First polls close within minutes.
I just left pollwatching in Precinct 22 located in Sanford, FL. Ruby was in charge of that precinct and really knew her stuff. Everyone working the polls were committed to getting every eligible voter through efficiently. Obama was on top of everything--two lawyers were there when I arrived. They weren't needed, but it was nice to see that his massive organization was on top of things. We will not see a repeat of 2000.
I am happy to have been a part of history. Nothing to do now but wait.
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Friday, November 16, 2007
Analysis of the Presidential Race
First the Dems. It's go-time for Obama and Edwards. They are within the margin of error or close to it of Clinton's lead in Iowa. If Obama or Edwards win Iowa, they can carry the momentum into N.H., and it will also ruin her aura of inevitability. If Clinton wins Iowa, it will be near impossible to stop her train. My money is still on Clinton, but it is not the sure thing it was two weeks ago.
By the way, it's a three-way race. The others (Biden, Gravel, Kooky, even Richardson) are already done for.
The GOP race is far, far more interesting. There is essentially a five-way race happening. The latest polls in Iowa show Romney and Huckabee. Rudy leads nationally, including the big states and the swing states, but none of the early states. Folks, this is a big deal. No prez has lost all three early states (IA, NH, and SC) and gone on to win the primary. What happens here effects the other states. This time in 2003, Dean was the sure thing. In California, he was leading in double-digits over his rivals. Kerry was under 5%.
But after New Hampshire, the numbers pratically reversed in Kerry's favor.
If Rudy loses the first three, I can promise you it will change the dynamic of the race. This is what Romney is counting on.
If not Rudy, who? I don't think Romney will be able to pull it off. He has poured tons of money (most of it, his own) into Iowa and New Hampshire, but he can't buy his way into this. For the rest of the nation: he trails badly. Yes, the Mormon question is somewhat of an issue, which is unfortunate. (You think conservatives would give a break to a religion that is completely American.) However, it is much more the fact that he flip-flopped on every major issue: gay rights, stem cells, guns, and abortion. People can't stand a panderer--Rudy was wise not to follow his footsteps on that matter.
Thompson is a dud. He is rejected by Dobson and many cultural conservatives--and if he doesn't have them, then what's the point? That's why he entered the race! Anyways, he is sinking fast. He waited too long to get in, and he certainly hasn't impressed anyone.
I was willing to write off McCain, but is actually rising. He is now leading in South Carolina and rising in New Hampshire. You could argue he retooled his campaign, but frankly, this is more a dissatisfaction with Rudy/Romney than anything else. I predicted long ago he would win because he is the establishment candidate. He was supposed to take the path of Bob Dole: Prove yourself electable, then prove yourself loyal. There were more worthy opponents of Bill Clinton in 1996, but it was Bob Dole's turn. So he got the nod in 1996.
McCain proved himself in the 2000 election, then became loyal (to a fault) to W. It was his turn, and Bush turned over the key to his apparatus. The problem is that McCain was originally liked because of his independent streak, and now he is seen as Bush's lapdog. He was the biggest cheerleader for Bush, the war, the surge, and immigration reform. None have proved popular.
The darkhorse in the GOP race is Huckabee. He is leading in Iowa or coming in second depending on the poll. He was a popular Southern governor, and a Baptist minister. He would be palatable for most social, religious, and economic conservatives.
The problem is he can't catch a break.
First, Robertson endorsed Rudy to the chagrin of Huck supporters. How a thrice-divorced, gay supporting, taxpayer-funded abortion proponent got the nod is more of a desperate attempt by Robertson to stay relevant than anything else. (Didn't he agree with Falwell that people like that caused 9/11??)
The second blow came from the national Right to Life. It has a large core of grass-roots volunteers who could have really helped Mr. Huck instead of blowing it all on Thompson. Ironically, they actually said "I heart Huckabee" was much better with their core issue, since he opposes all abortion instead of just saying it should be determined by the states like Thompson. Nonetheless, they went with Thompson because he was more "electable".
Yeah, the GOP race is much more fun to watch. I'm taking bets...
By the way, it's a three-way race. The others (Biden, Gravel, Kooky, even Richardson) are already done for.
The GOP race is far, far more interesting. There is essentially a five-way race happening. The latest polls in Iowa show Romney and Huckabee. Rudy leads nationally, including the big states and the swing states, but none of the early states. Folks, this is a big deal. No prez has lost all three early states (IA, NH, and SC) and gone on to win the primary. What happens here effects the other states. This time in 2003, Dean was the sure thing. In California, he was leading in double-digits over his rivals. Kerry was under 5%.
But after New Hampshire, the numbers pratically reversed in Kerry's favor.
If Rudy loses the first three, I can promise you it will change the dynamic of the race. This is what Romney is counting on.
If not Rudy, who? I don't think Romney will be able to pull it off. He has poured tons of money (most of it, his own) into Iowa and New Hampshire, but he can't buy his way into this. For the rest of the nation: he trails badly. Yes, the Mormon question is somewhat of an issue, which is unfortunate. (You think conservatives would give a break to a religion that is completely American.) However, it is much more the fact that he flip-flopped on every major issue: gay rights, stem cells, guns, and abortion. People can't stand a panderer--Rudy was wise not to follow his footsteps on that matter.
