Redstate

...uses actual oil dredged from the ground in his hair.

Not that there's any proof.

But... just wondering.

I'm very jealous of Mitt's hair. I've got this cowlick thing going on. Surprisingly, people accuse me of having manequin hair also. I've also been called Ken. I'm also a successful executive (nowhere near as rich)....maybe that's why I like Mitt - he's like me, only better.

True story - back in college I worked at a residential treatment facility. My job was basically to physically take down out of control kids. I was watching a kid in our "observation room" and he had been yelling and swearing at everyone. Once I went back there his only insult for me was that I look like a manequin and then he kept calling me Ken...great story huh, okay, back to work.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

...glad to hear it has served you well.

Of course us Vermonters with the republican governer just bus on over to NH to rig their primarys every 4 years. Didnt you know?

I have been saying that to people for a while even on here. Clinton is getting killed and they know it. She missed her chance to run in 2004.

Iowa and NH are pretty good indicators of the nominee on the Democratic side.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

She may lose in the end, but she's far from dead. Do not underestimate the power of a 50-state ground game which can and will play nasty, and the Clinton War Room, which will also play as nasty as it needs to.

Obama is magnetic asnd charismatic and all that. But his organization, while decent, is the proverbial Golden Gloves amateur in the ring with Ali. And he's personally soft. Do you remember what happened when Maureen Dowd mentioned his big ears? Yes. Well, you can be darned sure that the Clinton War Room does.

So, this thing is far from over.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Hillary may want to keep going, but this race is all but over. She's training for trench warfare and the electorate is already proving they don't want to see it. They are already spending more than they are taking in.

It is the old gambler's dilemma for Clinton. The more she loses the more she has to bet to get even and the longer it goes the longer the odds.

Donors, endorsements, and delegates are already drying up based on Iowa and it looks as if the beating will be worse in New Hampshire.

A 50 State strategy only works if both candidates are seen as viable and Hillary is looking at losing all the early primaries which will destroy her funds and image.

What exactly can she say to a crowd that has already made "Change" the mantra?

Hillary was the best candidate we could run against, but she has lost this thing.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Staunch, I'm just not gonna get into a long protracted argument defending the chances of the witch against the scarecrow. I neither like nor care about either one. So, let's just agree to disagree.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

"While the better part of me doesn't want to see it, the cynical part of me knows the following will happen: Clinton will do anything and use any tactic to stop Obama between now and the convention. The Democratic Party very well may be in shreds at the end of the process."

My fingers are crossed. :)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Seriously, though, does anyone think the Clintons would do otherwise?

The Rasmussen poll has Romney up among registered Rs by 2 or 3 points. The ARG poll has McCain winning among registered Rs by 4 or 5.

I think Rs will be real close with Romney winning them narrowly. McCain wins overall but more narrowly than the most recent polls predict.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I think you are right to be hoping and praying that we at least keep that many.

"We all share the same goals: clean air and water...safe transportation systems, to name a few of the good things that can come from regulation. " -Fred D. Thompson

If we end up with 41, that means we lost eight. We're definitely losing Virginia. I think there's a prety good chance we lose Colorado, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. Maybe we could drop four where the circumstances are really bad (Alaska, Idaho, etc.) but I doubt it. Plus, the Democrats are going to lose Louisiana.

And with that ray of sunshine...GO MCCAIN!

No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

Both Young and Stevens and their corrupt pork-barreling is losing support. It happened in MT in 2006 and it can happen in AK.

The GOP needs to toss them first, but probably won't.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

And by a large margin too (80% for challengers / 20% for Murkowski). This shows that the Alaskan Republican party is not adverse to kicking the bums out when they start stinking up the place. Hopefully we'll get another Palin like challenger to take care of old Senator tubes for us, otherwise the seat could be in considerable danger.

But unless I missed it, there isn't a Palin in this race.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

And Young and Stevens are a pair of political juggernauts when it comes to Alaska. Stevens far more so than Young, but so long as Stevens wins, Young will too. Only 2 things could lose the election for Stevens against a Dem: indictment; failing health.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

Although "every two years" seems to be the case recently.

I will only note that you did not hear it from me in 2004. 2004 was going to be a close 50/50 election. Thus turnout mattered. Rove nailed it. He though it would be close when people were afraid to challenge Bush. He ran like it would be close and it was close. I thought his analysis was right.

