Friday, August 31, 2012

McCain/Palin Led Obama/Biden 1 Week Post Convention.The Challenge For Romney/Ryan


When the GOP convention opened on September 1st 2008, with the first day cancelled like the 2012 Tampa conventions, candidate Obama had a 4 and a half point lead over John McCain 48.8 to 44.3.

On the first real day of the convention McCain was behind Obama by a huge 6.4 points 49.2 to 42.8

In four days from Sarah Palin's vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech on September 3rd , on September 7th,  the McCain/Palin team went into the lead by 1 point 46.7 to Obama's 45.7

On the 9th day from the opening of the convention the McCain/Palin lead was 2.4 points over Obama and huge turnaround from the 6.4 point deficit.

Thus Palin's acceptance speech saw a 9% increase in support from the night of her address for McCain/Palin
and at its height the McCain/Palin convention bounce was 3.7 points.

These are the figures that Romney/Ryan would have to be compared with. The initial results, as far as 17 million fewer viewers watching Paul Ryan's acceptance speech, are not promising for them. The one week post convention to be Romney/Ryan in the lead will be the main marker.





"Ryan's Faked the Birth of Son" Upcoming Kos/Media/DNC "Scandals" Like '08 Palin Attacks

Because the Dem's and their media allies ran the most foul, ad hominem campaign in U.S. history against Sarah Palin in 2008 we can expect the to see following in the media over the coming months directed against 

Surely we can because we can expect what was directed against a woman, without a word of complaint from the so called feminists harpies, to be directed against a man and his family-or can we?

From Politico, the alleged home of some of the "journolist" media conspirators which was a cabal of leftist media journo's who worked together via email to promote Obama's candidacy and attack Palin:

"DNC to send a planeload of lawyers to Wisconsin to investigate every aspect of Ryan's life to uncover scandals"

From The National Enquirer

"Paul Ryan had an affair with his wife's business partner" and then; 

"The Ryan's are getting a divorce."

The from the disgusting alleged humans at the "progressive" site "Daily Kos"

Paul Ryan's wife did not really give birth to her son, it is her daughter's child from unknown father"

"Comedians" will tell really fun jokes how their "homey's" will rape Ryan

From the disgusting Kos Moulitsas who infamously tweeted "Mission accomplished Sarah Palin" after Gabby Gifford's was shot; a similar tweet somehow linking Ryan with the Gifford's shooting "Mission accomplished Paul Ryan" when there is another shooting tragedy.

These would be, if the Dem's/Media run true to form, just a few of the disgusting tactics they will use unless they wish to be exposed further as totally in the tank for Obama and totally biased against a conservative woman. 

We could also expect to see a Ryan lookalike male stripper tossed in the ix to endless guffaws from the left and the late night talk show hosts, especially the adulterer, Letterman, have a nightly sarcastic spasm against Ryan.

Oh, and Joe McGinniss will rent a house right next door to the Ryan's and write a massive hatchet job about their private lives including allegations of snorting cocaine. 

Or pigs will fly.
Here's some memeories;


Yep, he (Letterman) made a “joke” about Willow Palin, age 16, being raped in the middle of Yankee Stadium by Alex Rodriguez..of course the left thought the “joke” was hysterically funny. Even Joyless Behar said “Hey its just a joke, he’s a comedian.” Letterman made a lame half ass apology saying he was referring to Bristol NOT Willow, yeah like that makes a difference. So Bristol was the one he wanted to be raped..so the left obviously has NO issue with rape.
Just like when Sandra Bernhard said during the 2008 election that if Sarah Palin ever went to New York she would get her “Black homies” to gang rape her, heard nothing but crickets from the media..so apparently according to Bernhard, black men are all a bunch of rapists. No outrage from the media there





Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Bernie Quigley Sees "A New Jacksonian Libertarian Era" Under Palin From 2016

For the second time this month the conservative pundit Bernie Quigley, writing at the respected "The Hill" site looks into the future and sees it is a Palin one. You can read the entire post
AT THIS LINK.

