Best line: “If Blue Dogs vote for this, they’re dead dogs,” Mike Huckabee on Health Care Vote

Tell your representatives what you think about Nancy Pelosi’s new government health care bill at (202) 224-3121 (capitol switchboard).

If you have not yet called any members of congress to express your disgust concerning this uber-expensive monstrosity of a bill known as H.R. 3962, the time is now! Nancy Pelosi has pressed to get a vote by this Saturday. There are rumors that it may not happen. Any delay is a small victory for conservatives. It means they don’t have the votes, otherwise they’d force it to the floor. Delay also means that the members of congress will go home and face their angry constituents again, and that’s something Pelosi can’t afford.

Some H.R. 3962 so-called Affordable Health Care for America Act quick facts:

• Weighs in at a whopping 1990+ pages
• 10 year cost estimate at least $1.4 TRILLION, some estimate $1.8T despite previous claims that it would be deficit neutral)
• Benefits don’t begin until 2013 so that cost is actually for only 7 years of implementation
• Vastly expands the federal government by adding DOZENS of new bureaucracies (one count was at 110!)
• Includes a public option – the beginning of the end for private coverage
• Includes job-killing employer mandates
• Cuts benefit payments for Medicare by hundreds of billions
• Individual and employer taxes, fines and penalties are all included, more are imminent
• Does not contain clear language to forbid federal funding of abortion
• Does bar illegal immigrants from getting coverage, but no ID verification is required
• Does not open up insurance markets to sell across state line
• Does not include any tort reform
• Does not require members of congress to hold the same insurance it will implement on their constituents
• Republican are unanimously opposed to it
• Only 218 of the 258 Democrats need to vote yes for it to pass

Polls have shown that a majority of Americans are opposed to this Health Care Reform. Town Howlers and Tea Partiers have done much to discourage the bill and delay the vote. In fact some 25,000 folks attended an impromptu rally yesterday at the capitol. People left their work places, many traveled long distance to make their voices know heard in person to KILL THIS BILL. The least that you and I can do is to take a few minutes to call some representatives from the comfort of our own homes and and at no cost. Join the national outcry and help defeat this bill. If it goes down in defeat now it will be at least another 8-10 years until it will raises it’s ugly head again. Just think of the trillions of dollars that will be saved in the meantime.

At this point calling will be the most effective. Since all Republican are opposing it I would recommend calling Democrats to make your opposition known. You need not be from the their district to let your opinion be known, but many will refuse to hear you if you are not. Below is a list of the Blue Dog Democrats (50 or so), a fiscally conservative (or moderate) group of Democrats that are the most likely to be persuaded to vote against the bill. Many are in a rock and a hard place with the decision to stand up against their constituents or their party leadership. Nancy Pelosi is effectively asking them to walk the plank if they vote yes on this bill, because most will surely be fired in next years elections if they do. Call them up to convince them they should be more afraid of you than Nancy Pelosi!

(Note: I’ve cross-posted this at MittRomneyCentral.com. The table with all the names and phone numbers of the Blue Dog Democrats is posted there. I would post it here also, but I don’t have the admin permissions to do so. Please look at the list and make calls today!)

Update: I was able to copy a paste the source code for the table. You can see it after the jump.
(more…)

Arnold Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill. No news there — except perhaps some might wish he would veto more of them. But the veto message was a bit special — the first letters of each of the seven lines spelled out, er, a not-nice thing.

“It’s just a weird coincidence,” Aaron McLear, the governor’s spokesman, said Wednesday, doing his best to play it straight.

“We do hundreds of vetoes every year, so something like this was bound to happen.”

Not really “bound to” — the Wall Street Journal asked mathematicians to figure out the statistical likelihood of such an arrangement of letters:

To calculate the chances that the seven letters would appear together in sequence, multiply 1/26 by itself seven times, which is 1 in 8.03 billion. That figure, based on an assumption that each letter is equally likely to appear, made headlines in the U.K.

Two mathematicians contacted by SF Weekly gave the governor the benefit of the doubt. They assumed that these letters were particularly common word openers, and assigned each a one-in-10 chance of appearing. That improves the probability that the governor’s use of raw language was accidental to one in 10 million.

These calculations were intentionally set up to make the strongest possible case for coincidence. But in reality, says Stephen Devlin, a mathematician at the University of San Francisco, coincidence “is very, very, very unlikely.”

To quantify just how unlikely, researchers needed to know how frequently each letter in the message begins English-language words. They turned to corpora, large collections of text, to calculate the frequency with which, say, words starting with “U” appear in the language.

Steven Piantadosi, a graduate student in cognitive sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, used a collection of texts, many of them from the U.K., comprising 17.9 million words. By analyzing the typical frequency of letters in the English language, he calculated the odds of such a salty lineup of letters appearing accidentally at slightly less than one in one trillion. Other studies yielded similar odds.

1. Angular Momentum. It makes the world go ‘round.
2. f(x)=x^2 + 3x walks into a restaurant and asks for a sandwich. “Sorry”, says the waiter, “we don’t cater for functions”.
3. There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don’t.
4. Why do programmers mix up Halloween and Christmas? Because Oct 31 == Dec 25.
5. Mrs. Schrödinger to Mr. Schrödinger: What did you do to the cat? It looks half dead!
6. Two atoms are walking down the street. One stops and says, “I just lost an electron!”
   “Are you sure?” asks the other.
   “Yes. I’m positive.”
7. There is no place like 127.0.0.1.
8. A neutron walks into a bar and orders a drink. He asks the bartender how much. The bartender says, “for you, no charge.”
9. Protons have mass? I didn’t even know they were Catholic.
10. Dr. Heisenberg is stopped by a traffic cop who asks him, “Do you know how fast you were going?”
    Heisenberg replies: “No, but I know exactly where I am”
    The cop exclaims “You were going 95 miles per hour!”.
    Dr. Heisenberg gasps, looks around and says “Where am I?”
11. Then there was the Mathematician who got a job at Social Services. He was an expert at integrating radical neighborhoods.

So, how many did you understand?

Defending abstinence and pro-life views:

Over the years, many crackpot arguments have been made in favor of abortion- however, this one takes the cake.

The argument is that single motherhood is the biggest threat to pro-family efforts, not abortion. This is a very defensible position, as abortion merely ends a life and single motherhood is likely to bring a life through a cycle of poverty that will lead generations after it through the same cycle. Of course, I disagree strongly with this position, as should all pro-life supporters. Murder is murder, after all.

DaveG’s new term of choice to smear the right seems to be “anarcho-conservatism.” It is not a statement about its electoral viability — something that we may find some common ground on — but his personal opinion about the ideology. Yes, apparently the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck brand of conservatism is “anarchy.” That’s right: small-government, individualist conservatism — classical liberalism — is no better than anarchy. (I don’t even want to know what he thinks about libertarianism.) The kind of conservatism that opposes the stimulus, the kind of conservatism that doesn’t give in to cap-and-trade, the kind of conservatism that is angered about Obamacare and the debt — crazy anarchism! And this anarchism is perpetuated by fanatics like Sarah Palin and her stupid little slogans.

