I thought I would resurrect this blog to put some Election Eve predictions.
National
Obama 53%, McCain 46%, Barr/McKinney/Nader 1%
Electoral College: Obama 353, McCain 185
Senate: Democrats pick up eight seats: Virgina, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Alaska, Oregon and North Carolina. Republicans pick up none, and hold Kentucky. Georgia goes to a December run-off election as neither Chambliss or Martin breaks 50%.
California: Proposition 8, the Gay marriage ban, fails 52%-48%
State
Governor: Gregoire 51%, Rossi 49%
I-985: No 54% - Yes 46%
I-1000: Yes 55% - No 45%
Sound Transit Proposition 1 -No 52% - Yes 48%
WA-8: Burner 53% - Reichart 47%
Thoughts?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ready to Lead... and Liberate Spain
Okay, so we all know John McCain is the experienced one right? He knows what he's doing, he's ready to the job and all that? We also know that everyone has to steer clear of the fact that John McCain is the oldest person to ever run for a first term.
So, judging from this bizarro-world interview with Spain's national radio, John McCain either thinks that Spain is a Latin American dictatorship like Chavez's Venezuela OR John McCain is tired and confused and nearly senile. Anyone want to guess which it is?
So, judging from this bizarro-world interview with Spain's national radio, John McCain either thinks that Spain is a Latin American dictatorship like Chavez's Venezuela OR John McCain is tired and confused and nearly senile. Anyone want to guess which it is?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Why we're in this mess.
Hillary can't run a coherent campaign. She should have won this thing, easily.
Her advisers warred over where to compete or what their message should be. She ignored warnings that she wouldn't do well in Iowa, she went ahead anyway, when she could've taken the McCain route and commanded the race. The divisions in her camp were reminiscent of the early days of Bush's presidency, where unqualified loyalists clashed with seasoned professionals and it was unclear who was setting the agenda.
Foolishly she believed that the nomination would be over by Super Tuesday, while Barack's campaign saw the impending delegate race and opened offices and began organizing in every post Super Tuesday state. She was demolished in February and tried to play it off as if they had no intention of winning in Virginia, Wisconsin, or Washington.
Then her campaign focused on the only states where it looked like she could win. Then when Barack began to close the gap in Texas, she pulled out the 3am ad, which is ridiculously shameless fear mongering. How can a woman who can't control her campaign, who can't control the statements her husband makes in the midst of a national campaign, who can't even steady her own emotions on camera be expected to run the United States of America?
Now she acts as if her recent losses don't mean anything, when she is still far behind, and realistically can't catch up. Her only hope is that she can shame Barack. Make the unflappable young hero of disheartened liberals and disenchanted moderates, lose his cool.
So she'll continue to attack him, make him look bad. Make him appear self important and tacky. She is dividing the democratic base and that could cost the party dearly in November. She doesn't realize that she's beat, and she is going to take this battle all the way to convention, hoping her loyalty among superdelegates help her carry the day.
Of course she claim she has a mandate when she wins in Pennsylvania. She'll claim Barack is unelectable. When Barack wins the nomination, she may just be right he may not be electable anymore, thanks to the damage she's done by running such a poor campaign.
Her advisers warred over where to compete or what their message should be. She ignored warnings that she wouldn't do well in Iowa, she went ahead anyway, when she could've taken the McCain route and commanded the race. The divisions in her camp were reminiscent of the early days of Bush's presidency, where unqualified loyalists clashed with seasoned professionals and it was unclear who was setting the agenda.
Foolishly she believed that the nomination would be over by Super Tuesday, while Barack's campaign saw the impending delegate race and opened offices and began organizing in every post Super Tuesday state. She was demolished in February and tried to play it off as if they had no intention of winning in Virginia, Wisconsin, or Washington.
Then her campaign focused on the only states where it looked like she could win. Then when Barack began to close the gap in Texas, she pulled out the 3am ad, which is ridiculously shameless fear mongering. How can a woman who can't control her campaign, who can't control the statements her husband makes in the midst of a national campaign, who can't even steady her own emotions on camera be expected to run the United States of America?
Now she acts as if her recent losses don't mean anything, when she is still far behind, and realistically can't catch up. Her only hope is that she can shame Barack. Make the unflappable young hero of disheartened liberals and disenchanted moderates, lose his cool.
So she'll continue to attack him, make him look bad. Make him appear self important and tacky. She is dividing the democratic base and that could cost the party dearly in November. She doesn't realize that she's beat, and she is going to take this battle all the way to convention, hoping her loyalty among superdelegates help her carry the day.
