Here is another very brief post from Craig "Mr. Stallion" Kline. His alternative title for this article is: "Why the Supers Will Demand a Joint Ticket and Mr. Stallion Will Demand a Joint."

Here is what the superdelegates will no doubt be considering:

.........................SOLIDLY DEMOCRAT........................................

states.....................electoral votes.......outcome (or likely outcome)

California -.................55...................Clinton
New York -.................31...................Clinton
Pennsylvania - .........21...................Clinton
Illinois - .....................21.....................................Obama
Michigan - .................17 ..................Clinton
New Jersey - ..............15...................Clinton
Massachusetts -........12 ...................Clinton
Washington - .............11.....................................Obama
Maryland - .................10.....................................Obama
Minnesota - ................10....................................Obama
Wisconsin - ................10 ...................................Obama
Connecticut - ..............7.....................Clinton
Oregon -......................7.....................................(Obama)
Rhode Island -.............4......................................Obama
Maine -........................4.......................................Obama
Hawaii - ......................4.......................................Obama
DC - ............................3.......................................Obama

TOTAL: ...............................................158................84


The Blue State analysis will cut two ways: HRC will argue that she is the safest bet in the Blue States, and Obama will argue that he will carry all of them anyway.

Obama supporters may question whether the primaries between Obama and Clinton tell us anything about the general election against McCain, but the exit polls and general election polls provide a large body of evidence. Current polling suggests that HRC would win the general election by a larger electoral vote margin than Obama, and exit polls suggest that more Obama supporters would support HRC than vice-versa. Now I do not think either of these polls are due much credence, but they flavor the background against which Obama has to argue both: that he is the safer bet against McCain and that he can rally a larger base. Note that the argument will not be about whether Obama can carry enough blue states to win, but about whether he can carry the blue states better than HRC to ensure a safer and larger win, that will ensure down ticket victories and a public mandate for change.

HRC supporters will point out her demonstrated strength, vis-a-vis both McCain and Obama, in California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New England. Traditionally that is a winning hand. There is a strong precedent in brokered conventions to focus the floor discussion and reports on who will be the safest bet in the big blue states. Obama will have to overcome this precedent, but he has the unique advantages of having locked up the pledged delegate count, and the nearly singular support of the african-american portion of the democratic constituency. .


.............................BATTLEGROUND...........................................

Florida - ......................27 ..................Clinton
Ohio - .........................20 ...................Clinton
Georgia -.....................15....................................Obama
Missouri -...................11................................... Obama
Tennessee -.................11...................Clinton
Arizona -.....................10....................Clinton
Louisiana -.................. 9 ...................................Obama
Colorado -....................9....................................Obama
Kentucky -...................8 ....................(Clinton)
Iowa -...........................7 ....................................Obama
Arkansas - ..................6......................Clinton
Nevada -.......................5......................Clinton
West Virginia - ...........5.....................(Clinton)
New Hampshire - .......4.......................Clinton

TOTAL: ................................................96 ...............51

The Battleground State results will also be difficult for Obama to use to his advantage. Right now he can point out the polling data, which shows him doing roughly as well, some-times better, some-times worse in Battleground States. The problem for Obama is the large Battleground States of Ohio and Florida, places with diverse obstacles for Obama. Those two States alone constitute 1/3 of the Battleground electoral votes; and a good number of the other battleground states have challenging demographics for Obama: like Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Nevada, and Arizona.

Colorado, Louisiana, and Georgia will be key symbolic States for the Obama argument to the superdelegates: those are the reddest states Democrats have won since Carter, and Obama can probably win them while HRC would probably lose them. Jimmy Carter is expected to endorse Obama “officially” fairly soon, and this could play well with some older democrats and particularly well in Georgia. If Colorado, Louisiana and Georgia are Blue for Obama, then he can credibly suggest he would fair well in the even more traditionally red states.

HRC's argument starts with Ohio and Florida. She carries the rust belt and Appalachia areas, as evidenced partly by Ohio. This has long been prime democrat territory, with deep catholic sympathies to the Kennedy populism. Somehow, HRC has been able to appeal to that demographic, and the imminent Edwards endorsement will strengthen her support base. But Clinton's appeal to the moderates and quasi-conservatives ends here: it does not extend to the northwest or the prairie states like Obama's appeal. In this sense, Colorado, Louisiana et al might become symbolically important, and the general election polls of these states should give us a good read about the battleground state arguments. If HRC has no chance in those states, then she has no chance anyplace redder: and what you see is what you get. If Obama is leading in those states, then he can make a credible argument about his red state appeal and changing the new democratic coalition, or a new post partisan politics, etc. Obviously, if he is struggling in these states vis-a-vis McCain, his position is difficult.

Obama can put some of the redder battleground states in play, but HRC has the argument that she is the safer bet in the big battleground states and the traditionally 'democrat friendly' battleground states.


........................SOLIDLY REPUBLICAN............................

Texas - .......................34....................Clinton
North Carolina - ........15....................................(Obama)
Virginia - ...................13.....................................Obama
Indiana - ....................11....................(Clinton)
Alabama - ..................9......................................Obama
South Carolina - ........8......................................Obama
Oklahoma -.................7......................Clinton
Kansas - .....................6......................Clinton
Mississippi - ..............6 .....................................Obama
Nebraska - .................5......................................Obama
Utah - ........................5 .....................................Obama
Idaho - ...................... 4......................................Obama
Montana - ..................3....................................(Obama)
Alaska - .....................3.....................................Obama
South Dakota - ..........3.....................................(Obama)
Wyoming - ................3......................................Obama

TOTAL: ....(TEX: HRC)........................58.. ...........77
...................(TEX: OBAMA).................24..............111

Obama totally dominates in red states, projected to win 12 out of 16, and he can make a partial argument regarding Texas. Despite his dominance elsewhere, Obama's red state argument, which is crucial to his candidacy, will center on Texas. Bill Clinton was right when he said that Texas was critical for the nomination.

Obama will have difficulty arguing that he won Texas because primaries are much better predictions of the general election vote than caucuses are. Nevertheless, current polling in Texas shows Obama doing better (though not winning ) against McCain than HRC: and these polls are probably on to something, because a huge percentage of the Ron Paul anti-war camp is located in Texas. The Ron Paul camp hates Hillary, and won't vote for McCain, the question with these voters is whether Obama can sufficiently distance himself from his backers like George Soros, Zbigneiw Brzezinski, Anthony Lake et al. If Obama can demonstrate his obvious advantage with the anti-war movement in Texas, then he can make a credible argument that his 'grassroots', 'on-the-ground' caucus victory in Texas is due considerable credit. If he can convince the supers that he won Texas, than he can use a much move favorable electoral vote metric for both red states and the general election:

Obama's 111 to HRC's 24 in Red States, and Obama's 246 to HRC's 282 in total electoral votes. That is a close enough margin in electoral votes, and a large enough margin in Red States, that Obama can credibly argue a new democratic coalition and the legitimacy of his pledged delegate count and 'number of states' victories.

If HRC's argument regarding Texas holds up, that primaries are far more reliable indicators of electoral support than caucuses, then she will be able to use the following metric:

Obama's 77 to HRC's 58 in Red States, and Obama's 212 to HRC's 316 in total electoral votes. If that metric is used, Obama is in big trouble. And despite current polling, there is a fair likelihood that the Texas primary will be given more credence than the caucus. If brokered convention history tells us anything, it is that caucuses, current polling and Red State success are disfavored as basis of arguing advantage. Obama needs to make all three arguments in regards to Texas, and no matter how plausible these arguments are, there are diverse obstacles he needs to overcome in order to gain a hearing on the merits. Obama will need to demonstrate that he can carry white rural voters and latinos, in order to make a credible argument about Texas. He can demonstrate improved strength with white rural voters by placing close in WV, Kentucky while and winning North Carlina and the Northwest states.

Obama really only has three chances at demonstrating strenght with latinos: 1) roll out a comprehensive immigration reform policy more favorable and specific than HRCs (risky); 2) have Richardson take on a more visible roll in policy, administrative commitments and political events (probably not going to cut it); or 3) have a re-do in Florida and finish within 10%(too late and little chance of funding).

Obama aids would be wise to keep Florida options open, as the popular vote argument becomes more important and the need to demonstrate some strength with Latinos may swing the analysis regarding Texas.

Quick notes:

Perhaps HRC will win North Carlina after all.
The media has been hostile, and Obama himself has been aloof, towards the marvelous speeches of Rev. Wright during these past few days. Wright obviously must have the green light from the Obama camp to try to repair his image to some, while Obama tries to stay distanced in the eyes of others. This sort of triangulating has not yet been a strength of Obama's.
Edwards sure is being a dramatic prom queen about his endorsement. This means, of course, that his endorsement will be a media parade that will dominate a day or two of the media coverage, possibly with political events that will provide HRC timely momentum. I would guess the endorsement comes this Friday.
If Obama loses North Carolina, he needs to consider a re-do in Michigan. I have long since thought that a re-do is completely unrealistic, the sort of things pundits talk about when their only agenda is to confuse people new to politics. The (non-private) funding was never in place, the national parties and the state parties are having the exact same fights they have had all year, etc, etc.
But if Obama loses North Carolina and Indiana, a re-do is more realistic than his shot at the nomination. At that point, he would have lost 3 out of the 4 largest Red State primaries.