In 2006, a lot of people said "every year we're told we'll lose and we don't." Rs lost. Big time. The polls said it. The enthusiasm gap was real. It was obvious in retrospect.

As of today, we are in 2006 not 2004 right now. Everything is pointing toward a 2006 repeat with 54-56% D which would be 35-40 states for Obama and probably 4-6 Senate seats.

That could change. But as of today, Rs are far behind. Not a couple points. Not a little turnout. But on the edge of a 1984 smackin'.

I don't know who told you "we're doomed before" but if you value my analysis at all, this year (as of today) is the worst position Rs have been in during the time I have paid attention to politics.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

...then I'll get worried (and, clearly, we should be taking preventative steps now whether I'm worried or not: ounce of prevention, and all that). But it's January, and nobody really knows the rules this go-round, and it's traditional to have us be told that the GOP is heading for disaster at this point.

Lemme put it this way. We very well may lose 1-3 seats if we are defeated; but the only way that we'll lose 6 is if we break and run. So let's not panic, because panic is what kills. Metaphorically speaking. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...when his poll numbers were in the tank. Now, he pulling even with Shaheen in many polls. Don't push the panic button 10 months out - that's ludicrous. Every election there is a constant media drumbeat about how the GOP is going down.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

early polling doesn't mean squat? Wow.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Sununu is an incumbent who has beat his opponent before.

VA is over unless there is some major change (and I mean Jesus running type of major change). NH is a hard race but it is winnable. Ditto MN, OR, CO and NM.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

2006 was merely a precurser to the ultimate unseating of the redstate. Its going to be a redcounty when 2009 comes around.

But don't ever change, Sparky.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

and after the holidays, who can't stand to take off a few pounds?

Seriously, however, I'm more concerned about Huck than Hillary, although admittedly Obama does give me pause...

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

"When in danger or in doubt...
Run is circles scream and shout!"

Other than that, you are correct sir.

Heck, even Rasmussen has noticed that the gap in party identification that had been widening towards the Dems is now down to 1/3rd of what it had been.

We're still just in the opening battles. Let's not surrender before the war really gets going.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Gore was up 7 points over Bush in September of 2000? Boy, was I scared then.

And when CNN called Florida for Gore (before the polls had closed in the panhandle)? I had a wave of flash-depression, followed by a wave of ecstasy when CNN reversed itself and declared Florida for Bush.

Don't sweat the small stuff, people.

Americans still don't realize that Obama voted FOR partial birth abortion in the Illinois Assembly and was against DOMA (which Bill Clinton signed) in 1996.

Americans don't yet realize that Obama voted to retain perks like "good time" for convicted child molesters when he was in the Ill. Assembly ("Ill. Ass." for short).

B.O. is a no-go for Globo War on A.Q.

Romney 2008

Conservatives do not have a candidate capable of rallying the base against a ground swell of opposition to the administration of George Bush and deep seated grass roots discontment on any number of issues.

But, the primaries are really about voting for someone, not against someone. So, right now, there are no votes against Obama coming from any source.

But, in the general election, there could well be a ground swell of opposition to an Obama candidacy. The man can only run for so long by doing nothing but saying "change". Sooner or later he is going to get pinned down on a more precise definition of precisely what he means by that. And when he does he will be seen for what he trully is - a very left wing junior senator with no practical experience of any kind at any thing other than organizing disgruntled voters in inner city Chicago.

The only thing that would make an Obama presidency inevitable would be a sharp down turn in the economy or a renewal of violence in Iraq. Both or which remain very real possibilities.

Under the Democratic rules, the delegates for any candidate under 15% get to change to a viable candidate. The Republicans do not have that rule. So, the top candidates in the Democratic caucus will pick up extra votes that the Republican candidates do not. Also, the Republicans simply have more viable candidates, so votes will be spread among more candidates. That said, Republicans do need better turnout.

There's a whole lot of time for people to change their attitudes, and I think once people begin to see that Obama (Clearly Hillary is done.) is a cut-and-run, negotiate-with-terrorist, redefining marriage, tax-raising, universal-healthcare-from-your-paycheck, foreign policy know-nothing, stil-wet-behind-the-ears rookie socialist candidate they will rethink their decision. ...The mania will die away, and reality will set in.