Only in the fantasy land of unwavering moderates is Sarah Palin’s only focus “Drill, Baby, Drill!” They have so bought into their own propaganda, they are so unable to look at her full record of public statements, they are so unable to orient themselves to other wings of the party, that they truly think that she has been completely disregarding anything substantive. One imagines her as a robotic drone running around the country chanting the slogan like Paul Revere: “Drill, Baby, Drill, Baby, Drill, Baby!” –

Of course, this is total nonsense. In case DaveG missed her multiple op-eds — whether in the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, or on Facebook — Sarah Palin has consistently, and with great verve, been promoting a coherent, all-of-the-above energy policy. But no matter how much substance she inserts into the op-ed, if she throws a slab of red meat to the base at the end of it in the form of “Drill, Baby, Drill!,” she’s deemed a sloganeer. She could produce a modern-day Nicomachean Ethics and conclude it with “Drill, Baby, Drill!” and DaveG and his ilk would decide that it was nothing but sloganeering.

No attempting to fire up the base with chants of “Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!” — No! Bad! You’re not allowed to use a slogan, no matter what you surround it with, no matter what your rationale is for supporting the candidate. Sloganeering will make you look “anarchist.”

I have already given my opinion on the Hoffman race — that Hoffman was vastly superior to Scozzafava, but that it would have been much more prudent to run a safe, center-right candidate a la Chris Christie in the first place — but I cannot say that either side’s rationale was ludicrous. Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, the NRA and Sarah Palin — all had respectable opinions in the race.

Interestingly, DaveG seems not to target Tim Pawlenty or any of the other high-ranking, national Republicans that endorsed Hoffman — ones with far less star power and, indeed, far less substance than Sarah Palin’s endorsement. The message is obvious: it’s not sloganeering that he dislikes, it’s not even “anarchy” that he dislikes. It’s just Sarah Palin.

Leadership, not race, will decide Atlanta mayoral run-off

The dead-tree drive-by media in Atlanta, as predicted here and here, has beaten the racial drum incessantly since Mary Norwood (46%) failed to garner the required 50% plus one votes to avoid a December 1 run-off against runner-up Kasim Reed (36%).

The latest insult to Atlanta voters cites MSM polls showing a strong inclination for people to vote for those of their own race. Who knew? I would remind folks that the AJC’s pre-Election Day polls had Norwood winning outright with Reed 20 points behind in her dust.

I’ll bet that polls would also show that most Atlantans prefer Democrats of any color and that Republicans resent being trashed by a former Republican depending on them for votes. But for the media to report on such matters would require “journalists” to avert their gaze from skin pigmentation.

Media that thinks Jim Crow still rules Dixie needs to eat crow

How fascinating do they find the variations on “one-drop” rules for legal marriages under Jim Crow? I wish they would join us in the 21st Century of Shirley Franklin’s landslide re-election victory four years ago. Maybe they missed that election in which white and black voted for color-blind leadership.

If the media would get over their obsession with black and white, they would also note that neither Reed nor Norwood have once appealed to voters based on racial solidarity. In fact, they have both explicitly denounced a Clark-Atlanta university appeal to same and have both stressed issues and leadership abilities in this race.

The AJC might also look at its own poll and note that the margin of victory on Election day was less than the percentages of assumed racial voting and that we can expect, based on their own poll, that from 15-25% of voters will vote across racial lines.

Racial culture has changed but media still projects their own racism

It used to be the case many black city majority elections, that the winner had to appeal to race. Any such appeals today would most certainly ensure defeat if one candidate so indulged while the other stayed on the high ground the drive-by media ignores.

I continue to remain convinced that much of the drive-by media projects their own racism onto We the People, assuming we share their monochromatic view of the world. They still live under Jim Crow and I only hope one day they are made to eat crow.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Daniel Larison sums up the lessons of 2009 over at The American Conservative:

What is more encouraging to me is that the wins by Christie and McDonnell show that competent center-right candidates interested in governance and all those “parochial” local issues can tap into voter discontent and win electoral victories. Hoffman’s possible defeat suggests that campaigns dominated by the presence of national activists, empty sloganeering and indifference to local interests may not gain traction even in those districts that are traditionally inclined to favor the politics of someone like Hoffman. Those of us who would like to see Democratic domestic agendas thwarted without empowering the Palins of the world may have managed to get exactly the results we would wish to have.

To me, this is THE lesson of 2009: the triumph of Governing Conservatism over Anarcho-Conservatism. The reason that the issues were “parochial” to Hoffman (according to Dick Armey) was that, like Palin and Beck, Hoffman was not running to apply conservatism to the concerns of his constituents in order to reach right-of-center governing solutions. Instead, the Beck-Palin-Hoffman axis was and is running to enact a cultural revolution on America from the top down, one which will, somehow, make all of those annoying issues go away, presumably because this revolution involves government magically shrinking back to its consitutional mandate, and Americans changing their collective worldview overnight when it comes to every aspect of life.

But cultural revolutions don’t occur from the top down. They come about organically, from within society, and work their way up. Nor do they take place overnight. They generally require multiple decades to take root and to flourish. Unsurprisingly, politicians like Hoffman who tell voters that the issues that they care about are irrelevant and who aim to use government to force them to change their very being are exactly the kind that lose Republican districts in a Republican year to standard issue Democrats.

The rise of Anarcho-Conservatism is, of course, Bush blowback. Because of Bush-style governance — a combination of big-government bossiness, fiscal imprudence, endless military adventures, incompetence, and corruption — many conservatives rebelled not only against Bush’s governance but against the very concept of governance itself. The idea of serious, sober, modest, reformist, solutions-oriented, issues-oriented governance became liberalism by any other name to many conservatives, creating an interesting and destructive dichotomy in the pre-11/3/09 GOP, with the Anarcho-Conservatives on one side and everyone else on the other, with all but the Anarcho-Conservatives deemed some brand of “moderate.”

Thankfully, the events of 11/3/09 decimated that framework, and the post-11/3/09 Republican Party is now the party of the Governing Conservative, exemplified by Chris Christie and by the Virginia dream team of McDonnell/Bolling/Cuccinelli, three conservatives who won Virginia’s top offices by double-digits by focusing on, you guessed it, the issues that voters cared about. And, thus, revolution is replaced by reform, cultural identity and colloquialisms move aside for competence, sloganeering makes way for solutions and sobriety, and Sarah Palin’s rallying cry of “Drill, Baby, Drill!” and “Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!” is drowned out by the concerns of the voters over “Issues, Baby, Issues!”

My latest piece is up at Pajamas Media:

There are many messages that come out of New York’s 23^rd congressional district race.