Joint Ticket an absolute certainty
Here is why, and it is simple: the supers will decide the nominee. They have been, this whole time, asking and sometimes demanding a joint ticket. Many of the 'undecideds' are insisting on it. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the majority on this issue, but her statements provide key insight into what she is reacting to. The supers realize that a joint ticket will maximize the democratic voting base and financial coffers: and this will bring the most voters out on election day ensuring a huge trickle down victory. Democrats in the east are worried about losing the support of HRC's 'Reagan democrats' or Obamas african americans, and Democrats in the west are worried about losing HRC's latinos or Obama's progressives.
And then there is the money. HRC is out-raising McCain 2 ½:1. Obama is out-raising McCain 3:1. Neither has dipped into their general election funds, while McCain already has. Democrats don't just want to win: they want to win big. A joint ticket offers exactly what Obama promises: a new democratic coalition. There are many pressuring Obama to commit to a joint ticket for this reason: it is consistent with what he has promised. HRC has already committed to a joint ticket, say friends on the staff in back in Westchester, NY.
Furthermore, a popular vote victory by HRC ensures a joint ticket. Any other result will allow the Republicans to claim a party split, no matter what happens. The supers know this, and they know that the only way to defeat the theme of a party split is a joint ticket. Therefore, they are 'undecided.'

At the end of the Convention, a majority report sponsored by HRC will argue she should lead the joint ticket.

Eventually, the red-blue-battleground analysis will probably be discarded, and the joint ticket demographics will be considered. HRC's head-to-head electability argument will probably have given her the presumptive lead, but that presumption will have to be supported by the joint ticket analysis. It is hard for me to guess what the analysis will look like at that point, but if Obama is unable to get a re-do in Florida, HRC's California-Florida-New York victories will probably win her the nomination, unless Obama can show that he, and only he, could top a winning ticket in Texas.


Commentary on the chart: I used the maps from the past four presidential elections and came up with 3 categories of States; "Solidly Democrat" voted Democrat each time, "Battleground" had mixed votes, and "Solidly Republican" voted Republican every time. The reason I used the last 4 general elections, as opposed to the last 5, 6, or 10, is because the Republicans dominated the 80s, and 1976 American demographics are simply incomparable with the modern electorate.

Nevertheless, use of the past four election cycles has a built-in bias for HRC, because the States that Bill won in 1992 and 1996 become "Battleground" states. Yet this advantage is not just an advantage in my chart...HRC has a chronological advantage due to the recent success of Bill. This advantage is not just in the minds of voters, but deeply integrated into the concepts of modern politics, including what many superdelegates will consider blue states and battlestates.

The problem for Obama, is that these general election polls are using 5-year averages to calculate the party-split parameter. Consider: 70% of the country is against the war, 70% of the country is against G.W., but 50% of the country is gonna vote for McCain?? That's impossible. Polls do not always use the party-split parameter splits when inquiring about war approval, President approval, and the like: but the party-split parameter is always used in electoral polls. Obama needs to disprove the fantasy that McCain has any chance: while HRC needs to perpetuate this myth.

....of course, the superdelegates are probably all bought and sold by Clinton, as Obama probably is too.

But there are many many reasons to expect a joint ticket, even if Obama isn't bought and sold by Clinton. As long as the myth of a close race remains, the Democratic nominee will be hard pressed to pass up the general election funds of the other candidate. Amongst all the theatre about HRC's campaign being broke (the New Yorkers are really chuckling at this, "Clintonian downplaying of expectations"), it is rarely mentioned that, of course, neither candidate has dipped into their general election fund yet. They both have record breaking general election war chests, and if either candidate passes up the other, they will almost certainly blow their chances at a landslide.

A 1964 type "public mandate" is available for the Democrats to take. If the superdelegates and the Democratic establishment have any say in this election, there will be a joint ticket.

-Mr. Stallion

Labels: Craig Kline, presidency

In much the way that Charlie Murphy was awed by the aura of Rick James, so too the electorate has seen an angelic aura surrounding Obama . . . at least until recently. I have predicted for many weeks, but neglected to publicly post, that no politician can endure a competitive presidential election with their luster and aura in tact. I no longer consider that to be a prediction but rather a description of Obama's present reality.

Mini-scandals have compounded and eroded the mystery of Obama. Reverend Wright converted Obama from a person of ambiguous race to a full-fledged African American, which has harmed him with the less progressive elements of moderate voters, especially white moderates. The God and Guns bitter comment converted Obama from an optimistic unifier to an elitist liberal who looks down on the lives of middle America. Ties to Rezko have eroded him too. To be clear, these are the perceptions of the voters, not my own feelings. I think that both sentiments have logical difficulties but in politics logic is rarely vital.

Even Brian, the once faithful servant and worshiper, wrote to me, "Both candidates are over-hyped. Obama is over-hyped b/c people think his above-average qualities (good speaker, etc.) are more important than they are." Brian also admitted that just as he views McCain as a "normal politician," so too he views Obama in the same light.

McCain has lost it too. In 2000 he created the template for Obama's current campaign, but in the eight intervening years he lost his luster from the cruel barrage of speculation and accusation that stabs at every public figure. All great politicians were during their time just another normal politician. George Washington's military and political abilities were constantly assaulted. John Adams was viciously hated and attacked by Hamilton, Jefferson and others. Controversy swarmed Jefferson during his presidency. Lincoln endured lies and personal attacks.

If Iraq stabilizes and Middle Eastern democracy flourishes, it's possible that even Bush will be viewed favorably in the future. It's possible that McCain and Obama will be viewed with luster and glow in the future, but it is impossible for them to be viewed as such now. This impossibility is sad in some sense, we all yearn for a politician capable of fundamentally changing politics. Someone honorable and brilliant and moderate in the right ways and progressive in the right ways and conservative in the remaining ways. Perhaps that person exists, but lacks the political fortitude and pragmatism to survive the political tournament. It is only once our immediate passions have been tempered by the steady logic borne from the passage of time that we view a politician as a Statesman and a Great.

Labels: Barack Obama, Billy Joe Mills, presidency

This is a post from a law school friend of mine, Craig "Mr. Stallion" Kline. He has contributed to Urbanagora before and is an occasional commenter. He has bold predictions on many subjects and he believes himself to be infallible.

Edwards will endorse HRC

Everyone pretty much knows this by now. As much as it is now easy to hate Edwards, he still does matter. Not as much as Gore, contrary to what Edwards said on Colbert, but nearly as much because of how important North Carolina will be. A timely Edwards endorsement will give HRC a substantial bump. Commentators are correctly noting that Edwards was not favored to win NC before he dropped out, and his presence on the ticket didn't propel Kerry to victory in NC in 2004. Fair points. But this primary is different than both of those races, because of who the undecided voters are. The undecided voters are moderate 'Reagan democrats' and working class white males. Edwards does well with these demographics.

Edwards alone won't be enough to propel HRC to victory in NC. Even with a victory in PA, the margin should still favor Obama in the high single digits. It seems HRC will need something more- an Iran attack, or another Wright-Ayers montage- to close the gap in NC.

McCain will pick Romney as VP

McCain's campaign manager works for a company owned by Mark fucking Penn. When HRC wins the general, hopefully you will all understand the manipulation.

Romney's ascension to the McCain ticket will be of great value for HRC, and be a lot of trouble for Obama. First off, Romney will paint the west red, locking up a large number of Obama's western states up for the Republicans. Colorado is the most important of the swing states in contention between an Obama ticket and McCain ticket. It will also help put Arizona out of Obama's grasp. The nation might not follow Utah, but much of the West actually does, as Mormonism is exploding in some neighboring states.

Romney is an attack dog, who is all-of-the-sudden a media darling, certain to get preferential treatment. Poppy Bush and Karl Rove have made it clear to McCain that Romney is their guy-- and of course, both Bush and Rove want HRC in the White House.

As HRC said herself “it took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, it will take another Clinton to clean up after the second.” Poppy and Rove need some pardons and some cover ups, and it worked before. Also...Poppy and Rove ain't so hot on giving up Gitmo, Iraq, NSA surveillance, etc.

Party Split: 60 % Democrat, 40% Republican

When conducting polls, a polling company must ensure that its sample is random. It is rather contradictory to ensure the randomness of anything, because of course this means subjecting the sample set to a number of criteria, which if the sample set does not pass, it is rejected as an insufficiently random sample. Therefore a filter operates negatively to select only certain samples as “random.”

What is meant by “random.” Statistical randomness means conformity to the 'normal curve' distribution within a %5 margin of error. So a sample set of voters will be tested on a number of parameters; party, age, gender: and the sample will be rejected if the data regarding party split, age, and gender is not 'randomly distributed along the normal curve.'

Normally it is a simple matter to determine what the normal distribution of age, gender, and party split are: one simply uses US Census information about national averages over the past five years. This is what all the major polls do, and it is standard operating procedure.

But for this election cycle, five year averages for party split data are wildly inaccurate compared to all other proxy measures of the party split parameter. Since 2005, the United States has undergone a wild, historic, record smashing explosion of the left, while the Republicans have receded badly. There are many reasons to suspect that the party split data from 2003 and 2004 is irrelevant and inconsistent with the current state of political affairs.

Consider: the democrats are crushing the Republicans in fundraising, more than 2-to-1, the primary turnout for democrats has shattered every record, beating Republicans 2-to-1 (even back when both nominations were contested, and open primaries for both parties were held at the same time), democrats are dominating the advertising cycle, spending more than 2-to-1, and receiving a similar percentage of media coverage.

In Congress, Democrats are expected to make huge gains, climbing to 60 Senators and overwhelming the house. Besides Louisiana, the Republicans are unlikely to pick up a congressional seat anywhere in the country. Thats not hyperbole, that is the consensus projections at present.

Once the Democrats have chosen a nominee, and once Gore brings both his popularity and global warming initiative into the fold: we are looking at a 1964 type landslide.

Florida and Michigan

Both States will be seated, as Obama now readily concedes. The Credentials Committee is chaired by 3 close friends of the Clintons. Simply because they voted to strip the delegates before, does not mean that they will vote to strip the delegates again. The reason for this seemingly contradictory logic, is because when the first vote took place [in the Rules Committee, not the Credentials Committee which had not yet been formed], there was a great deal of discussion about how the delegates would only be stripped leading up to the convention, and would not [by this vote] by stripped at the convention. At the time of the first vote, the DNC people knew perfectly well that the Credentials Committee would be in charge of how to handle the delegate situation should it really matter: which could only happen if the race was very close and going to convention.

It should be noted, that senior persons in the parties and government knew all along that both Florida and Michigan would be seated, as did both the Obama and Clinton camps. Everyone anticipated a convention as early as January, and at that point the Michigan and Florida fate had already been sealed.

The delegates will be seated, but probably with a %50 penalty akin to what the Republicans did.

The %50 of the delegates seated will also probably be based half on the actual primaries they conducted, and half on the total popular vote of the rest of the primaries and caucuses. Iowa and the 3 other caucuses that do not tally individual voters will probably be accounted for with some sort of proxy. The popular vote from the primaries will likely count in full.

The Nomination will go to Convention

Both the Obama and Clinton camps released projections from before the Iowa Caucus, and it revealed something important: they both anticipated battling long through February 5 and into April. Both camps had projections that closely matched what has happened, and infact both camps had projected 11 straight for Obama in February.

Some in the media commented on these projections when they were released, which was right before March 4^th. Most of the media continued promoting the lie that “no one saw this coming,” and that HRC had underestimated Obama.

Similarly, the media promotes the lie that the party leaders are going to step in and force a superdelegate vote or a “convention-before-the-convention” in July. That is not going to happen.

Conventions were designed for issues for Florida and Michigan. Or more likely, the Florida and Michigan issue was designed for a convention. If you think HRC is going to forfeit Michigan and Florida...and in doing so forfeit her claim to the popular vote which will critical depend on how Florida and Michigan are counted...then you are in for an unpleasant re-aquantance with who the Clintons are.

Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that the superdelegates who have not yet sided with Obama are, largely, holding out for Clinton. Pelosi, Richardson and Dean have called repeatedly, and now Dean has nearly demanded, that superdelegates pick sides to wrap the nomination up. Obama currently leads in everything, even counting Michigan and Florida: delegates, states, and the popular vote. If the supers want to hand him the nomination now, they could. It would be over. HRC would have to drop out, because it would be over, Obama could have the 2025. She would have no chance to run up vote totals in the remaining States in order to de-ligitimize Obama: instead the party would rally to their nominee.

HRC's only chance to win the popular vote, is if the superdelegate remain undecided even after being demanded to chose by Dean. They will remain undecided.

I was wrong to say Obama currently leads in everything. He still trails in superdelegates, and that should conspicuously stand out to observers. What the hell are they waiting for.

HRC will win the Popular Vote

Of course this won't be determined officially until the Convention. The Florida and Michigan primary votes will count in full toward the national popular vote. There is absolutely no reason to not count the votes. Only the delegates were ever sanctioned: the DNC never sanctioned the vote, nor rendered it invalid by their own laws and regulations. The DNC currently recognizes the Florida and Michigan votes, as Dean told legislators from Michigan when the topic was discussed. There is no reason this will change, and infact, it would be illegal to not count the votes. No party official ever said that the vote would not count, regardless of how many Clinton people were trying to get black people to not vote in Michigan (unless of course that fraud can be proven).

So with the Michigan and Florida in the mix, HRC would trail by about 300,000. HRC will probably concede a vote count for Iowa and the 3 other caucuses, even though the count will have to be estimated since those states do not keep exact figures of how many individuals participated in their caucus. Such a likely concession would bump Obama's lead back up to about 350,000.

A 10% victory in PA will bring that lead down to zero. Four million voters are expected in the Pennsylvania primary, a historic showing that HRC will argue was a “national primary.” She's wrong, of course, PA is a rather quirky state of Germans and small towners, but the effect of Pennsylvania will greatly change the nature of the national popular vote race.

With the national popular vote evened up, or close to it, HRC will put forward the popular vote argument and the battle lines will become clear. Obama only has a chance in three remaining primaries: NC, Indiana, and Oregon. He should win two, but he needs all three, and he needs big wins.

The Edwards endorsement will hurt him in NC, but he should have enough to win big. Nearly 2M voters are expected in NC, and perhaps even more will rally to Obama if they realize he is in trouble. A 10% margin of victory should net Obama 200,000 +.

But that same day, Obama needs to win Indiana. He doesn't need to win it big, but he does need to win it. Indiana is expected to have a large turnout as well, certainly over a million voters. Despite two recent polls, HRC is expected to win Indiana. The only polls that show Obama doing well, are those with a very high percentage of 'undecideds'. As with the superdelegates, most of the undecideds are against Obama, and only undecided of whether to support Clinton, McCain, or not to vote. The exit polls of all the recent primaries have demonstrated this, as the late breaking vote goes to Clinton regularly.

West Virginia will not be kind to Obama. If he fails to win Indiana, his NC lead will be whipped out by the combination of WV and Indiana. Similarly, Kentucky will not be kind to Obama. Obama must run up a huge victory in Oregon and the two other northwest States to balance out Kentucky.

Some may suggest that Obama will compete in Puerto Rico, but that is a fantasy. The Clintons are wildly popular in Puerto Rico, and they now have friends running the powerful party structures in the Commonwealth. Puerto Rico's recent switch from a caucus to a primary is horrible news for Obama, and if the “you shouldn't change the rules half way through the race” argument is used, it should be used to contest the Puerto Rico primary: not the Florida and Michigan primaries, which as I have said before, are legally valid.

Even without further damage to Obama from political developments-- a near certain conflict with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and further character assassination-- HRC is projected to win the popular vote, as a number of commentators have already observed.

A Crazy Convention will nominate HRC

It is hard to imagine what the narrative will be at this point, but if I know one thing, it is that the establishment does not like to give up its ownership of empires.

For example, in 1968, the most obvious comparison to this year, Bobby was leading a revolution of young voters quite akin to Obamarama. Bobby opposed the Vietnam war, and wanted to shake up Washington with a new kind of politics. Not only did the establishment gun down Bobby, but then they insighted violence with agent provocateurs at the Chicago Convention, and gave the world President Richard Nixon. After the liberals had scared the establishment with JFK and Bobby, the establishment struck back with Nixon and Kent State. Nixon immediately put Bush Sr. in the White House, quickly promoted to head of CIA. And that's pretty much where we have been ever since...with the brief theatre of fake liberals Carter and Clinton.

In 2000, Bush stole the election with the cooperation of the establishment. In 2004, Bush stole it again. The systematic manipulation of the election through corporations like American Intelligence Group, ChoicePoint, and Diebold is blatant. Choicepoint was 95% incorrect when identifying suspected felons, and supplemental ballots were oftentimes not distributed in violation of standard operation procedure.

To think that the establishment will just roll over and watch Obamarama shut down Gitmo, prosecute criminals in the Bush administration, leave Iraq, repeal Bush's executive orders, talk with Iran, and all the much wilder things he has said in the more distant past (pursuing reparations, decriminalizing marijuanna, releasing non-violent drug offenders), is insane.

Many youngsters who have no experience in real politics think that this nomination process has been historically contentious. That is a misunderstanding. The democratic nomination process has been mild compared to contests of similar length and importance. Bush treated McCain mush worse. Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy were slandered way more. Ditto McGovern, not to mention JFK and Bobby.

Gore, Kerry, and Clinton were all Bush tools not worthy to mention (more on Gore in a bit). Threats to the Prescott Bush dynasty, that has ruled since JFK was shot, are met with extreme obstacles.

Obama has not yet overcome those obstacles.

Al Gore will endorse HRC after the Convention

Or at the Convention. There is a lie that the MSM spreads, that Gore and the Clintons had a falling out. They say that either Gore chaffed at HRC's audacity, or that he was upset with Bill for not supporting him the right way leading up to the 2000 election. Of course the reality is that Bill was not very popular at the time, and Gore's advisors, including Wolfson and the Clintons themselves, had carefully crafted his distance from Bill.

Gore used this 'distancing' to remain 'neutral' in the run up to the 2008 presidential campaign. Gore has never been neutral, not in 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2004. He is not neutral now. But in order to win a Noble Prize in the best light possible, he had to 'depoliticize' himself. Of course this process of de-politicization has only worked in the eyes of the young: who are oftentimes completely uncritical of the global warming movement. Many older Republicans see Gore as he is: a highly partisan, Clinton crony, who is pushing a well-financed propaganda campaign for the European neo-liberals. These Republicans are not subjected to the same comprehensive propaganda that the young are: especially since the global warming propaganda is heavily academic. Those who refuse to acknowledge that the (Bush led) CIA infiltrates American Universities, will also refuse to acknowledge that global warming campaigns are propaganda. But it suffices to name who leads the international global warming initiatives: Maurice Strong, Etienne Davignon, David de Rothschild, as well as General Electric, General Motors, Ford, British Petrolium, Lehman Brothers, and Dupont (Climate Action Partnership).

Unfortunately, Americans are very gullible, and without examining the science or knowing how to interpret linear regressions, they are anxious for a global carbon tax or a cap and trade system that will allow global body, possibly under the auspicies of the WTO, to regulate global carbon consumption.

Even if such a global body were completely staffed by Obamas and Kennedies, the group itself would be targeted for capture by the Bush/Rockefeller people, and the resulting control would ruin our prospects for increased liberty. Global carbon control is a nightmare. The only reasonable comparison is OPEC, which has obviously been a great detrimental to world wealth.

Obama will accept the VP

The media has constantly hyped up the conflict between Obama and the Clintons, when it is actually fairly mild. Bill mentioned the name “Jesse Jackson,” an excellent and very real candidate in 1986 by the way, and the media wants us to believe there was a huge racial flap. Obviously, the race issue was going to run its course somehow. Similarly, the name Hussein Obama, in conjuncture with growing up in a Muslim country, automatically inspired the secret Muslim rumors. Those were issues certain to emerge, and they were dealt with in a relatively mature fashion by all parties and the electorate.

Don't get me wrong, the Clintons are scum. They were involved in Iran Contra, the genocide in Kosovo, the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Haiti, and pander to the Bilderbergers. But if you think that the worst thing the Clintons will do is encourage rumors about his name, or race bait, or comment on his verbal slip ups and associations; then you are underestimating how awful the Clintons are, how awful the Bush people who need cover ups and pardons are, how awful the fake democrats are, and how important this election is to the establishment.

The media will constantly play up the idea that the party is in danger of being divided. It will cite the polls that show McCain close in the general, using 5 year party split data. This will build a narrative that Obama needs to accept the VP in order to save the Democrats and ensure a public mandate for change in 2008.

He will lose some die hard supporters that hate HRC, but his legend will only be further augmented by “saving the party” in accepting the VP.

Labels: Craig Kline, predictions, presidency, Vice Presidential Candidates

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I'm going to write another post entitled "Big Barackracy." This will be a clever, at least in my delusional mind, shorthand way of attacking Obama for his big government policies. I wanted to post this now to secure my place in the world as the inventor of this phrase and in the hopes that the McCain campaign will notice and hire me as a speech writer.

My recent desire to be McCain's speech writer is inspired by my jealousy of the young fellows who write Obama's speeches.

Lastly, I'd like to note that at the moment McCain is winning South Carolina by a few percent with about 50% of precincts reporting. I believe that if McCain wins tonight as it looks like he will that he will go on to beat Giuliani in Florida and then go on to win the nomination over Romney. The Giuliani rope-a-dope, late primary strategy looks at the moment to be a failure. The media simply hasn't given him enough attention to give him any momentum going into Florida and February 5th.

UPDATE: McCain has been declared the victor in South Carolina. I've been waiting years to see McCain get on this track. I think he's the favorite in the general against either Obama or Clinton.

Labels: 2008, Billy Joe Mills, presidency

Brooks often articulates ideas that are brewing in my head but are left unsaid. He did it again yesterday with 'McCain and Obama.'

I hope to see a McCain-Obama general election, because they are both revolutionaries and leaders. However, I still fear that Obama is a complete sham and a fraud, it's difficult to tell given how smooth and crafty he is.

One of the most shocking and idiotic things about Obama is that he wishes to nearly double the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%...I'm sorry, but that's liberal insanity. Here is Brooks' well-stated criticism of Obama:

His weakness is that he never breaks from his own group. In policy terms, he is an orthodox liberal. He never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable. In the Senate, he didn’t join the Gang of 14, which created a bipartisan consensus on judges, because it would have meant deviating from liberal orthodoxy and coming to the center.

How do you build a trans-partisan coalition when every single policy you propose is reliably on the left?

Labels: Billy Joe Mills, presidency

The "unelectable" Ron Paul beat both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain at the Illinois Straw Poll at the State Fair. Note that the second-place finisher's not even in the race officially. Romney had a surprisingly high score of 40%.

With reports of Hillary having a 30-point lead, it looks more and more like it's going to be a Hillary-Obama ticket versus a Republican ticket with Mitt at the head and Fred Thompson as the VP.

While I would love to see Ron Paul as the Republican candidate, I think, as I said last night to Augur, that he really won't come into his own as a candidate until the existing powers that be give us four or eight more years of Clintons.

Think about this, folks: If what I expect occurs, we will have had a period of 28 years in which the Executive Office of the United States is held by a member of one of two families. If this occurred in a Third-World country, we'd consider it an oligarchy. I just consider it the most outward sign of the evil and corruption that permeates our government at all levels.

Tom

Labels: politics, predictions, presidency, Tet

My Fellow Urbanagorians:

Post your predictions here, please don't feel constrained to '08.

I'll get us started:

National:

The Democratic Nominee will be John Edwards.
The Republican Nominee will be Mitt Romney.

Spouses will be more important in the Democratic primary than ever before - lots of jokes about Pres. Clinton in the White House with nothing to do. Mrs. Edwards will be the most inspiring candidates wife in history.

Though they will not be directly on the GOP payroll, in the 2008 election, in certain key states Democratic voters will be duped into thinking they can vote online by clever, but phoney county clerk websites. Q: "Did you vote" A: "Yeah, I already voted online this morning"

The Court will flirt with the notion of tampering with Roe v. Wade.

State:

Con-con - will toy with removing Constitutional protections for pensions, this will be met w/ overwhelming resistance.

Blagojevich will try again to sell the lotto.

Blagojevich's legal woes will become a bigger and bigger story - the possibility of Quinn taking over will become real.

Local:

UIUC Chancellor Richard Herman will either make a move limiting speech on campus (while touting his free speech lovin' credentials) or he will try to reduce the size, scope, and jurisdiction of student affairs, or he will get fired up about shooting down Unofficial again. The man needs something to demonize.

With the Chief retired, the University divesting from Darfur, the liberals on campus will be bored. They will finally get fired up about something relevant -- the lack of minority representation in our faculty. Our Provost will handle the situation with grace and class.

Professor Ira Carmen will put on some of his greatest teaching performances yet leading up to the 2008 election (and they are performances).

The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will name Dean Farber to the Director of the Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR), and will subsequently be embarrassed for doing so.

Champaign will make an effort to amend its smoking ban for certain bars, the effort will fail.

Labels: Augur, politics, presidency, prognostication

Today I ran across an interesting and comprehensive site: The American Presidency Project.

It contains data, documents, polls and virtually any resource needed to satiate your lust for information on the American Presidents.

One of the more interesting pages tracks Presidential approval ratings through their term. Note that Truman's popularity was at times lower than GW Bush's, yet surveys of scholars rank Truman as the 7th all-time greatest president. At the moment, it's hard to imagine Bush being similarly revitalized, but Truman proves that it's possible.

If any of you faithful readers have an interesting, data-filled or informative site to share, please do so under this thread.

Labels: Billy Joe Mills, data, politics, presidency