No Great Loss Without Some Small Gain
I love that old saying because it is very true. It especially is true when applied to politics. In the ashes of defeat are sown the seeds of victory. When you lose as a party or ideology it is so tough to get back on your feet and continue the battle. For me personally, the lag between the election of a Democrat president and when they take office is the worst. November 4 to January 20 seems like an eternity right now. I want Obama to be inaugurated so we can start counting down the days.
But back to the saying, Karl Rove has a piece in today's Wall Street Journal that all Republicans should read and learn well. He looks forward to 2010 and even handedly views the prospects of the party. He makes a clear case that the GOP can recover and reassert itself but only if it takes the job seriously and makes good decisions going forward.
"In a sign Mr. Obama's victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).
In the states this year, five chambers shifted from Republican to Democrats, while four shifted from either tied or Democratic control to Republican control. In the South, Mr. Obama had "reverse coattails." Republicans gained legislative seats across the region. In Tennessee both the house and senate now have GOP majorities for the first time since the Civil War."
Somehow the fact that the GOP held its own at the state level and for instance had bright spots such as Tennessee seems to have been missed by the old media. Rove then has more good news:
"The 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states."
So Republicans keep your collective chins up. Things WILL get better.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Not All Left-Wingers Are Nuts
There is a simply outstanding article today in Salon by Camille Paglia. It is about two weeks late but still makes for very interesting reading.
It seems rather obvious to me that Paglia intentionally waited till now so that there would be no chance of any problem for Barack Obama resulting from her piece.
Paglia is a leftist of unquestioned credentials and policy positions but she is very unusual in that she also sees events and people as they are not through some rose colored fog of what she wants them to be.
The most remarkable statements involve William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, and Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Paglia also continues to defend Sarah Palin and insists that Palin is intelligent and highly capable.
You really need to click the link above and read the whole thing.
There is a simply outstanding article today in Salon by Camille Paglia. It is about two weeks late but still makes for very interesting reading.
It seems rather obvious to me that Paglia intentionally waited till now so that there would be no chance of any problem for Barack Obama resulting from her piece.
Paglia is a leftist of unquestioned credentials and policy positions but she is very unusual in that she also sees events and people as they are not through some rose colored fog of what she wants them to be.
The most remarkable statements involve William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, and Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Paglia also continues to defend Sarah Palin and insists that Palin is intelligent and highly capable.
You really need to click the link above and read the whole thing.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
RedState Has Become A Joke
I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was less than thrilled with a certain well known website. As promised I held my fire until the election was past. Now its past. It is time now for straight talk no matter who it offends.
redstate.com is a joke. A bad joke. Almost nothing about it is useful or professional. A site as poorly ran and edited as redstate.com is a liability to conservatives and Republicans. I don't plan to spend much time on this so let's cut to the facts.
1. The "managing editor" of the site posted on the "front page" that Republican Congressman Tom Cole "is a douchebag". Within hours he had to retract his comments because in fact the terrible sin that he had accused Cole of was bogus. Several things wrong with this: Bitterly attacking a conservative Republican without checking his facts. Using gutter language at all and especially toward an ally. No professionalism and no class.
2. Just days ago "the editors" came out and endorsed two Democrats running for congress from Alaska against Don Young and Ted Stevens. Why did Ethan Berkowitz and Mark Begich rate an endorsement from redstate.com? Because "the editors" are idiots. It apparently never occurred to "the editors" that if Begich were elected he would serve 6 years, but if Stevens were elected he'd serve maybe 6 months. Stevens is a convicted felon and the Democrats are going to hound him all over hell's half acre until he "retires". Gee....I wonder who might end up taking his place?
3. During the financial institution meltdown when the old media was all atwitter about the economic crisis, redstate.com headlined the same story. Day after day we had to read about how awful everything was and how uncertain the future was/is. The is analogous to a liberal blog constantly drawing attention to William Ayers or Americans born in Kenya. It was just absurd.
RedState stepped up several years ago and was a force for good. Now it is pathetic and not much use to anyone.
I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was less than thrilled with a certain well known website. As promised I held my fire until the election was past. Now its past. It is time now for straight talk no matter who it offends.
redstate.com is a joke. A bad joke. Almost nothing about it is useful or professional. A site as poorly ran and edited as redstate.com is a liability to conservatives and Republicans. I don't plan to spend much time on this so let's cut to the facts.