Yes, as a general rule it’s a good idea to work through the two-party system. The special circumstances of New York’s 23^rd district, including the existence of a center-right Conservative Party that the Republican establishment ignored and the obvious liberalism of Dede Scozzafava, made this race an exception. But the final result illustrates the challenge of working outside that two-party system.

Doug Hoffman, who didn’t live in the district, was a poor candidate to play the role of knight in shining armor. The best conservative to win on Tuesday was Bob McDonnell, successfully running for governor in Virginia. McDonnell didn’t win just because he was a conservative. He was a good candidate and he understood local issues. The people of the 23^rd district were being asked to support a candidate who didn’t live in the district and who was backed by national political players who didn’t live in the district.

The one lesson that doesn’t come out of this mess is the one that’s being pushed by many who advocate the nomination of more liberal Republican candidates. Tuesday night did not prove the need to embrace RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) as the party’s nominees. Rather, the opposite was suggested, as Scozzafava was the latest in a long stream of RINOs to turn on her benefactors.

I don’t use the term RINO as some do and apply it to everyone I disagree with in the GOP. In fact, I usually avoid the term. But there is no other word that applies to Dede Scozzafava, whose stances on the issues made her a favorite of the ACORN-backed Working Families Party. She’s a liberal Republican, with no allegiance to the party and its platform. That made it  easy for her to back the Democrat.

From my Email, I have some pictures that describe each political party.

For the Democrats, here is the Official Pace Car for ObamaCare:

And for Republicans, a site whose theme reminds me of the NRCC, ThereIFixedIt.com.

More from ThereIFixedIt.com after the fold: (more…)

Headline you never see: Republicans block census citizenship question

Another you never see: Democrats block Census citizenship question.

The reason you never see the first question as an MSM news headline is that Republicans don’t object to asking the people being counted to determine the apportionment of the political power in this country among the States, the following question on a census form:

“Are you a U.S. citizen?”

The reason you never see the second question as a headline is that when Democrats, voting in the Democratic Party-controlled U.S. Senate, make it illegal to ask such an obviously relevant question, their PC-police allies in the Drive-by media, acting as an “accessory after the fact”, takes the Fifth, and refuses to name the Democratic actors in the original crime with the generic headline:

“Senate blocks census US-citizenship question”

“Senate”?

Are the Democrats proud of their vote or not and are we also not permitted to ask them questions not on a census form?

Given the vile excuse for journalism most Americans depend on, is it any wonder that so many have yet to discern the stark differences between the parties on economics, common sense immigration policies, defending the country and law and order in general.

So many members of the “World’s Oldest Political Party” are either: simply unaware of how many of their representatives simply do not share their values (and work to directly undermine their values with their votes in Congress) as opposed to the conservative acts they put on during campaigns; or, are in denial. I realize now that I was in denial about that party until I left it in 2000, but I digress.

Even Barack Obama gave the wink and nod to the far left while purposefully sounding conservative in the campaign, but the champion frauds can usually be identified today as “Blue Dawgs”. Not one of 60, too Yellow to ask a simple question, Dawgs in the Senate turned blue enough not to cower to the PC police and lobby for illegal immigration.

I haven’t heard the President asked his position on this question. But does anyone really wonder? The Rule of Law means nothing to some dogs, no matter the color.

And just hearing of all the alleged eye and ear witnesses to radical anti-American statements made by the Muslim-convert shooter before today’s shooting at Fort Hood, it is obvious that the PC-police are hazardous to the health of the United States military and America itself.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Almost completely ignored in the current policy debates over health care, climate change and the stimulus package is the legislation currently being taken up by the Senate to protect journalists against being forced to reveal confidential sources.

The Free Flow of Information Act would make federal law standards that already exist in the state court proceedings of 49 states and Washington, D.C. The bill would require that judges apply a balancing test weighing the public interest in a free press and investigatory journalism against the compelling interest in disclosing the source.

In order for the test to apply, however, the government, or the private party seeking disclosure in a civil case, would have to first demonstrate that it was “essential” to the case and that all other alternatives had been exhausted. In civil proceedings, the party seeking disclosure bears this burden, while in criminal proceedings the journalist must defend against it.

Importantly, this test would apply to leaks of classified information unless it involved a potential terrorist attack or “significant and articulable harm to national security.” The government must make a strong case in proving this point; absent specific details a case would not be exempted.

After a recent compromise between Senate sponsors and the White House, the bill appears set to pass. The route that it took to get there, however, reveals yet another potential concern for President Obama’s distrust of freedom. Most journalism advocates are accepting the bill as a step in the right direction, but not the level of protection that they desired.

“As one of the largest journalism organizations in the country, and with the most potentially affected by federal shield law protection, we are not where we had hoped to be with this legislation,” said Society of Professional Journalists President Kevin Smith in a press release. “However… SPJ is supporting this latest compromise and hopes for its quick passage.”

They were forced into this compromise because of Obama’s initial retraction of support and insistence that many more cases be exempt from the balancing test. The bill submitted by the White House was described as “worthless” by the SPJ, yet Senate Democrats unwaveringly held ground and managed to preserve much of its teeth in their compromise.

Obama’s legal attack on the press is interesting in light of his recent run-ins with Fox News. Assessments of the news organization’s credibility aside, Obama’s belittling of the Fox can accurately be described as retribution aimed at threatening further criticism.

Both his opposition to protecting essential journalistic freedoms and attempts at “chilling” the speech of his critics show a mystifying distrust in the long held merits of free speech, and they place him frighteningly at odds with the theoretical basis of Constitutional case law.

Avoidance of these “chilling effects” has been a justification for many restrictions on journalists to be declared unconstitutional, even in defending less tolerable forms of journalism such as libel. United States political philosophy places more trust on free individuals than on government. This often translates into sacrificing pragmatic advantages such as knowledge of confidential sources because the government involvement required would present the potential for a much more dangerous effect on the free press.

That Obama thinks himself to be outside this system of ideals shows that he just doesn’t get it.

Tim Pawlenty has come up with an intriguing amendment to put on next year’s ballot in Minnesota; he wants to cap state spending at the level of revenues from the previous biennium.  The Star Tribune has more:

If the proposed “Spending Accountability Amendment” had been in place in 1960, general fund spending since then would have been reduced by over $22 billion, an average of more than $900 million for each two-year state budget cycle, Pawlenty said…

His proposed amendment reads: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require that state government general fund expenditures be limited to the amount of actual general fund revenues received by the state in the previous two-year budget period?”

Pawlenty likened the current system of basing state spending commitments on estimated revenues to building a house on a foundation of sand. The amendment would eliminate those revenue “guesses,” he said.

The proposal would allow additional expenditures to provide for the public safety, or health in the event of a declared national security or peacetime emergency.

Pushing his proposal at a state Capitol news conference, Pawlenty said that during the past 40 years, state spending increased by, on average, more than 10 percent per year, but has grown by only 2 percent a year during his tenure.

Excellent news.  T-Paw clearly intends to target the deficit hawk group.