Thompson is a dud. He is rejected by Dobson and many cultural conservatives--and if he doesn't have them, then what's the point? That's why he entered the race! Anyways, he is sinking fast. He waited too long to get in, and he certainly hasn't impressed anyone.
I was willing to write off McCain, but is actually rising. He is now leading in South Carolina and rising in New Hampshire. You could argue he retooled his campaign, but frankly, this is more a dissatisfaction with Rudy/Romney than anything else. I predicted long ago he would win because he is the establishment candidate. He was supposed to take the path of Bob Dole: Prove yourself electable, then prove yourself loyal. There were more worthy opponents of Bill Clinton in 1996, but it was Bob Dole's turn. So he got the nod in 1996.
McCain proved himself in the 2000 election, then became loyal (to a fault) to W. It was his turn, and Bush turned over the key to his apparatus. The problem is that McCain was originally liked because of his independent streak, and now he is seen as Bush's lapdog. He was the biggest cheerleader for Bush, the war, the surge, and immigration reform. None have proved popular.
The darkhorse in the GOP race is Huckabee. He is leading in Iowa or coming in second depending on the poll. He was a popular Southern governor, and a Baptist minister. He would be palatable for most social, religious, and economic conservatives.
The problem is he can't catch a break.
First, Robertson endorsed Rudy to the chagrin of Huck supporters. How a thrice-divorced, gay supporting, taxpayer-funded abortion proponent got the nod is more of a desperate attempt by Robertson to stay relevant than anything else. (Didn't he agree with Falwell that people like that caused 9/11??)
The second blow came from the national Right to Life. It has a large core of grass-roots volunteers who could have really helped Mr. Huck instead of blowing it all on Thompson. Ironically, they actually said "I heart Huckabee" was much better with their core issue, since he opposes all abortion instead of just saying it should be determined by the states like Thompson. Nonetheless, they went with Thompson because he was more "electable".
Yeah, the GOP race is much more fun to watch. I'm taking bets...
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Breaking: We Can't Win in 2008!
Quicknote: This was my fourth recommended post on DailyKos this year. My attached poll showed that thousands were still unaware of this dirty trick, and at least many people made an uproar about this. But to my knowledge, nothing has been organized yet...
Let's nip this in the bud. Let's not blow our best chance at a presidential election by ignoring the smoke coming in the cracks.
Sorry for the dreary title, and sorry to the diarists who posted this earlier, but this needs FAR MORE attention than it's getting. More so than Guiliani's endless pool of past embarrassments, Romney's money, or McCain's self-destruction.
Please help, please spread the word about the California initiative. In the words of Schwarzeneggar's campaign guy, Steve Schmidt, "it would make it impossible for a Democrat to win the White House!" HE IS RIGHT! Which is why need to start organizing NOW!
A right-wing law firm with very deep pockets are working with GOP reps to steal the election by destroying California's winner-take-all system of electoral votes--they would instead be divided per results in each congressional district. This gives the GOP presidential ticket at least 20 electoral votes (because of safe GOP districts) that it wouldn't get UNDER ANY RULES IN ANY OTHER LARGE STATE.
The major swing states would be mandatory for us to win to have a chance. And lest you think this is all for the good of the people in CA to be represented equally--it's not. It's about the GOP winning. Period. Notice that the GOP is not pushing this on any red state. TEXAS, for example, with a GOP governor and GOP legislature, shuns the idea of dividing their votes that might go to the Democratic ticket. No, it's only OK for the people of California. If this was done nationwide, it would be worth discussing. But ONLY California? There's only one reason...
Here is the problem. I Googled this to try to find some organization or some effort to STOP this, and all I found were complaints about it. I didn't find anything organizing to stop it.
Folks, if we are going to beat this, something needs to start NOW! I know, it sucks. Dems have to work to get their candidates elected, guard the election from vote-tampering, and now, stop shady initatives. But that is our lot in life.
I know many people say "wait and see", that it's not worth the effort because its unconstitutional, or they won't collect enough signatures, etc. WRONG!
If you are waiting for the Bush-packed courts, or the Supreme Court, to do the right thing, you will be sorely disappointed. The redistricting in Texas held, as did the shenanigans in the 2000 election. I can tell you the other side has already organized, started fundraising, and will start getting signatures for the ballot. Procrastinating will not make this go away--it will make it worse.
If anyone can tell me of a link to website or group dedicated to stopping this, please let me know.
There were many ideas given, including:
- Contact AG Jerry Brown and have him declare it unconstitutional: http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/contact.php
- Supporting counter initiatives, such as one that can be identical but adds the phrase: "but will not take effect until a majority of states have adopted a proportional system"
- Text networks to spread the word at places gathering signatures for the opposition
- Supporting http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
- Contact the CA Dems, the CA Representatives, organizations like MoveON.org
Let's nip this in the bud. Let's not blow our best chance at a presidential election by ignoring the smoke coming in the cracks.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)