1. The "managing editor" of the site posted on the "front page" that Republican Congressman Tom Cole "is a douchebag". Within hours he had to retract his comments because in fact the terrible sin that he had accused Cole of was bogus. Several things wrong with this: Bitterly attacking a conservative Republican without checking his facts. Using gutter language at all and especially toward an ally. No professionalism and no class.
2. Just days ago "the editors" came out and endorsed two Democrats running for congress from Alaska against Don Young and Ted Stevens. Why did Ethan Berkowitz and Mark Begich rate an endorsement from redstate.com? Because "the editors" are idiots. It apparently never occurred to "the editors" that if Begich were elected he would serve 6 years, but if Stevens were elected he'd serve maybe 6 months. Stevens is a convicted felon and the Democrats are going to hound him all over hell's half acre until he "retires". Gee....I wonder who might end up taking his place?
3. During the financial institution meltdown when the old media was all atwitter about the economic crisis, redstate.com headlined the same story. Day after day we had to read about how awful everything was and how uncertain the future was/is. The is analogous to a liberal blog constantly drawing attention to William Ayers or Americans born in Kenya. It was just absurd.
RedState stepped up several years ago and was a force for good. Now it is pathetic and not much use to anyone.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Deja Vu
Just about exactly two years ago I held forth on why the Democrats were successful in THAT election. In a three part piece I laid out a hypothesis on how the American voting public is segmented. I identified 7 groups of voters:
A. Republicans
B. Republican Leaning Independents
C. Right of Center Independents
D. Independents
E. Left of Center Independents
F. Democrat Leaning Independents
G. Democrats
I then explained how I think those 7 groups act in various election conditions:
"A & G stick with their party through thick and thin and each group constitutes about 35% of all voters. These two segments also tend to vote in fairly high and consistent numbers. They are true believers and take ever opportunity to vote their beliefs.
Segments B & F don't consider themselves as members of either party but effectively they function as such. They also tend to be regular voters but tend to vote in higher number when their side seems to be on the upswing. They only vote for the other side in extreme cases such as McGovern or Goldwater. I assign them each roughly 5% of the voting public.
Segments C & E are much different animals. Their natural tendencies are toward the Right or Left but they are not wedded to partisan ideals to enough of an extent that it outweighs other considerations. Issues such as a war going badly, corruption, or incompetence can cause these two segments to swing over and vote for the "other" party.Segments C & E tend to vote much heavier when their side is doing well. They get discouraged easily and just throw in the towel and don't bother voting. Dukakis largely lost the E's. Bush 41 lost the C's in 1992. Kerry lost the E's. Gore and Bush probably came out about even. Perot got a bunch of both of them in 1992, not nearly as many in 1996. These two segments each represent about 5% of all voters.
Our last segment is D and these are the true independents. Accounting for about 10% of the voting population they generally have no use for either party. They are largely upper middle class and above in income and education. They are not interested in "family values" as such. Economics, social justice, the environment, and libertarian principles tend to drive various sub-groups of this segment.This segment is highly volatile and swings heavily from one election cycle to the next. They vote sporadically depending on how bummed out they are by things in general. Various sub-groups of this Segment loved Ross Perot and/or Ralph Nader. The last president they really got behind was Reagan although Clinton did fairly well with them. "Doing well" with independents entails not just winning their favor but actually energizing them enough to come out and vote."
Obviously in 2008 again the two edge groups A&G voted for their party. as we move toward the middle (of my grouping not necessarily the political spectrum) the B-C & E-F groups also went their normal way. Thus even in a terrible year for Republicans, John McCain and Sarah Palin got 46% of the vote.
Where I suspect McCain lost the election was in the very middle, the D group. Barack Obama excited this segment like no candidate has. Ever. The good news for Republicans is that if (when?) Barack Obama makes a few stumbles this will be the first group to desert him. The bad news for Republicans is that Barack Obama just won a 4 year term as President of the United States.