Andrew Cuomo filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel today, alleging that Intel has used rebates (he refers to them as ‘bribes’) to keep major computer manufacturers from using competitive chips.

Since I have a professional interest in the matter, I’ve been following this case for several years. AMD filed suit against Intel on the same grounds in 2005, and the Japanese, Korean, and EU regulatory agencies have also been after Intel.

The lawsuit, the result of a nearly two-year investigation by Cuomo’s office, is the latest in a long series of antitrust actions against Intel, including suits from competitors and from federal and international regulators. Most recently, the European Union fined the company more than $1.45 billion for antitrust violations.

An Intel spokesperson, in addition to denying the validity of the allegations, “questioned the timing of the suit, six months before a lawsuit filed against it by AMD is to go to trial. Intel has said that could resolve many of the issues raised by Cuomo.”

The timing question Intel raises  might be explained by this line from the article: ” … Cuomo, a Democrat who is expected to run for governor next year … ”

The filing of high-profile lawsuits against ‘big business’ worked quite well for Cuomo’s predecessor as New York’s Attorney General.

(For those interested in the suit — as opposed to the politics — here is another link with some more info on it and what Intel is alleged to have done that is characterized as restraint of trade).

Rasmussen Survey on 2010 Mid-Term Elections

Looking ahead to the 2010 mid-term elections, which party is most likely to gain seats in Congress?

• Republicans 52%
• Democrats 32%

How likely is it that Republicans will win control of Congress next year?

• Very likely 18%
• Somewhat likely 31%
• Not very likely 30%
• Not at all likely 7%

Which is better for the country….one political party running both the White House and Congress or each being run by a different political party?

• One political party both running the White House and Congress 30%
• Each being run by a different political party 45%

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “Right now we are in another [economic] crisis… Government must be able to move fast and decisively. So that’s an argument for saying it would be a good thing if we had the same party in control of both Congress and the White House.”

• Agree 37%
• Disagree 48%

What is a more important role for Congress – passing good legislation or preventing bad legislation from becoming law?

• Passing good legislation 48%
• Preventing bad legislation from becoming law 46%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted November 3-4. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Republicans think it is likely that their party will regain control of the Senate and the House. Just 55% of Democrats say it’s unlikely. Even more telling is that 31% of Republicans say it is very likely, compared to 12% of Democratic voters who rate it as not at all likely.

A plurality (49%) of voters not affiliated with either party see the GOP returning to the majority in Congress.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of GOP voters and 55% of unaffiliateds say Republicans will gain seats in Congress next year. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say their party will increase its majorities.

USA Today/Gallup 2012 Presidential Survey

I’m going to read you a list of possible Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential election. Please tell me whether you would, or would not, seriously consider supporting each for president.

Mike Huckabee

• Yes, would 40%
• No, would not 51%

Mitt Romney

• Yes, would 39%
• No, would not 51%

Sarah Palin

• Yes, would 33%
• No, would not 63%

Newt Gingrich

• Yes, would 29%
• No, would not 63%

Tim Pawlenty

• Yes, would 18%
• No, would not 60%

Haley Barbour

• Yes, would 15%
• No, would not 65%

Among Republicans

Mike Huckabee

• Yes, would 71%
• No, would not 25%

Mitt Romney

• Yes, would 65%
• No, would not 31%

Sarah Palin

• Yes, would 65%
• No, would not 33%

Newt Gingrich

• Yes, would 60%
• No, would not 35%

Tim Pawlenty

• Yes, would 32%
• No, would not 48%

Haley Barbour

• Yes, would 26%
• No, would not 52%

Please tell me whether you think each of the following people is or is not qualified to be president.

Mike Huckabee

• Yes, qualified 50%
• No, not qualified 36%

Mitt Romney

• Yes, qualified 49%
• No, not qualified 39%

Newt Gingrich

• Yes, qualified 44%
• No, not qualified 46%

Sarah Palin

• Yes, qualified 31%
• No, not qualified 62%

Tim Pawlenty

• Yes, qualified 25%
• No, not qualified 51%

Haley Barbour

• Yes, qualified 18%
• No, not qualified 57%

Survey of 1,021 adults, including 301 Republicans was conducted October 31 – November 1. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points overall; +/ 7 points among Republicans.

Inside the numbers:

The overall numbers are depressed in part because no more than 20% of Democrats say they would consider voting for any of the candidates (Romney 20%, Huckabee 18%, Pawlenty 11%, and Palin 10%). Those low figures are understandable given that typically about 10% of party identifiers wind up voting for the opposition’s candidate in presidential elections.

Additionally, no more than 40% of independents support any of the Republicans. Huckabee (40%) and Romney (40%) tie for the lead in potential support among independents, followed by Palin (32%) and Gingrich (28%).

In poll responses on whether the prospects are “qualified to be president,” only Huckabee reaches the 50% watermark; Romney is just behind, at 49%. Palin is seen as unqualified by a 2-1 ratio, 62%-31% — including a negative rating by a third of Republicans, two-thirds of independents and eight in 10 Democrats. In fact, Republicans are more likely to say they would seriously consider voting for Palin for president (65%) than to say she is qualified for the job (58%).

The 9.8% of Americans that are unemployed and the 90.2% that are either employed or have given up looking, are told that the Great Recession is over. Don’t believe a word of it or find a new word to describe the trouble we are in as a nation.

I wrote last year that no matter who was elected President that we, as a people, would have our character tested to the nth degree by the economic consequences of the Fannie Mae-Dem Congress/Fed weak dollar era of the past 10 years, as well as the private and public debt run up over the last 25 years.

I expected the recession to get this bad for this long and worse, and I expected a filibuster-proof Dem Congress (that started sending investors on strike when they took over Congress in 2007 with the promise of more regulations and higher taxes, all with the votes of Senator Barack Obama) combined with a left wing Dem President (whose father’s dreams were Marxist) to make things worse.

I was right, but, partially because I don’t expect ObamaDems to have a supply-side epiphany and give up the socialist Utopian dream any time soon, I must express my support for a number of measures they have advocated or discussed  that pertain to the economy and the Reagan-described safety net for the truly needy, as well as a number of foreign policy moves that deserve all Americans’ support.

It would have been nice if the Stimulus bill had been more than safety net relief and government growthulus. I would have favored a mass shovel-ready public works bill, but the ObamaDems chose instead to save and create state and federal bureaucrat jobs instead with the public works plan consisting mainly of signs that announce potholes are being filled by the Recovery Act. Nice signs. It appears that most of the puny funds for actual public works were delayed until the Summer of ’10 (and election year). Go figure.

But, during times of recession and depression, the safety net does need shoring up, and for that reason, and to keep money flowing in the economy to keep a pulse going, I do favor:

1. Extension of unemployment benefits;
2. Extension of COBRA health insurance subsidies for those that have involuntarily lost their jobs through no fault of their own and need to continue health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions;
3. Extension of the Home-buyer tax credit (with the proviso that no one be allowed a credit larger than their total federal tax bill, inclusive of FICA), which Georgia’s Junior Senator, Johnny Isakson (R-GA) has championed; and
4. Small business lending initiative.