Quigley looks at the current political scene on the eve of the Republican convention's coronation of Mitt Romney and then to the possible future resulting from it. He advises that the most likely result will be the re-election of President Obama and the subsequent end of the Beltway domination of the GOP.

"Three scenarios arise in November. One, and likely, Obama wins. Sixty-seven percent of the people like him. Why would you vote for someone you don't like?

Two: Obama wins, the Eastern conservatives crash and burn and the Westerners, led by Sarah Palin (with Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry and Ted “Cat Scratch Fever” Nugent), obliterate them in 2016 and a new Jacksonian, libertarian era opens."


I have consistently promoted the same desiderata, as is obvious by the title of this blog and for those so inclined there are a history of posts supporting the concept and the benefits of such a future as Mr. Quigley posits.

As I have stated previously, for such thoughts to be made public on the eve of the nomination of the next GOP standard bearer is a unique situation. It surely reflects, in the minds of conservatives, that this election is simply a hiatus as we move to implementing the wishes of the great mass of Republicans in 2016.

Here is Mr. Quigley's previous statement on the matter which is, I believe, prescient and accurate and reflects the thinking of conservative activists who will take over the party after November  6th.
****************************************************************


Writing at the respected site The Hill, commentator Bernie Quigley analyses the current state of the GOP and doesn't appreciate what he see-but sees great hope for its future. A future led by Sarah Palin.

Quigley absolutely blasts both Chris Christie, who he seems as the spearhead not for the GOP's current election campaign, but as the "carny barker" for the East Coast establishment and who should not have been chosen as the Tampa keynote speaker-that honor should have gone to Palin he suggests strongly.

Qugiley sees the real battle as not between the Dem's and GOP but internally for the Republicans with the tide of history going out for the Beltway bosses and coming in for the conservative element with Palin as a sort of charioted Boadicea, or a female Neptune armed with the trident of conservative economic values.

Quigley states what i have made the purpose of this site, that Palin will be leading the 2016 primary pack if Romney loses and if Romney wins, who Quigley sees as reverting to type, she will lead the challenge against him in 2016.

Here's the key quote:


If Obama wins this year, Palin will lead (against Christie/Bush) in the Republican primary in 2016. If Romney wins and yields to the tradition (which he will because his life is stuck in 1972) Palin will bring a challenge.

READ THE REST AT THIS LINK

Pundits;"Palin Won't Have A Elected Base For 2016." So? Neither Did Nixon Nor Will Bush/Pawlenty/Santorum Etc.


The Palin haters and so called pundits are writing Sarah Palin off as having any further elective office capability because, amongst a myriad of other things they concoct" "she won't have an elective base to keep her in the news." 

In passing I said "so called pundits" as I am reminded of George Will, whose is supposed to be a doyen of sorts amongst the pundit tribe, advising "January 2013 will see either Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty sworn in as president."

They know as much as you or I and their crystal ball is, well balls.

As far as their Palin prediction is concerned,well she doesn't seem to have too much trouble in being in the media whenever it suits her. In fact, if she chooses to stay out of the limelight she then gets media coverage along the lines of "where is Sarah Palin" etc. 

And, as regards public interest, the fact that over 1000 people would turn out in the baking Arizona heat to attend a campaign rally of an obscure Congressional candidate at which rally Palin spoke says it all.

Anyway, just to play along with the "pundits" lets assume that Palin is still getting coverage because it is an election year and that after January she will fade into obscurity. 

In that eventuality, which will have to wait until after her next book comes out, which will undoubtedly be a massive best seller, and after the pundits have fully dissected the results of the 2012 election (musing on Palin as they do of course) is there an historical precedent for a Palin 2nd act?

Of course there is. Richard Nixon not only lost his race for the presidency but then was beaten for Governor of his home state of California. If one thinks Palin is hated by the leftist media it is like a candle to a lighthouse compared to the white hot heat of hate the left/media had for Nixon. And yet, without an elective office and with only the support of the rank and file, Nixon was elected president.

Ronald Reagan was out of office when he challenged and lost  for the Republican nomination in 1976 and the presidency which he won of course, in 1980. Again, with the aid of the rank and file, in Reagan's case the conservative element. 

Mondale, Stevenson, amongst many others were out of office when they received their presidential nominations, so it is utterly fatuous to state that Palin is under some sort of disadvantage by not holding office.

At the very least Palin will be very much in the news during the 2014 mid-terms doing what she has been spectacularly successful at in 2010 and recently, endorsing candidate for high office who go on to win their races. By doing so she will not only be shaping Congress to her political philosophy, but be building up a solid base of support for any 2016 run she may choose to undertake.

Compare Palin's options, and who could imagine e.g. Pawlenty attracting the massive crowds she does during the 2014 mid-terms

Based on all the highly active events and personal accomplishments Palin can undertake, books,TV etc, and given her mass of rank and file support, over 3,000,000 followers on Facebook alone, clearly not being in office would be absolutely no impediment whatsoever to a Palin run commencing in the pre-election year of 2015 which is only three short years away.

Monday, August 27, 2012

The Most Stunningly Beautiful Photo Of Palin At Arizona Rally;Inner&Outer Grace


Celebrating the stunning good looks of a person does, in no way whatsoever, detract from ones admiration of their personal qualities. Rather it is an acknowledgement of how rare it is that a person, especially a leader who is in the public eye and under intense scrutiny by female haters, can combine an inner quality with a an outer one.

It would make no difference to me if Palin's inner qualities were not some how mirrored by an outer beauty. The latter, at the end of the day having no significance in respect of the effect for positive change an individual make create-Golda Meir comes to mind initially, as does Mother Teresa.

On the other hand it can be chalked up as an added bonus, that the person one admires and supports is pleasant looking, not least in the satisfaction it brings that it drives the leftist harpies mad (for instance this one)


In my opinion this picture of a clearly relaxed, and in total self-control and languidly beautiful Sarah Palin, exemplifies the outer grace which reflects an inner grace.






Palin Interview On Hannity From Arizona Rally For Adams



Monday, August 27, 2012Sarah Palin: ‘The status quo has got to go’ Gov. Palin made an appearance on Fox News' "Hannity" Monday night to discuss the Romney-Ryan ticket, the GOP convention and more:

The former Alaska governor restated her familiar theme of "sudden and relentless reform" and declared, "We can't afford four more years of what we've been through." She reminded host Sean Hannity that as as the GOP's vice presidential candidate in 2008, she had Barack Obama pegged and had warned that if he was elected president, the country would be in for "a world of Hurt" with his "failed, liberal, socialist policies."

The Tea Party icon pointed out that Obama promised that ObamaCare was not a tax, but it turned out to be the largest tax increase in American history. Now, she said, "November can't come soon enough," and the people have decided that "the status quo has got to go." Saying that Obama has broken nearly all of his campaign promises made during the 2008 campaign, the former Alaska governor added that the only pledge he has kept is "to fundamentally transform America."

The 2008 vice presidential candidate taped the segment from Gilbert Arizon, where she campaigned Monday afternoon for congressional candidate Kirk Adams. She was wearing and Adams for Congress t-shirt. Palin has focused on the down-ballot contests and said, "These are the important races." Video courtesy of SarahNET | Cross-posted at US for Palin - JP

First Video Report On Palin Rally From Arizona TV "Thousands In Attendance"

FOX 10 News - Phoenix, AZ | KSAZ-TV

First Media Report From Palin Rally In Arizona With Photo's


Here's the first media report from KTAR in Arizona. CLICK ON THIS LINK for the photo essay

Sarah Palin speaks on Gilbert candidate's behalf





 
By Sandra Haros
Originally published: Aug 27, 2012 - 5:25 pm


palinadam_5.jpg
Supporters of Gov. Sarah Palin wait to hear her speak in Gilbert, Arizona on Monday, August 27, 2012. (Sandra Haros/KTAR)
 
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin spoke on behalf of congressional candidate Kirk Adams in Gilbert on Monday afternoon.Thousands of people were on hand to hear the former vice presidential nominee give a boost to Adam's campaign."She's enthusiastic about what she's for and she's conservative enough where she stands and a lot of people believe in her and what she can do," said Bud Greer.The campaign event, held at Joe's Farm Grill, was a barbecue with live music. Adams and Palin served some food as part of the campaign.


5 / 10
Supporters of Gov. Sarah Palin wait to hear her speak in Gilbert, Arizona on Monday, August 27, 2012. (Sandra Haros/KTAR)
Sandra Haros , Reporter

Photo's Of Palin Campaigning For Adams In Arizona; Standing Room Only

Here is a local coffee shop owner commenting on the huge crowd for Palin.Click ony pictures to enlarge.






Redux:Palin Issues 3rd Party Challenge. Historical Outline Shows It Can Be Achieved

I wrote the article below in August 2012 which sets the historical basis for a viable third party when Governor Palin indicate that such a possibility was a viable one. The events in Mississippi where a conservative challenger to a sitting pork republican won the primary only to be defeated by Dem crossover votes has reignited third party passions. 

In the last week Governor Palin has further indicated her, what appears to me to be righteous disgust,which is is not to strong a word, about the current political scene.

She advised that unless the GOP establishment took action against the Obama administration's "madness” on America’s southern border with Mexico. she would seriously consider leaving the party;

"Fed up Sarah Palin says this issue is ‘just about driving me to renounce my Republican ties’ LINK

And now seemingly in despair over the uselessness of the GOP:LINK

 Well, if Republicans are going to act like Democrats, then what's the use in getting all gun hoe about getting Republicans in there? We need people who understand the beauty of the value of allowing the free market to thrive, otherwise our country is going to continue to be over-regulated, drive the industry away, driving jobs away. We're going to be a bankrupt, fundamentally transformed country unless those who know what they're doing and aren't going along just to get along with those in power, being today the Democrats, that does no good. So, yeah, if Republicans aren't going to stand strong on the points in our platform, then it does no good to get all enthused about them any more."

Here is an analysis of the viability of a new third party



Sarah Palin said Saturday a third party option is not beyond the realm of possibility. 

When asked if she would consider creating a third party if neither Gov. Romney nor President Obama would budge from their current positions on a variety of issues, Palin left open the door. "Look what happened in the mid 1800's. The Whig party went away and the Republican Party surfaced. Because the electorate got sick and tired of the party fighting for power and not doing the will of the people." Palin went on to say history could repeat itself. " If history is an indication it is a possibility," she said. "If the Republicans don't remember what the planks in the platform represent ... that is opportunity to prosper and thrive in the most exceptional nation in the world. We do that through a free market. 


If the Republicans become like the liberal left and democrats, I wouldn't be surprised if history didn't repeat itself."


If Mitt Romney wins and institutes policies which are no different from the Obama administrations, and the 2014 mid-terms are a similar expression of Tea Party disgust as was the 2012 landslide, then a conservative third party for 2016 is highly probable. Given the near impossible odds against unseating a sitting president at a convention, as the example of Taft and Carter, who were highly unpopular proved as they both withstood challenges from hugely high profile opposition (Roosevelt and Kennedy) it would be foolish for the Tea Party to take that route.


On the other hand, if Romney loses this November (and the "progressive" left is unhappy with Obama's second term) and the establishment tries to foist another similar candidate (or heaven forbid, Romney once again) on the rank and file in 2016, then yes, by all means, let the Beltway have their way. Then the Tea Party, in coalition with perhaps the Paulite's could well start a third party.

Even with massive enthusiasm behind such a movement, history shows that victory first time up would be unlikely (although a massive economic dislocation would prove an exceptional catalyst). Teddy Roosevelt crushed the Republican establishment in 1912 but lost heavily to the Dem's, La Follete had substantial enthusiasm but did poorly in the Electoral College, as did Perot and George Wallace.

The new Republican Party lost in their first outing, whilst performing credibly, and after the next election became the major force in presidential politics for the next 50 years. Thus the Whigs,who displaced the Federalists, and the Republicans prove that a new party can, if there is a major social shift, not only do well but can become a dominant force.

Below are illustrations of how a new party could eclipse the GOP as it now stands and win in 2016, although 2020 in a straight two party race would seem more likely. The major question would be whether, if the new party did well but did not win, it could stay around for another run unlike Roosevelt's Progressive Party.Thus those who might consider a new party would have to also consider the massive commitment it would require.

The question arises, would a third party run give it a realistic chance of winning the presidency in 2016?

The answer is, yes if the environment if right. If by November 2014 the economy is not better than now, or has turned down further, and if  Romney were president, then a three way vote split is quite possible.


This approximates the three party (Dem/Bull Moose/GOP) 1912 election. That election was prevented being thrown in the House because sitting President Taft only carried two states, but split the vote with Roosevelt 23% to 27% denying Roosevelt enough electoral votes to deny Wilson an outright win. 


Whereas the scenario below, realistically for the scene over 100 years later, shows the GOP candidate winning enough electoral votes to ensure no candidate had a majority.


Given a genuine conservative, like Palin, headed a mass movement third party run, and a split in the left was exacerbated to the point that the "Progressives" stayed home on election day, and the Tea Party turned out en-mass, then the map below (with the prospective third party states in beige) is a very plausible result.


In this scenario the Dem candidate would not have the 270 electoral college votes needed for outright victory. Under the constitution, the GOP standard bearer,the Dem, and the third party candidate would, presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes, (they would be eliminated from the balloting as only the top three go through for consideration) be the candidates the House would decide from. 


Every state would have one vote based  on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York's one vote would go to Obama and Wyoming's one vote would go to e.g. Palin or whomever the conservative was. It would be presumed that the votes of the states that Republican had won would go to the conservative, if after the first ballot no candidate had a majority of states votes, and if the conservative was the second choice of voters as per the map below.


Given it would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House in the 2012/14 elections thus, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes  based on caucus outcomes when balloting. If Romney were president and the Dem's controlled the majority of state delegations then 2020 would be the year of transition


This scenario played out before. In the election of 1824 Andrew Jackson finished first with more electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, William Crawford came third and Henry Clay fourth. With Clay eliminated he threw the support of his states to Adams, who was duly elected, based on the fact of his having the majority of states. 


Interestingly the combined Adams/Clay popular vote was 43.9% to Jackson's 41.3% so in effect electoral justice was done. Similarly in the map below the combined non-Dem electoral vote is 278-eight above the minimum of 270, and thus electoral justice would also have been done 187 years later


The full constitutional scenario is set out below the map."Undecided" means third party  and the map represents a 2016 scenario disregarding Obama as the Democratic candidate. In the ensuing map from 1912 it clearly shows how a sitting president can only carry two states as did Taft so the scenario is entirely plausible.
Wilson received 41.7% of the vote and 435 Electoral College votes/Roosevelt 27.4 and 88/Taft 23.2% and 8. Thus Roosevelt/Taft had a popular vote majority (The Socialist Debs received 6%)


The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

Thus, if the no candidate with an electoral college majority scenario plays out, and presuming there are no other candidates who have won electoral votes, the House would meet to choose the next president by January 20th 2017, with the states having one vote each, whilst the Senate would meet to choose the Vice-President.

Based on the current composition of the House, and if voting went strictly on party lines, with no vote switching or abstentions in states with a close proportion of Republicans and Democrats, the Independent (or third party) candidate would be chosen on the first or second ballot.









Friday, August 24, 2012

The Palin/Goldwater Electoral College Path To Victory 2016





The premise is, should Romney lose, that a candidate who best represents the base would be doing proper justice to the loyalists, and would attract the voting support of the Tea Party activists who might otherwise sit out the 2016 election.

It is of course by no means a given that President Obama will cruise to re-election. In January 1980 President Carter had a 34 point poll lead over Ronald Reagan and that did not turn out to well for the Democrats in November-so anything is possible.

However, for the sake of an argument lets suppose that Obama is impregnable and will cruise to victory.What then is the point of putting up a centrist candidate e.g. a Christie or a Daniels "who will appeal to Independents" if the ticket will lose anyway because of a split in the party?  

It might be said that having a 'safe pair of hands" would ensure that the down ticket losses might be minimized, or Democrats gains negated, but that is by no means the case.There are many instances where a sitting president far outran his ticket and in fact lost ground in Congress whilst cruising to an easy re-election. 

The voters know how to differentiate between the presidential and congressional candidates. For example, President Nixon's overwhelming victory in 1972 was not accompanied by any significant increase in Republican strength in Congress. In point of fact the majority Democrats increased their Senate holding by two seats.

It would, from this current vantage point, seem very unlikely that the GOP would lose the House so soon after its smashing victory in 2010 no matter what sort of candidate they ran with for President. Further, with so many Democrats retiring and if the economy is still in bad shape there looks every chance that the Republicans could pick up the Senate in 2012 thus, if Obama is re-elected, basically making him a lame duck from day one of his second term.

With a truly conservative candidate such as Palin, there appears a core base of Electoral College support, which the Goldwater election of 1964 represents (Map 1). If the hopeless year for the GOP of 1996 (Map2) is examined, that base is bigger still, and it has strengthened even further if (Map 3) the 2008 election is examined. 

Surely there could have been no worse time for a GOP candidate to run since Landon in 1932 given the negativity towards the Bush years, the economic crisis, and the two unpopular wars, yet the Electoral College base has tripled in size since 1964 and the McCain/Palin ticket performed remarkably well given these deleterious factors.

2012 will see all those factors reversed should the current economic, continue as it is now. President Obama, as did President Carter, will own the prevailing climate in November 2012, and the Republican base will be determined to vote in strength, whilst all those areas of support Obama put together in 2008 with such enthusiasm-youth, anti-war proponents, Blacks, may not be so enthused next time.

Thus, as map 4 shows, if the states which have traditionally been Republican are added to the 2008 wins, then Palin has every chance to win in 2016. The reality is that in 2012 Romney will win back Indiana and possibly North Carolina giving the 2016 candidate an even better base to build on.

The GOP establishment has no credible argument for a middle of the road candidate as there are clear indications that the base would sit on their hands come November 2016, and in that case there is a very strong possibility of significant down ticket losses.

In a worst case scenario the GOP runs a true conservative and loses badly . But even still, history shows the party could actually gain congressional seats even with that outcome, and the base would still bring a more credible showing than the Democrats results with Carter, McGovern and Mondale, whose states they won combined, across three elections was only one more than Goldwater's effort.

History shows that even with a massive loss, should that happen for Romney, that is no bar to winning the presidency four years later. Nixon proved it in 1968, Carter in 1976, Roosevelt in 1932, and Kennedy in 1960. Thus the GOP has everything to gain with a Palin candidacy, especially with a Republican congress, as she would ensure that genuine conservative policies would be implemented and the country would be back on its traditional center-right path. Anything else is defeatism and surrender to the Beltway establishment.

                            MAP 1. GOLDWATER 1964 
MAP 2 DOLE 1996

                        MAP 3 McCAIN/PALIN 2008/ROMNEY 2012?
                                MAP 4 PALIN 2016