Just about exactly two years ago I held forth on why the Democrats were successful in THAT election. In a three part piece I laid out a hypothesis on how the American voting public is segmented. I identified 7 groups of voters:
A. Republicans
B. Republican Leaning Independents
C. Right of Center Independents
D. Independents
E. Left of Center Independents
F. Democrat Leaning Independents
G. Democrats
I then explained how I think those 7 groups act in various election conditions:
"A & G stick with their party through thick and thin and each group constitutes about 35% of all voters. These two segments also tend to vote in fairly high and consistent numbers. They are true believers and take ever opportunity to vote their beliefs.
Segments B & F don't consider themselves as members of either party but effectively they function as such. They also tend to be regular voters but tend to vote in higher number when their side seems to be on the upswing. They only vote for the other side in extreme cases such as McGovern or Goldwater. I assign them each roughly 5% of the voting public.
Segments C & E are much different animals. Their natural tendencies are toward the Right or Left but they are not wedded to partisan ideals to enough of an extent that it outweighs other considerations. Issues such as a war going badly, corruption, or incompetence can cause these two segments to swing over and vote for the "other" party.Segments C & E tend to vote much heavier when their side is doing well. They get discouraged easily and just throw in the towel and don't bother voting. Dukakis largely lost the E's. Bush 41 lost the C's in 1992. Kerry lost the E's. Gore and Bush probably came out about even. Perot got a bunch of both of them in 1992, not nearly as many in 1996. These two segments each represent about 5% of all voters.
Our last segment is D and these are the true independents. Accounting for about 10% of the voting population they generally have no use for either party. They are largely upper middle class and above in income and education. They are not interested in "family values" as such. Economics, social justice, the environment, and libertarian principles tend to drive various sub-groups of this segment.This segment is highly volatile and swings heavily from one election cycle to the next. They vote sporadically depending on how bummed out they are by things in general. Various sub-groups of this Segment loved Ross Perot and/or Ralph Nader. The last president they really got behind was Reagan although Clinton did fairly well with them. "Doing well" with independents entails not just winning their favor but actually energizing them enough to come out and vote."
Obviously in 2008 again the two edge groups A&G voted for their party. as we move toward the middle (of my grouping not necessarily the political spectrum) the B-C & E-F groups also went their normal way. Thus even in a terrible year for Republicans, John McCain and Sarah Palin got 46% of the vote.
Where I suspect McCain lost the election was in the very middle, the D group. Barack Obama excited this segment like no candidate has. Ever. The good news for Republicans is that if (when?) Barack Obama makes a few stumbles this will be the first group to desert him. The bad news for Republicans is that Barack Obama just won a 4 year term as President of the United States.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Noble or Mean?
That appears to be the choice we have tomorrow. Abraham Lincoln's quote that appears at the top of this blog is as relevant today as it was 145 years ago. A vote for Barack Obama in my opinion is a vote for nothing more than empty promises and destruction of the American Dream. A vote for John McCain means we keep moving forward with the struggle for a better life on this planet. Some final comments before the decision is made.
I believe the polls have wandered off the statistically valid reservation this year and have become part of the story instead of neutral bystanders. Certainly we should know by late tomorrow evening whether I and many commentators with whom I agree are right or deluded.
If the turnout is as massive as "they" say it is going to be, I think that is good for McCain and indicates that it is not just the Democrats who are motivated to vote. Since I also suspect that young and "new" voters won't show up as the media and the Barack Obama campaign are assuring us they will, a large turn out overall is again a good thing for McCain-Palin.
Sarah Palin has invigorated the GOP base as no one since Ronald Reagan and again I take that as a major sign that points toward an upset win for McCain.
The IBD poll continues to show a very close race, within the MOE and with Barack Obama well below 50%. Given that IBD nailed the 2004 margin better than any other pollster, one has to take their numbers very seriously.
So here we are. Will America move harshly to the left or surprise the experts and only move slightly left square into the middle?
My prediction for what it is worth comes down to one state. Pennsylvania. Whoever wins the Keystone State, wins the election.
Go vote my friends and may God continue to bless America.
That appears to be the choice we have tomorrow. Abraham Lincoln's quote that appears at the top of this blog is as relevant today as it was 145 years ago. A vote for Barack Obama in my opinion is a vote for nothing more than empty promises and destruction of the American Dream. A vote for John McCain means we keep moving forward with the struggle for a better life on this planet. Some final comments before the decision is made.
I believe the polls have wandered off the statistically valid reservation this year and have become part of the story instead of neutral bystanders. Certainly we should know by late tomorrow evening whether I and many commentators with whom I agree are right or deluded.