I understand the problems caused by Fannie/Freddie coercion of bad loans, but don’t see a tax credit (Conservatives are still for tax reductions, right? And you do note my proviso above?) unaccompanied by lowered credit standards and federal guarantees as in any way a continuation of same.

I would note that I oppose a separate program of mortgage conciliation that does seek to save homes for those that can’t afford them. Thankfully, that program has done very little and has the left wing of the Dem Party angry with Obama.

I would also note that I am not one of those that is angry at banks for not making lots of loans to businesses just now, despite TARP. The reason for the lack of loans is the bad economy and the dim prospects for profits from which loans could be paid back.

For the record, this Reaganite supply-sider favors supply side income, cap gains and estate tax cuts; as well as regulation cuts that would allow expanded oil and natural gas exploration and oil refinery and nuclear power plant building. But, I don’t expect that even those policies would lift the economy in a meteoric way until people save awhile and re-build their wealth before taking new risks. Which is an argument for, not against, Obama’s small business loan initiative.

We need to support the few things ObamaDems propose that will stimulate the economy, so I do.

And in the mostly embarrassing and disgraceful foreign policy wasteland of betrayals to freedom and rule of law-loving Honduras, Eastern Europe and Iranian dissidents we do see two bright spots: Pakistan is fighting the Taliban/al Qaida on their own initiative and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repudiated the Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel until they ceased all third bedroom additions to houses with newborn babies on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Yes, we know that Obama still deems such improvements to be “illegal”, but we are happy Prime Minister Bebe Netanyahu got a quarter.

Tomorrow, DeVine Law Gamecock returns to the column topic cornucopia of bad ObamaDem policies!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

As per the standard over the last decade, big government doesn’t know when to stop. This one’s only a small infraction on the private sector’s freedom- but an infraction nonetheless.

In the only real black eye for the GOP on Tuesday, Democrat Bill Owens won in NY-23.  This is a seat that has been held by the GOP for a very long time, and for at least one year, Democrats will now hold it.  We (as in the GOP and Conservatives) lost in NY-23, not because the Democrats beat us with ideas, but because we were too busy fighting with each other to identify the enemy.

Pointing fingers doesn’t do any good.  The GOP party chose a good paper candidate without regard to her stand on issues.  Conservatives pushed a candidate who was much better ideologically, but who didn’t know the district.  Both strategies are poor, and the result was the Democrats winning the race.

On the flip side, let’s look at New Jersey, and Gov-elect Christie.  By no means was he the favored son of conservatives in the primary, nor did the GOP strong-arm the base into a lesser-of-two-evils situation.  Realism set in, and conservatives backed him in the general.  I have no idea if Steve Lonegan could have won that race or not, but as a conservatism-first guy, I’m very pleased with the result.

The truth to be learned from all this is that the GOP needs Conservatives, and Conservatives need the GOP.  The GOP needs to know they can’t push Karl Marx for a congressional seat, and Conservatives need to know their first choice isn’t always going to make it.  If both lessons are learned from this loss, then we will see more results like New Jersey.  If we continue to point fingers and say “You’re the reason we lost,” we will have more results like NY-23.  I don’t know about the rest of you, but I like New Jersey’s result better.

Just something I dashed off tonight for my own enrichment.

Abstract: An education, properly understood, should equip the student with the proper tools to seek worldly understanding, personal purpose, and lifelong happiness. A curriculum that can achieve this must be coherent, integrated, universal in scope, and meant to last for a lifetime. The pedagogy should engage the student to think for himself, rather than mindlessly compete with his peers for the approval of an instructor in the form of subjective grades. Education, properly understood, is not to form a person, but to give the student the tools he needs to form himself. It should be a life-enriching process; one that allows the student to enter the world with the ability to shape his own life in any way his potential allows him to.

“The main failing of schools today is that they have nothing to do with education…”

(more…)

House Democrats, undeterred (or perhaps emboldened) by last night’s election results, have planned to schedule a vote on the most recent health care bill introduced into Congress as early as this weekend:

Party leaders signaled they’re ready for the House to begin debating the legislation and vote on its final passage by filing a 42-page amendment that made last-minute changes to the bill. The filing last night triggered a 72-hour waiting period that Democrats pledged to give Republicans before a vote.

…House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter said Democratic leaders planned a vote for Saturday on the legislation. The leaders wanted a ballot before taking a recess next week.

…The Senate is still considering its own version of the legislation, and House lawmakers said they weren’t concerned about the possible delay of a vote in that chamber until early next year. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid suggested yesterday that the goal of passing a bill this year may slip into the 2010 election year.

…Both the House and Senate plans lack any Republican support. The only Republican to vote for a health-care proposal, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, said she can’t back the measure currently before the Senate because it includes the government insurance program. A number of Senate Democrats have also expressed concern about that so-called public option.

For Pelosi, Republican opposition is an easier hurdle to mount. Her Democratic Party now controls 258 of the 435 seats in the chamber, meaning she can lose some votes and still have the 218 needed for passage.

In the Senate, Reid is still working to get enough votes to even start debate, then faces a tougher road to passage because of Senate procedures and opposition to his plan.

…Reid needs all 60 votes controlled by the Democratic caucus to even begin debate, and it’s not certain he has them. He would then need 60 votes again to cut off debate and take a vote, amid controversies over the public option and new taxes to pay for the expanded insurance coverage for Americans.

Hopefully, if the bill does pass the House, it will stall in the Senate, like the cap-and-tax bill.

In addition to other pieces of quality analysis, Chris Cillizza has written an article about the impressive numbers of Conservatives who aligned themselves with Republican nominees last night:

[40:] That’s the percentage of the Virginia electorate that identified themselves as conservatives, the highest number among that ideological group in the Commonwealth since 1994.

And, not only did conservatives comprise an extremely large segment of the Virginia electorate, they also cast their ballots for Republicans at a historically high rate; 91 percent of self-identifying conservatives voted GOP while just nine percent cast their vote for Democrats.

(Compare that to 2008 when conservatives were one in every three voters and roughly one if five — 18 percent — voted Democrat and you see the considerable change in that segment of the electorate in just one year’s time. A hat tip, as always, to Post polling director Jon “JC” Cohen for digging into the data.)

…What remains to be seen is whether the Republican establishment can direct the intensity/anger of their base in positive directions. The unwillingness of the base to accept the candidacy of state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) in Upstate New York almost certainly cost the party a seat it should have won.

If that scenario plays itself out in future contests — somewhat unlikely due to the unique ballot and party system in New York — the energy of the base won’t translate into the sort of Republican gains it should in a midterm election.

Cillizza raises some good questions about party unity. Fortunately, it appears that party leaders have learned from last night and decided to embrace primaries as a means to sort out the conservative vs. moderate tug-of-war (for lack of a better descriptor).