Of course she claim she has a mandate when she wins in Pennsylvania. She'll claim Barack is unelectable. When Barack wins the nomination, she may just be right he may not be electable anymore, thanks to the damage she's done by running such a poor campaign.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Mini Super Tuesday Results
*The networks called Vermont for Obama right at the close of the polls. Early returns show Clinton with a lead in Ohio. Fifteen precincts in Cuyahoga county will be open until 9 local time due to inclement weather.
*Clinton seems to have the wind at her back right now, but look for Obama to blunt that later this week by releasing a presumably jaw-dropping fundraising numbers for February and up to 50 superdelegate pledges.
*Hey, this isn't totally sleazy, now is it? This is fun too.
*No matter what happens tonight, we're stuck with this until Pennsylvania.
*The winner of tonight's Democratic contests? John McCain.
*Clinton seems to have the wind at her back right now, but look for Obama to blunt that later this week by releasing a presumably jaw-dropping fundraising numbers for February and up to 50 superdelegate pledges.
*Hey, this isn't totally sleazy, now is it? This is fun too.
*No matter what happens tonight, we're stuck with this until Pennsylvania.
*The winner of tonight's Democratic contests? John McCain.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Mini-Super Tuesday Prediction
Wasn't this supposed to be over by now? With the front-loaded primary season, the nominations should have been settled by now. It worked with the GOP; John McCain is the nominee in all but name. For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama keep on keepin' on. Tomorrow, giant contests in Ohio and Texas, plus primaries in Rhode Island and Vermont. The conventional wisdom is that Clinton must win both big states in order to proceed, and that Obama winning one could cripple her campaign and winning both would kill it.
But, if you read the various polls, it's clear nobody has a freakin' clue what is happening in either state. The two smaller states are somewhat predictable: Obama has a healthy lead in Vermont, and Clinton holds a steady lead in Rhode Island. Clinton opened both Ohio and Texas with huge leads, and has seen them steadily dwindle. Texas is deadlocked, and Ohio is a mess. One poll shows Obama with a one point lead, another shows Clinton with a nine-point lead.
Our prediction? Obama wins Texas in a squeaker and Vermont handily. Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island comfortably. Due to the way the Democrats split delegates, Obama's lead stays pretty much the same. Clinton will feel serious pressure to drop out, but won't until after the Pennsylvania primary in April.
But, if you read the various polls, it's clear nobody has a freakin' clue what is happening in either state. The two smaller states are somewhat predictable: Obama has a healthy lead in Vermont, and Clinton holds a steady lead in Rhode Island. Clinton opened both Ohio and Texas with huge leads, and has seen them steadily dwindle. Texas is deadlocked, and Ohio is a mess. One poll shows Obama with a one point lead, another shows Clinton with a nine-point lead.
Our prediction? Obama wins Texas in a squeaker and Vermont handily. Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island comfortably. Due to the way the Democrats split delegates, Obama's lead stays pretty much the same. Clinton will feel serious pressure to drop out, but won't until after the Pennsylvania primary in April.
Friday, February 29, 2008
No, THOSE are the bad guys!
President Bush thinks it's a bad idea to say hello to bad guys:
This, of course, is in response to Barack Obama's continued statements that he would “never fear to negotiate” with anyone. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that Obama is correct on this. I would set down some pretty stringent conditions to meet with various dictators. My issue is what is the difference between the tyrant in Cuba and the tyrant in say... Saudi Arabia? This stark, black/white split between “with us” and “against us” doesn't serve us well, and it makes US foreign policy even more incoherent than usual.
The Saudis, Uzbekistan (they like to boil people alive) and Pakistan are the good guys. Iran and North Korea are the surviving members of the Axis of Evil. I dare you to figure it out.
Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I’m now recognized by the President of the United States.
This, of course, is in response to Barack Obama's continued statements that he would “never fear to negotiate” with anyone. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that Obama is correct on this. I would set down some pretty stringent conditions to meet with various dictators. My issue is what is the difference between the tyrant in Cuba and the tyrant in say... Saudi Arabia? This stark, black/white split between “with us” and “against us” doesn't serve us well, and it makes US foreign policy even more incoherent than usual.
The Saudis, Uzbekistan (they like to boil people alive) and Pakistan are the good guys. Iran and North Korea are the surviving members of the Axis of Evil. I dare you to figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)