If the turnout is as massive as "they" say it is going to be, I think that is good for McCain and indicates that it is not just the Democrats who are motivated to vote. Since I also suspect that young and "new" voters won't show up as the media and the Barack Obama campaign are assuring us they will, a large turn out overall is again a good thing for McCain-Palin.
Sarah Palin has invigorated the GOP base as no one since Ronald Reagan and again I take that as a major sign that points toward an upset win for McCain.
The IBD poll continues to show a very close race, within the MOE and with Barack Obama well below 50%. Given that IBD nailed the 2004 margin better than any other pollster, one has to take their numbers very seriously.
So here we are. Will America move harshly to the left or surprise the experts and only move slightly left square into the middle?
My prediction for what it is worth comes down to one state. Pennsylvania. Whoever wins the Keystone State, wins the election.
Go vote my friends and may God continue to bless America.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Eight Days
That is how much time is left to win this election. The polls are predictably beginning to tighten and I expect them to more or less continue to do so through election day.
Two reasons. First I think that is what will actually happen on the ground as a large portion of undecideds go for McCain. Second, since I think the polls are off in their methods and they know or suspect it, I think they will begin to tighten their "assumptions" to try and cover their posterior(s).
I expect this election to come down to what we always thought it would. Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia. Those are the four states that at the end of the day will make the difference. Of course if Pennsylvania goes to McCain then that makes a huge change in the math.
Several things lead me to have some hope. Ed Rendell seems cranky and worried. Partly this is because he is a smart politician, but it also is likely that he really is concerned.
Early voting was supposed to be our first chance to see the Obama Tsunami in action and so far its been a flat tire.
In my personal experience I am hearing a lot of unease about Obama. Very few are wild about McCain but many are very concerned about the implications of an Obama victory.
Sarah Palin continues to draw huge crowds. I believe there is a vast underground of support for her in some traditionally Democratic friendly demographic groups.
The Bradley/Wilder/Gannt Effect. I think it exists but I have no feel for its size. If it is 2% or more it will have a huge impact. Remember that the BWG Effect involves people telling pollsters they will vote for Obama when in fact they intend to vote for McCain. So if 2 % end up doing this then it would wipe out a 4 point Obama lead. If the Effect is 5% then it would cause a 10 point swing.
This race is very close and as always turn out is the key.
That is how much time is left to win this election. The polls are predictably beginning to tighten and I expect them to more or less continue to do so through election day.
Two reasons. First I think that is what will actually happen on the ground as a large portion of undecideds go for McCain. Second, since I think the polls are off in their methods and they know or suspect it, I think they will begin to tighten their "assumptions" to try and cover their posterior(s).
I expect this election to come down to what we always thought it would. Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia. Those are the four states that at the end of the day will make the difference. Of course if Pennsylvania goes to McCain then that makes a huge change in the math.
Several things lead me to have some hope. Ed Rendell seems cranky and worried. Partly this is because he is a smart politician, but it also is likely that he really is concerned.
Early voting was supposed to be our first chance to see the Obama Tsunami in action and so far its been a flat tire.
In my personal experience I am hearing a lot of unease about Obama. Very few are wild about McCain but many are very concerned about the implications of an Obama victory.
Sarah Palin continues to draw huge crowds. I believe there is a vast underground of support for her in some traditionally Democratic friendly demographic groups.
The Bradley/Wilder/Gannt Effect. I think it exists but I have no feel for its size. If it is 2% or more it will have a huge impact. Remember that the BWG Effect involves people telling pollsters they will vote for Obama when in fact they intend to vote for McCain. So if 2 % end up doing this then it would wipe out a 4 point Obama lead. If the Effect is 5% then it would cause a 10 point swing.
This race is very close and as always turn out is the key.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I have always enjoyed watching "old" TV shows much more than current fare. This becomes more true the older I get.
There are some good and interesting shows on these days but much of the landscape is an utter wasteland. The CSI shows are reasonably good although I think they would be better if they concentrated less on bizarre story lines. The Law & Order shows are good except I can't stand the bozo on Criminal Intent so I never watch that one. The episodes of both of those franchises though, really start to blur and run together after a while.