He's made more than one gaff, and in a general election when romanticism faces reality, he'll make plenty more. (Like bombing Pakistan... 'member that one?)

I believe Romney is the Rep choice. Even if he finishes 2nd in New Hampshire.

Given the two choices, I think people will realize they don't want to put a country at war in the hands of a guy with NO experience to speak of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

Contra Mundum is a Turkish phrase for "Us Against The World", right? I have a Turkish friend whose band was named Contra Mundum.

Its Latin. The 'us' is only implied.

MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08

Or it could be that the primarys are being held in New Hampshire where there are more than 500,000 willing dem's ready to vote in a democrat primary. I know its hard to believe given the sparse showing for the redstate... but its pretty passionate here in New England after 8 years of bumbling.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Their was record turnout for the Dums Primaries in 04. These people just are enthused with BDS.

Romney 08

Iraq is a non issue to some. It isn't a non issue to John McCain. Both Obama and Clinton weren't just wrong on Iraq but dead wrong. The war will continue to get better. What will their positions be in September...as soon as I am in office I will pull troops out and insure to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Iraq can be as big an issue as Reps make it. If we had followed what Obama and his Dems had wanted, we would have lost. That may not be that much of an issue now, but it can and should be as the primary election turns into the general election.

George Soros...exactly, 2-3% have heard of him and what would happen if that multiplied ten fold. The Dems did a masterful job of turning Karl Rove into the boogeyman. Why can't the Reps do the exact same thing with Soros? The more people know about him the scarier he sounds. It is the Reps job to get the public to know about him. You think every Presidential political advisor is known as well as Karl Rove or was that what the Dems made...

The race isn't over and Hillary losing in the primary is even better. You think Hillary will just go down and surrender or will she scorch the Earth on her way to defeat. She will bloody up Obama like there is no tomorrow before this thing is over. Hillary doesn't like losing and she isn't going to play nice. Besides, we will see what will happen in the primary, don't underestimate her.

I didn't say anything about Reagan. I said my favorite Reagan quote

the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Apply that to any part of the Dems domestic agenda and turn it into a slogan and there you have it. How does Obama's huge health care plan sound when that quote is applied to it?

Election cycles are fine however 2006 is over. Clinton won 21996 despite getting crushed in 1994.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

But you never know how that will play. Almost universally, the Dems are proposing massive increases in taxes and government and regulation of businesses. If the GOP candidate is smart, it will frame that issue and paint the Dems policies as exactly the wrong thing when the economy is faltering, and only pro-growth fiscal policies (such as the ones the GOP will be running on) will be what the economy needs to right itself.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

What is the R candidate supposed to say? I understand the economy sucks, but President Bush did the best he could? It's not really his fault? In the debates, the only one who expressed any concern at all for the economics of the middle class was Huckabee.

Maybe I'm not thinking it through sufficiently, but it seems that the Republican argument on this will be that whatever went wrong (mumble, mumble, unforseen circumstances, unavoidable, economic cycles, yada, yada), vote for us because it would be worse under the Democrats.

I don't see that as a particularly attractive strategy.

At the very minimum, the Republican candidates are going to have to start acknowledging that people have legitimate concerns about the economy, which they really haven't begun to address.

"My opponent's "solution" to our economic troubles is to raise your taxes. Not only that he/she plans to make our domestic companies less competitive at home and abroad by burdening them with onerous regulations and new taxes - that's a surefire way to export more jobs overseas. Not only that, but he/she plans to increase the size/scope of the federal government and massively expand our already unaffordable entitlement system.

This is the wrong approach. We need to let our citizens keep, spend and save more of their own money in these trying economic times. I will accomplish this with a tax cut for the middle class, as well as tax cuts on savings. Second, I will ensure that our U.S. stay competitive and keep high paying jobs in THIS country by lowering the corporate tax rate and de-regulating business."

...or something to that effect.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Even with the current slow-down, we're still growing at almost 5%. Unemployment is Still UNDER 5%. Home-ownership is Still at RECORD levels. Despite all the screams about mortgages going into default, we're still talking about LESS than 5% of all homeowners defaulting.

