from NTUF's BillTally cost-accounting system, which since 1991 has computed a net annual agenda for each Member of Congress based on their sponsorship of bills. Among the findings:
- Udall has offered 54 proposals that would affect federal spending – 25 of which would increase annual outlays, three of which would decrease expenditures, and 26 of which have unquantifiable fiscal effects — for a net annual spending hike of $55.3 billion.
- Schaffer has offered 41 budget-related items — nine of which would boost annual federal spending, three of which would cut it, and 29 of which have costs that could not be calculated – for a net annual spending hike of $5.8 billion.
In fact, of the six candidates in the three states analyzed, Mark Udall is by far the biggest spender. The runner-up, at $25 billion, is New Mexico Democratic candidate Tom Udall. Maybe it's something in the DNA.
The most frugal of the six is New Mexico Republican candidate Steve Pearce, with a net increase of only $345 million.
I suspect that most of the estimates significantly understate the true cost. Many of the campaign promises have a fiscal impact judged "unquantifiable." I strongly suspect that "unquantifiable" is not "costless" — not by a long shot.
The analyses for all six (in PDF form) are linked on this summary page.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, elections, fiscal policy, politics, senate | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on October 29, 2008
Speaking of media bias, would a major metropolitan newspaper withhold from the public material evidence regarding the character, beliefs, and associations of a presidential candidate? It's happening right now, according to Andrew McCarthy:
Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor … who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.
Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.
Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?
Do we really have to ask?
So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.
The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.
Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?
McCarthy excerpted at length from the "gentle story" about the event that the Times published in April and put that information into perspective. Read the whole thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, journalism, media bias, obama, politics | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on October 28, 2008
Top technology writer Michael S. Malone is upset by what's happened to his profession:
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.
You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. …
… I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.
So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.
…
Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.
Read the whole thing. There's much more, and Malone has an interesting theory on who's to blame and what motivates them.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, journalism, media bias, politics | 1 Comment »