One show that I find enjoyable and full of some surprises is House. There was an episode a season or two back where House convinced a young girl, who had been raped, to have an abortion. This really annoyed me until I saw a later episode where he again tried to harangue a woman into an abortion. This time however the mother resisted.
This lead to a decision to operate on the unborn baby (which House insisted on referring to as "the fetus"). The woman's abdomen was opened and a female doctor (who had argued against abortion) reached in to get access to the baby. A tiny hand reached out and very lightly grasped her finger. The camera zoomed in on House's face as he stood frozen, eyes locked on that tiny searching hand.
This was as powerful a moment as I've seen on network television in many years. No words were spoken. None were needed. The unmistakable point was made with nothing more than a tiny hand reaching forth from its mother's belly and a look of shock and then dawning realization on the face of a cynic.
There are some good and interesting shows on these days but much of the landscape is an utter wasteland. The CSI shows are reasonably good although I think they would be better if they concentrated less on bizarre story lines. The Law & Order shows are good except I can't stand the bozo on Criminal Intent so I never watch that one. The episodes of both of those franchises though, really start to blur and run together after a while.
One show that I find enjoyable and full of some surprises is House. There was an episode a season or two back where House convinced a young girl, who had been raped, to have an abortion. This really annoyed me until I saw a later episode where he again tried to harangue a woman into an abortion. This time however the mother resisted.
This lead to a decision to operate on the unborn baby (which House insisted on referring to as "the fetus"). The woman's abdomen was opened and a female doctor (who had argued against abortion) reached in to get access to the baby. A tiny hand reached out and very lightly grasped her finger. The camera zoomed in on House's face as he stood frozen, eyes locked on that tiny searching hand.
This was as powerful a moment as I've seen on network television in many years. No words were spoken. None were needed. The unmistakable point was made with nothing more than a tiny hand reaching forth from its mother's belly and a look of shock and then dawning realization on the face of a cynic.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Very interesting post today from DJ Drummond at Stolen Thunder.
DJ is providing some much needed perspective on the various polls this year.
I remain unconvinced that the polls showing Obama up by 3 to 8 points are valid. Pollsters this year seem to have all gone off the tracks to one extent or another. I suspect that they all believe that Obama should be ahead and thus they are to an extent cooking the polls to bring that about.
There are two distinct groups of polls. First there are the media polls done by the networks and major newspapers. These are almost always suspect and I ignore them as useless.
Then there are the other polls done by Rasmussen, Gallup, IBD, Zogby, Battleground, etc, which are from a technical standpoint highly accurate. The problem comes in the various weighting standards that are being used. When Gallup releases not one, not two, but THREE different polling models with large differences in the results, then how sure can anyone be that any of the polling is accurate?
Barack Obama is clearly the most radical major party nominee ever. Sarah Palin is drawing huge crowds, and John McCain keeps fighting. This race is not over yet.
DJ is providing some much needed perspective on the various polls this year.
I remain unconvinced that the polls showing Obama up by 3 to 8 points are valid. Pollsters this year seem to have all gone off the tracks to one extent or another. I suspect that they all believe that Obama should be ahead and thus they are to an extent cooking the polls to bring that about.
There are two distinct groups of polls. First there are the media polls done by the networks and major newspapers. These are almost always suspect and I ignore them as useless.
Then there are the other polls done by Rasmussen, Gallup, IBD, Zogby, Battleground, etc, which are from a technical standpoint highly accurate. The problem comes in the various weighting standards that are being used. When Gallup releases not one, not two, but THREE different polling models with large differences in the results, then how sure can anyone be that any of the polling is accurate?
Barack Obama is clearly the most radical major party nominee ever. Sarah Palin is drawing huge crowds, and John McCain keeps fighting. This race is not over yet.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Circular Firing Squad
The title expresses my opinion of much of the right of center blogoshere these days. As it becomes more probable that Barack Obama will win election to the White House nerves are fraying and splits in the Republican coalition are becoming visible. After eight years of the presidency and control of Congress from 1995-2006 many conservatives have forgotten that the enemy is liberalism not other conservatives.
This in not surprising. The Democrats went through the same process before they finally started getting it together the past several years. This is all a natural part of the movement of the political pendulum.
I post on a certain well known conservative blog. I am a minor weenie of no importance there and post mainly as a way to vent and discuss but am under no illusion that it accomplishes much if anything.
Prior to election day I won't publicly attack the site but afterwards I will make my opinion known. It is currently a cluttered mess. Both the site itself and the way it is ran editorially are disasters.
The way the user interface is arranged is pitiful but it is the weird editorial policies that make the site worthless as a tool to advance conservative thinking. The editors (there seem to be various ones who have varying levels of power) on the one hand might take a position pillorying Republican Congressmen for voting for or against a particular bill but on the other get their panties in a knot because a poster says something "rude" or "politically incorrect".
Thus they try to stir up revolutionary fervor while at the same time erecting silly totems that no one is allowed to dishonor.
While opposition to abortion is an absolute MUST on this site, they also have set themselves up to be gay police, jumping on anyone who suggests that homosexuality is wrong. This approach is untenable. You can't oppose abortion on moral grounds and then deny someone else the right to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.
Of course the editorial policy can certainly follow those seemingly divergent paths but to ban anyone who dares utter a negative word toward gays is to effectively cede the high ground on any moral issue.
And about banning. It is contrary to basic conservative principles to ban someone for disagreeing with you. If your purpose is to only present views that are within a strict range, then require that all posts be approved. Or just don't allow outsiders to post. It is completely understandable for a webmaster to want to present only views XYZ. But if that is your desire don't invite others to participate and then treat them like crap.
The title expresses my opinion of much of the right of center blogoshere these days. As it becomes more probable that Barack Obama will win election to the White House nerves are fraying and splits in the Republican coalition are becoming visible. After eight years of the presidency and control of Congress from 1995-2006 many conservatives have forgotten that the enemy is liberalism not other conservatives.
This in not surprising. The Democrats went through the same process before they finally started getting it together the past several years. This is all a natural part of the movement of the political pendulum.
I post on a certain well known conservative blog. I am a minor weenie of no importance there and post mainly as a way to vent and discuss but am under no illusion that it accomplishes much if anything.
Prior to election day I won't publicly attack the site but afterwards I will make my opinion known. It is currently a cluttered mess. Both the site itself and the way it is ran editorially are disasters.
The way the user interface is arranged is pitiful but it is the weird editorial policies that make the site worthless as a tool to advance conservative thinking. The editors (there seem to be various ones who have varying levels of power) on the one hand might take a position pillorying Republican Congressmen for voting for or against a particular bill but on the other get their panties in a knot because a poster says something "rude" or "politically incorrect".
Thus they try to stir up revolutionary fervor while at the same time erecting silly totems that no one is allowed to dishonor.
While opposition to abortion is an absolute MUST on this site, they also have set themselves up to be gay police, jumping on anyone who suggests that homosexuality is wrong. This approach is untenable. You can't oppose abortion on moral grounds and then deny someone else the right to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.
Of course the editorial policy can certainly follow those seemingly divergent paths but to ban anyone who dares utter a negative word toward gays is to effectively cede the high ground on any moral issue.
And about banning. It is contrary to basic conservative principles to ban someone for disagreeing with you. If your purpose is to only present views that are within a strict range, then require that all posts be approved. Or just don't allow outsiders to post. It is completely understandable for a webmaster to want to present only views XYZ. But if that is your desire don't invite others to participate and then treat them like crap.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
It is about 13 months since I last posted here. Today has held some drama as John McCain has challenged Barack Obama to postpone the Friday debate and go to Washington to work on the economy.
At this point Obama has apparently refused the suggestion. That may just be a fig leaf so there can be "negotiations" that will iron out the problem and Obama thus avoids appearing to follow McCain's lead.
Very exciting times we live in.
Today various polls show Obama in the lead by 1 to 9 points.
The Battleground Poll however has McCain up 2.
The polls this year are playing a lot of games with sample mix. Until I see polls with a reasonable mix that show Obama up, I will continue to think that this race is very tight.
At this point Obama has apparently refused the suggestion. That may just be a fig leaf so there can be "negotiations" that will iron out the problem and Obama thus avoids appearing to follow McCain's lead.
Very exciting times we live in.
Today various polls show Obama in the lead by 1 to 9 points.
The Battleground Poll however has McCain up 2.
The polls this year are playing a lot of games with sample mix. Until I see polls with a reasonable mix that show Obama up, I will continue to think that this race is very tight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)