Contrast all of this to the '70s and '80s and do it loud.

Acknowledge the '90s for what they were: an anomalous, super-strong economy powered by fundamental changes in how Americans do business.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

Say it often:

The economy was just fine until the Democrats took over congress.

:)

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

shall we point to as the blame? President Bush owned this economy when it was going well. He will still own it next year if it tanks.

and unemployment went up. That's called "demand slopes downward." It's Econ 101. Although the whole rise in unemployment is probably not b/c of the minimum wage increase. However, on the margin, raising the min wage increases unemployment.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I'm having a lot of trouble with the change of the year again. I think I might be getting old.

that applies to what you just said...

if if was a fifty we'd all be drunk

There are a lot of ifs in that comment and it all depends on the level of the ifs. It depends on how much it softens and how quickly. If the economy is still in a downward trajectory in November, that is of course very bad for the Republicans. If on the other hand it has steadied out by then, it is better.

A truly skilled politician can use anything to their advantage. Look at Sarkozy as an example. He ran as the change candidate even though Chirac was from his party. That is rather brilliant I would say.

The Reps need to paint the Dems ideas for what they are no matter what the economy looks like. That said, a soft economy doesn't help the Reps but doesn't have to be the death blow either.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

you say two entirely contradictory things. If they don't get much exposure, then how will they toughen him. The MSM maybe on his side, however they aren't going to ignore what she says. If she starts to sling mud, the media will report on it.

Frankly, attacking Obama will be a lot easier for a Rep to do than Hillary. She would have to make the attacks personal since on policy they have no differences. His record on abortion, to the left of even Planned Parenthood (he once supported a bill that allowed doctors to kill the fetus even outside the womb), illegal immigration, he lead the charge in Illinois for driver's licenses for illegals, and his domestic agenda which is standard big government liberal, and of course, his totally wrong position on Iraq, his wanting to negotiate with Iran, etc. Those positions will be attacked in the general election.

I don't underestimate Obama because charm, chairsma and likeability are important traits, however he is a very weak candidate once that is stripped and once he faces someone that will challenge him on the issues he will be stripped.

Keep in mind, Hillary and Obama agree almost always. Right now, their primary is all about message and style. Once he faces someone with divergent views, then the real battle begins.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

you say two entirely contradictory things. If they don't get much exposure, then how will they toughen him. The MSM maybe on his side, however they aren't going to ignore what she says. If she starts to sling mud, the media will report on it.

Frankly, attacking Obama will be a lot easier for a Rep to do than Hillary. She would have to make the attacks personal since on policy they have no differences. His record on abortion, to the left of even Planned Parenthood (he once supported a bill that allowed doctors to kill the fetus even outside the womb), illegal immigration, he lead the charge in Illinois for driver's licenses for illegals, and his domestic agenda which is standard big government liberal, and of course, his totally wrong position on Iraq, his wanting to negotiate with Iran, etc. Those positions will be attacked in the general election.

I don't underestimate Obama because charm, chairsma and likeability are important traits, however he is a very weak candidate once that is stripped and once he faces someone that will challenge him on the issues he will be stripped.

Keep in mind, Hillary and Obama agree almost always. Right now, their primary is all about message and style. Once he faces someone with divergent views, then the real battle begins.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

you say two entirely contradictory things. If they don't get much exposure, then how will they toughen him. The MSM maybe on his side, however they aren't going to ignore what she says. If she starts to sling mud, the media will report on it.

Frankly, attacking Obama will be a lot easier for a Rep to do than Hillary. She would have to make the attacks personal since on policy they have no differences. His record on abortion, to the left of even Planned Parenthood (he once supported a bill that allowed doctors to kill the fetus even outside the womb), illegal immigration, he lead the charge in Illinois for driver's licenses for illegals, and his domestic agenda which is standard big government liberal, and of course, his totally wrong position on Iraq, his wanting to negotiate with Iran, etc. Those positions will be attacked in the general election.

I don't underestimate Obama because charm, chairsma and likeability are important traits, however he is a very weak candidate once that is stripped and once he faces someone that will challenge him on the issues he will be stripped.

Keep in mind, Hillary and Obama agree almost always. Right now, their primary is all about message and style. Once he faces someone with divergent views, then the real battle begins.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur