Blog powered by Typepad

Mostly Climate Science

« Will Hutton - fat, smug wonker - warning, sick bags may be needed! | Main | You call that Jihad? Well, I mean, is that it? »

Thursday, 28 October 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David

Interesting.

The surprising thing in article is how weak the other possible Republican candidates look. I think some of the Governors are a rather better than painted.

What is Mayor Bloomberg smoking? While as Mayor of NYC he the chief executive a a government that is larger than many states and counties which gives him experience credential, the electorate of NYC is not representative of the US as a whole. What will appeal in NYC will carry little weight elsewhere. A number of the other possible nominees could make short work of him.


Your Miss Sarah scares the Democrats. Not for the usual reasons put out. In generic US wide election each party pretty much and count on 45% of the vote. In 2008 the Pain-McCain ticket got 48% in a bad year. A McCain-Anybodyelse Ttket might not have broken the normal 45% floor. Given President Obama’s current unpopularity an additional 2% is not that far.

The safest prediction is that a Republican candidate cannot win the general election without at least Governor Palin’s passive endorsement. A go for the juggler campaign against her will hhave too many voters sitting out and staying home.

But in American politics two years is an eternity.


I know, I know but since I posted these earlier...

Please Memsahib, take pity on this (former) Arkie!

The House is gonna be taken by the Republicans no doubt, but the Southern vote is tightening. The Senate will remain "Veto-Proofed" but because the Dems are frightfully spooked (ironic isn't it American elections are held so close to Halloween?) the luckily remaining Blue Dogs will be remarkably uncharitable toward any future Yes, We Can!

Bloomberg hasn't a chance in states south of the Mason-Dixon nor west of the Rockies. Neither YDS (with the possible exception of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) but she's a solid grip on the South. And, despite the media's nondiscerning [even I daresay FOX] - make a notation in your journal David - even in the South, perhaps MOST in the South there is a very sizeable portion of the electorate (notice I make no distinction between the Republicans or the Democrats) expressing a desire for an alternative Party.

Presently, Sarah seems to've disconcerted a sizeable portion of what would be expected solid Southern constituency due to what it seems, is most likely attributeable to her seeming "selling out" to, of all things, FOX itself.

I do however agree with "Hank" on his 'safest prediction' in that without her endorsement, Obama has his best chance of a second term.

Now here's where "Memsahib" I beg your indulgence - a link from '60 Days Out' and, from the same group, their very likely final prediction.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010090201/

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010102801/

Memsahib? You did notice above I noted (former) Arkie?

Well, I've moved to Nova Scotia. I can be located of course - but you'll need the hubby to enroll in a dog-sledding driver's class.

I'd exercise care though, the only instructor I know of, is Todd Palin. (And you'll need to go through his Secretary).

JK, interesting forecasts but this struck me as intriguing:

"Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so."

Hank I very much take your last sentence. 'Over here' we have a saying, originating, I believe, with the late Harold Wilson, " A week is a long time in politics!"

The thing missing from each of the above losses was the very thing Sarah embodies - the Tea Party - or some equivalent.

I don't see it being "sufficiently appreciated" by the MSM nor, for that matter even on Fox - where I used to witness, if you will, a general cohesiveness especially among conservatives, at present I see a fracturing. Witness Karl Rove on Sarah.

For the past oh ten or so years I've followed the comments in what serves as my 'local paper'. It used to be fairly evenly divided into two armed camps. Over the past six or so months there has developed an insurrection which currently manifests as three armed camps. And, given this is Arkansas, you can probably distinguish which camp is the better actually armed from the camp more inclined toward reflection. The obvious Democrat commentors seem far more united, but again this being Arkansas, and the six counties making up the paper's coverage area being "about" 99.5% WASP... well let me simply observe I don't think our President will be making any visits to help out on the campaign trail.

There are distinct murmurings amongst the reflectives they may well choose to remain home on Election Day - and if that actually happens - I think such might present a bit of a problem. Amongst the 32 individuals scattered about the country I regularly correspond with, fully two thirds have mentioned this.

Shrewd comment, JK, and you pre-empt a point I intend to make in a seperate post.

It would appear my little area of Arkansas (as well as the 14 other States where my "correspondents" reside who've noticed - from, as we say on this side of the pond, "the lower 48" aren't the only places separating into the reflectives and the actually armed.

A name has come to my attention, the owner of which has a curious connection. However, there's a bad news - good news thing about this name. I'm unable to provide a properly and "of good reputation" link, that's the bad news. The "good news" (depending on one's view of Wiki) is, the name appears in it's questionably esteemed web-pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Olson

Ordinarily, these sorts tend to prefer keeping a 'low-profile' but this fellow hasn't been so careful.

The comments to this entry are closed.