In another stunning turn of events, Charlie Crist has actually claimed that he did not initially support the Dems’ so-called stimulus:

Crist appeared with President Barak Obama in February to support the bill, asked Florida members of Congress to vote for it and previously told The Associated Press that he would have voted for it if he had been in the Senate.

But when the Republican governor talked about the bill Wednesday on CNN, he said he didn’t endorse it. Crist told CNN he understood that the bill was going to pass and wanted to use it for the benefit of Florida.

Perhaps Good Time Charlie needs to jog his memory.

Lastly, today a local Virginia news outlet offered a rather interesting take on the performance of Gov.-elect McDonnell and other Republicans last night:

McDonnell and the Republicans managed to rebrand the GOP, moving the party away from its far-right social agenda and the anti-Obama catcalls of Fox News in a few short months. The new surge is all the talk Tuesday night — the “warning shot,” crows U.S. Rep Eric Cantor — but this isn’t the Allen-Gilmore lineage.

This new party was message-oriented and respectful, eschewing the screaming conservatives on the Hill. It was polite, in fact. A billboard for Powhatan Delegate Lee Ware, who looks alarmingly like a younger Newt, whispered: “Principled. Effective. Courteous.” McDonnell never personally attacked Obama and at times agreed with his policies (charter schools, for instance) and even congratulated his Nobel Prize.

Ripping a page or two from former governor and now U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, the Republicans rode to victory by appealing to the middle, pushing Reaganesque fiscal conservatism and keeping a safe distance from abortion and gay marriage.

…Surely the Republican victories were influenced by the anti-Obama movement, the tea parties, the Pelosi-bashers, but McDonnell’s campaign was about jobs and low taxes — and it ushered him into the Executive Mansion.

“It can be a conservative party, but it can also be a pragmatic party,” Bob Holsworth, the longtime political analyst, says of the McDonnell credo.

Indeed. And it just might have kicked off a kinder, gentler Republican revolution this time.

Perhaps McDonnell’s campaign provides a promising template for 2012 campaigns by a certain former governor or a famously pragmatic (Minnesota) nice guy?

He appears to have. After creating upheaval and controversy around the country, Cornyn is backing off on sending money into contested open primaries:

With Republicans grappling with the fallout of an intra-party battle that may have cost them a House seat, the head of the Senate Republican campaign effort is making a pledge that may ease some of the anger being directed at the party establishment.

“We will not spend money in a contested primary,” Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told ABC News in a telephone interview today.

“There’s no incentive for us to weigh in,” said Cornyn, R-Texas. “We have to look at our resources. . . . We’re not going to throw money into a [primary] race leading up to the election.”

Cornyn said his pledge extends to races for open Senate seats — not incumbents who may face primaries next year. The NRSC so far has endorsed candidates in four open Senate seats — Florida, Missouri, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

Cornyn’s commitment is most immediately relevant in Florida, where the NRSC’s candidate, Gov. Charlie Crist, is facing an aggressive challenge on his right from state House Speaker Marco Rubio.

This may ease some of the tension that conservatives have experienced and put an end to Cornyn’s Boss Hogg Shennanigans. He walked back the NRSC’s full out support for Charlie Crist slightly:

Cornyn had praise for Rubio, and said he’s sure that he would win the general election if he gets past Crist in the primary. Cornyn said he’s confident that — unlike in upstate New York — Republicans will settle their differences in the primary.

“The first lesson is that competitive primaries are generally a good thing,” Cornyn said. “To me, that’s the overarching lesson to be learned out of the 23rd. When 11 people get behind closed doors and pick the nominee … the grassroots are going to find an alternative.”

Cornyn said the NRSC is only endorsing in races where — like in Crist’s case — the candidate specifically requests its stamp of approval. He said that — notwithstanding any endorsements — his group would even offer advice on hiring and strategy to GOP challengers, like Rubio, who haven’t been endorsed.

Competitive primaries? What a novel idea.  If there was anything that was rejected clearly in New York-23rd, it was the backroom dealing to pick candidates. If the NRSC and NRCC stay out of elections until the general election and stop wasting money trying to pick candidates, then something good may come out of this whole sordid affair in NY-23.

One should not declare the political death of Sarah Palin, the Fix has news that somebody wants her help:

Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk penned a memo to Republican poobah Fred Malek hoping to secure an endorsement from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his Senate candidacy, according to a copy of the memo obtained by the Fix.

After noting that Palin will be in Chicago later this month to appear on “Oprah”, Kirk writes that “the Chicago media will focus on one key issue: Does Gov[ernor] Palin oppose Congressman Mark Kirk’s bid to take the Obama Senate seat for the Republicans?”

Kirk goes on to write that he is hoping for something “quick and decisive” from Palin about the race, perhaps to the effect of: “Voters in Illinois have a key opportunity to take Barack Obama’s Senate seat. Congressman Kirk is the lead candidate to do that.”

Malek confirmed the authenticity of the memo in an e-mail exchange with the Fix.

Kirk’s memo is tangible evidence of the power of Palin’s endorsement in a Republican primary. Kirk, a moderate by voting record in the House, is clearly very concerned about the negative impact a Palin endorsement of one of his primary opponents could have on his chances at being the party’s nominee for the seat being vacated by appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D).

It should be noted that Kirk wants Palin’s endorsement the December before the election. What this suggests is that Palin is becoming a bit of a primary kingmaker. A Palin endorsement for anti-Kirk candidate could consolidate opposition behind a single candidate. An endorsement of Kirk could help him build an insurmountable lead.

Kirk, however doesn’t want Palin around at General Election time. I think the paradigm we see developing with Palin at this point is that she can help close the deal in a primary and can be great in certain Southern States, and other high concentration GOP areas in a special election, and of course she’s great for fundraising.

This gives Palin the opportunity to have a nice power role in the GOP for years to come, but doesn’t seem to suggest a Presidential campaign.

Huckabee sums up the entire message of the election in 22 seconds.

My latest piece is up at Pajamas Media in which I take on the ACLU.

We’re past Halloween and approaching Christmas and gearing up for the biggest battles in the highest stakes contact sport there is. No, we’re not talking about college football’s bowl season. Rather, ’tis the season for filing legal briefs over Christmas displays.

Like two prize fighters, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alliance Defense Fund are preparing to go at it as the ACLU begins its annual season of silly lawsuits. The fear of silly lawsuits leads schools and local governments to take even more ridiculous actions, such as the school that banned red and green napkins from a “holiday” party a few years back. The Alliance Defense Fund’s prepping a phalanx of attorneys to go to battle has brought a touch of sanity to the annual festival of PC insanity by ensuring that government bodies realize trampling on the rights of citizens out of ACLUaphobia will have consequences.

With the ACLU, the silly season never stops; it just hits its biggest fever pitch around Christmas. They’re engaged in a lawsuit in Illinois and have found a friendly judge to agree with their atheist client that a moment of silence in schools is unconstitutional. Yes, having a moment of silence where kids can do whatever silent activity they want, from praying to thinking about their hot date tonight, is now considered something the drafters of the First Amendment would condemn.

However, there’s a glaring hypocrisy, dare I say cowardice, in the way the ACLU executes its inane war. The ACLU’s favorite modus operandi is to find a town or school district, generally a small one with a limited budget, and look for an easily offended person to file a lawsuit. This is what happened in Dixie County, Florida, when the ACLU admitted to “shaking the tree” to find a plaintiff to sue the county for having a Ten Commandments monument. It seems a stretch to say the ACLU was protecting the liberties of anyone by filing a lawsuit in a county where they had to conduct a search for someone to be offended.

If one is sincere about the need for an absolute and impregnable separation of church and state, the ACLU would have far bigger fish to fry than Dixie County, Florida, and Illinois students who are violating the Constitution by being silent.

Read the rest here.

So maybe this is the wrong time for this post.  I wasn’t very engaged with the issue before the election and now my thoughts can’t possibly affect the outcome, but oh well.  This needs to be said; Maine’s proposition 1 was a mistake.  I’m opposed to gay marriage- mostly because I see few good reasons to lend the imprimatur of the state to a “love-based” institution.

If that’s what marriage is, the state has no business getting involved.  If it’s something more, then the state has every right to try to define what it is they think they’re getting at and there are plenty of good reasons to think that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are different enough to justify encouraging one and not the other.

Nonetheless, we shouldn’t delude ourselves about what “marriage” means, both symbolically, and substantively, to millions of same-sex couples.  They see it as a question of rights and the trampling of those rights by a bigoted majority.   They’re wrong, I think, but the concern is not ridiculous.

Historically, Americans have separated their government into levels of representativeness.  You have, in nearly every state, two legislative bodies, one of which is typically more locally aligned than the other.  The federal system works like this as well.  Higher up the chain, there’s an executive, who’s less representative still; typically, he’s elected by a wider variety of people, and serves for a substantial term.

A governor is not expected to perfectly represent the will of the people; that’s precisely what he’s not expected to do.  He’s expected to check their will or, more exactly, check their more representative servants, the legislators.  The idea is simple: maybe a house member can be bullied, by temporary passions, into voting for a bad law, but if he does, there will be a more deliberative senator who can put the kabosh on the legislation.  And if the Senator is swept along as well, the even less immediately accountable executive can set everything to rights.

Democracy, in the American framework, is a noble thing- necessary in a dozen ways- but it is also a volatile thing and, by shrouding the Democracy in layers of representative republicanism, you can keep it from exploding.  Or, to put it more simply, sometimes individual citizens shouldn’t be quite so involved in specific decisions.

Now, I’ve been happy to go along with gay marriage referenda in states where courts have interceded, or seemed likely to intercede; in those situations, citizens were merely confirming the already expressed will of the legislature and the executive.

The courts are another layer of government, but they’re SO separated from the people, and their decisions ring with such near finality, that they shouldn’t be a part of resolving ordinary political disputes.  And that’s what gay marriage is, at bottom; a political dispute.  Even the most representative, and therefore most volatile, branch- the people themselves- are liable to make “fairer” decisions then the courts in most instances.

But, that’s not the situation we had in Maine; instead, we had a duly elected legislature- a representative House and a deliberative Senate- come together with an executive to pass a law.  That’s the way we ought to go about these things.  That is exactly how an issue- which touches questions of rights, without quite involving rights; which involves a distinct minority and an impassioned majority; which can be demagogued and pilloried and degraded- should be resolved.  By sending it back to a lower level- with all its volatile, temporary, messiness- we’re doing the Democratic process a disservice.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog

-The racists in this drama are the media…

No matter how incessantly the Drive-by media talks about white and black voters, the change in the relative fortunes of frontrunner Mary Norwood and runner-up Kasim Reed is about leadership qualities, and not the relative pigmentation of their skins.

Less than 48 hours ago, polls showed Mary Norwood might be able to garner 50% plus one vote and succeed Shirley Franklin as Mayor of Atlanta. Then the only poll that matters reared its head (Norwood 46%, Reed 36%), and it turns out that many Northern Atlanta voters in mostly Republican areas came in less enthusiastically than expected for their supposed Buckhead champion. She now faces a run-off against surging Kasim Reed.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is already peddling the racist line that is par for the course that has them regularly referred to as the Urinal-Constipation.

Don’t believe a word of it.

This conservative Republican knows better, which is why I announced my support for Reed yesterday.

Mary Norwood blew it by being equivocal about her Republican past. Mary must have forgotten that conservative Republicans are proud to be so, and proud of the candidates they have supported at least beginning with Ronald Reagan. Mary Norwood also must have forgotten that most all voters appreciate strength, leadership and honesty in an executive leader.

Kasim Reed did not forget this. He knows who he is, what he stands for, and is proud of it. Bravo!

I left the Democratic Party nine years ago last summer, and so I have major problems with many of the positions of Reed, and Norwood for that matter, given her apparent liberal conversion in the 90s. But liberal/conservative doesn’t matter that much the more local the race, and Reed is conservative on all the right issues for the City of Atlanta.

Mary Norwood’s only chance, if she has one, is to come clean on her past and turn out more of her supporters in the run-off than Reed.

But no matter who wins this race, Atlanta’s reputation matters most to me, and I don’t trust the simplistic, operationally racist, Drive-by media to be able to look past the skin color of the voters and the candidates. It makes me wonder if the purveyors of the racism charge are projecting their own racism, or that of their own institutions, onto others.

Atlantans can, have and will, and they see major differences between Reed and Norwood under their respective skins. Let’s let the coverage and conduct of this race leading to the run-off be an indictment of the racist media, and not Atlanta.

Atlantans are too busy for that kind of hate. After all, we have a city to run.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

New Jersey Gubernatorial Election Exit Poll

Among Democrats (41%)

• Jon Corzine 86%
• Chris Christie 8%
• Chris Daggett 5%

Among Republicans (31%)

• Chris Christie 91%
• Jon Corzine 6%
• Chris Daggett 3%

Among Independents (28%)

• Chris Christie 60%
• Jon Corzine 30%
• Chris Daggett 9%

Among Liberals (25%)

• Jon Corzine 83%
• Chris Christie 9%
• Chris Daggett 7%

Among Moderates (45%)

• Chris Christie 48%
• Jon Corzine 45%
• Chris Daggett 6%

Among Conservatives (30%)

• Chris Christie 82%
• Jon Corzine 15%
• Chris Daggett 3%

Among Men (47%)

• Chris Christie 53%
• Jon Corzine 40%
• Chris Daggett 6%

Among Women (53%)

• Jon Corzine 50%
• Chris Christie 45%
• Chris Daggett 5%

Among Whites (73%)

• Chris Christie 59%
• Jon Corzine 34%
• Chris Daggett 6%

Among White Men (35%)

• Chris Christie 63%
• Jon Corzine 29%
• Chris Daggett 7%

Among White Women (38%)

• Chris Christie 56%
• Jon Corzine 38%
• Chris Daggett 6%

Among Blacks (14%)

• Jon Corzine 88%
• Chris Christie 9%
• Chris Daggett 2%

Among Hispanics/Latinos (9%)

• Jon Corzine 65%
• Chris Christie 32%
• Chris Daggett 3%

Age 18-29 (9%)

• Jon Corzine 57%
• Chris Christie 36%
• Chris Daggett 6%

Age 30-44 (24%)

• Chris Christie 50%
• Jon Corzine 44%
• Chris Daggett 7%

Age 45-64 (47%)

• Chris Christie 48%
• Jon Corzine 46%
• Chris Daggett 6%

Age 65+ (19%)

• Chris Christie 55%
• Jon Corzine 40%
• Chris Daggett 4%

Total Family Income Less than $100,000 (61%)

• Jon Corzine 50%
• Chris Christie 43%
• Chris Daggett 6%

Total Family Income $100,000 or more (39%)

• Chris Christie 55%
• Jon Corzine 40%
• Chris Daggett 5%

Among College Graduates (54%)

• Chris Christie 50%
• Jon Corzine 44%
• Chris Daggett 6%

Among Non-College Graduates (46%)

• Chris Christie 48%
• Jon Corzine 46%
• Chris Daggett 6%

If these were the only two candidates for governor on the ballot today, for whom would you have voted?

• Chris Christie 49%
• Jon Corzine 46%
• Would not have voted 4%

(more…)

Looking at the GOP side of this fiasco, there are many losers and few winners:

The Biggest Loser: New York-23rd GOP Organization

Based on her endorsement of Bill Owens and the conduct of her campaign, it is clear the GOP had made big-time error in choosing Dede Scozzafava as the party nominee. It shouldn’t have happened. In addition, the New York Conservative Party is not a fly by night organization. They’ve been in the state for 40 years. They’re also not horribly unreasonable. They’ve endorsed moderate candidates like Rick Lazio, Al D’Amato, Susan Molinari, and George Pataki. Obtaining the endorsement of the New York Conservative Party is vital to Republicans winning elections as the CP acts as a minimum standards committee, and for this not to have even been taken into consideration is unconscienable. Heads should roll.  A half-way decent candidate that could have pulled an ACU score of 70% would have easily won this district.

The Runner-Up: Sarah Palin

This district was a watershed for Sarah Palin’s leadership. Like her running mate, John McCain, she plays high stakes poker. She gambled on Hoffman, and her endorsement was the turning point for Scozzafava’s demise. However, after Tuesday’s result, there are many questions focusing on Palin regarding her leadership, her popularity and whether outside of the South and some portions of the West, her endorsement is a general election albatross. A Hoffman success would have been a notch in her belt, but if anything’s become apparent, it’s that her image may need far more rehab than 3 years can allow.

First Runner-Up: Newt Gingrich

Gingrich, since becoming a Catholic Convert has been warning about our spiritual rot and corruption, the degradation of our society, and been talking a lot about conservative principles. Of course, it’s more important to win elections. Newt’s pedantic lectures, however right or wrong they were was completely inappropriate for someone who wishes to lead his party as its nominee. If Newt’s attacks did anything, it hardened opposition. Unless, the correct book for presidential candidates to read is, “How to Make Enemies and Alienate People,” it’s hard to see how what did was peoplesmart. If he wants to lecture, give him a thinktank, give him a column. But, if he wants to be the GOP nominee, give me a break.

Second Runner Up: Tim Pawlenty

I don’t think Pawlenty’s entrance into NY-23 hurt him near as much as Palin’s did. First of all, he’s very nationally obscure, so most people didn’t notice, and it didn’t have the same effect. However, political observers and party operatives whose help he’ll need on a 2012 campaign are going to view this as a rookie mistake, and nobody wants to work for a campaign that makes rookie mistakes. He can overcome it, but its a ding.

Honorable Mentions:

The Club for Growth: Spending $1 million to lose is tough. The best the Club can say is that when the GOP nominates a candidate to challenge Owens in 2010, they’ll be sure that candidate fits the fairly generous margins of the Conservative Party of New York.

There are too many other “losers” to mention. The problem comes down to this: too many Conservatives jumped into a race in a district they knew nothing about to support a candidate who didn’t live in the district. The overwhelming outside play gave people the impression not that there was a grassroots insurgency, but that outsiders were picking their Congressman for them.  It didn’t help that the party’s nominee was as graceful and intelligent  as Goofy after drinking an entire keg of beer.

Were there any winners in this whole affair? Two.

Huckabee and Romney.  Both had the political smarts to stay away from this hot potato (while there were three candidates in the race), as well as to avoid lecturing grassroots Conservatives: the very people whose support they’ll need if they choose to run in 2012. While, it’s perfectly permissable to not campaign for a candidate that you don’t care for, or not endorse them. To actively try to undermine the decisions of a local party, no matter how worthy those decisions are of being undermined. is foolishness. Huckabee and Romney showed why they are the fronturnners.

Matthew E. Miller and I spoke regarding Hoffman the other night, and he noted presciently that if Hoffman pulled out a solid win, it could bode poorly for candidates with weak ACU ratings, such as Mark Kirk, our current nominee-to-be in Illinois. Would a Hoffman win embolden them? Look — we can win with a down-the-line conservative if we have the right circumstances! –

Mark Kirk — as well as Mike Castle and dozens of House candidates — can breathe a sigh of relief tonight, as the conservative movement was dealt a terrible embarrassment in NY-23.

NY-23 is really not a conservative district. It is a moderate district where we had a solid shot at getting a slightly-more-conservative-than-McHugh candidate into office, had we played our cards right. From the very beginning, though, things went horribly wrong. Instead of playing by-the-book pragmatism, the establishment defecated all over the place in the form of Dede Scozzafava, who is barely distinguishable from Joe Lieberman — which in turn, predictably, caused an absurdly out-of-proportion backlash from the talk radio contingent of the party.

DaveG is basically right: we saw how not to win tonight. We don’t win by running Rockefeller Republicans, but we don’t win by running Glenn Beck-style Republicans, either. I think that a strong candidate in the latter category has more of a chance than the former — my goodness, Hoffman was a weak candidate who was in way over his head, skipping out on debates and admitting that he knew absolutely nothing about local issues — but it’s not something that we need to risk when we can run amorphous blobs like Chris Christie and walk away with five-percent wins in blue states.

It wasn’t crazy to try with Doug Hoffman — indeed, I supported him over Scozzafava — but it would have been much better to run someone like Chris Christie or Bob McDonnell: competent, issues-oriented candidates that don’t try and bludgeon anyone with the gigantic club of ideology. Running someone like McDonnell in place of Scozzafava wouldn’t have made a statement. But it would have made a Congressman.