Norcal2's Blog

We have been exposed to:

1. A mugger

2. A plumber

3. A moose hunter

4. Spaying a candidate

5. Poor computer skills

6. 7 lost homes

7. A preacher

8. A professor

9. And a partridge in a pear tree

Personally I can't wait for this lame issue election to end.

On the delegate chart I gave Clinton a 69% win and Obama a 31% loss for every single state left to vote (10 states) That finally caught her up to Obama 1,868 to 1,853 delegates. So IF Hillary wins every state by an exaggerated delegate disbursement as given, she could win   So lets pretend with her. 

This whole math humor zone for this election got me thinking about what candidates we are voting for.  Things change so much you tend to forget that McCain was not trusted by the Republicans and Hillary was not trusted by the Democrats.  Their Morphing capability was a real issue right up until they both became the candidates.  Funny how much force fed rubbish we dine on like cattle grazing in a mosh pit.  Today Democrats and Republicans fight for the candidates they mistrusted because they have forgotten maybe?  I don't think they actually forgot, I think they just gave up.  So ya gets what ya gets.

We now have creative math, and more important, we have candidates who now say they want to save us from Washington insiders, except that they ARE Washington insiders.   The new gun slinging Annie Oakley Hillary is slamming down whiskey and claiming love for blue collar workers and the down trodden aka white guys.  Good old McCain is presenting himself as Obama and he is morphing to the candidate of change.  He might be right as no candidate has ever changed as much as McCain...unless it is Hillary.

But lets all continue to play.  Lets all pretend that Hillary and McCain are the candidates of change in another way.  And then lets all pretend that Creative Math can change last place to first place and then we can change water to wine because I think after all this change we're going to need a big stiff drink.

This election has me confused. On one hand experience counts except when it comes to Presidential elections and then the history of winning goes to governors and Washington outsiders. This round there are 3 Washington candidates. The winner becomes a minority instantly because it makes them only the 3rd, 4th or 5th Washington insider to get elected! Should we celebrate this milestone or smack ourselves for bucking history? It is what it is...

So anyway, about experience, please bear with me when I ask a few questions:

1. If Hillary can't count being married to an ex-president does that mean her experience is actually time served in Congress?

2. If time served in Congress is the criteria then isn't McCain the experienced one?

3. If Obama can't count his time in State legislation 1997- 2004 which amounts to more years than Clinton when Congressional times are added onto each, then should Clinton count anything pre-husband's job?

4. If we toss out all Congressional time (Hillary 8 years, Obama 4 years, McCain 1,360 years) and years lived, and leave in just ex-president's wife time, then it becomes clear that Hillary is the one with experience of the three correct?

5. But if we do toss out the rest and stick with spouse time served shouldn't Barbara Bush be elected first for having the same spouse time but with seniority, Clinton next, and finally Laura so we can stop counting brand new and imaginary "experience" and get on with electing presidents who are electable standing on their own record or simply give it to spousal seniority?

That brings us back to Obama who has no chance. I mean he can't beat McCain's years on this planet and in Washington, and he can't beat Hillary ex-president's wife years.

Final question:

1. Should Obama just sneak up on the two "experienced" folk and give them both a wedgie since he is being painted as the new kid on the block?

1.  Mitt's win in Nevada is only a surprise in percentages.  His 4th place loss in SC shows a more troubling issue is still in front of him.  In all likelihood he is undone.  Nevada has a high Mormon population when you consider voting blocks so the win is just a win.  But that 4 place loss means more.  Had he come in even second, he may have gotten some momentum.  We'll see though.

2.  Obama said:

HE FEELS LIKE HE RUNNING AGAINST BOTH CLINTONS.  "Bill 'has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonnna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'"

And the obvious is out of the hat.  My question is how good you feel about an ex-president taking off the gloves and slugging it out with the unbecoming brutality he has exhibited.  This has turned into a strange, strange contest.  Let Hillary and Obama fairly go toe to toe but will someone please put a muzzle on an ex-president?

President Clinton noted for all the world to hear that as a casino worker spoke to him and told him he was voting for Hillary, a union boss walked up, and right in front of the ex-President threatened to fix the casino workers hours.  Uhhhhh...I'd like to see a little proof for that statement made before voters cast their ballots big fella.  I'm not trying to say you are lying, I'm just saying you could sell me a bridge before convincing me that this happened.  Nothing about it even sounds logical.  Nothing.  People who break laws don't usually do it in front of Presidents, cameras and crowds.  Particularly if the statement is just plain dumb.

My husband and I went into Salt Lake City for the Iowa Election watch.  The room was lightly filled and Obama supporters who filed in and out.  Each time Obama's numbers rose the crowd cheered.  Oddly, I thought we would be two of one handful of people who went so the larger showing was a pleasant surprise.  I think as each state nears the time to vote the public starts to listen to where the candidates stand.  That is the time that Obama gets the edge imo so the crowd should get larger in the future.

As a side note:

I met Fox 13's Max there.  He is attractive as you know but he is also much taller than one would expect and he is also as pleasant as he seems to be on TV. 

Conclusion:  Enjoyable evening, great outcome.

Yes I read this headline in a Utah Newspaper:  Can Romney's image be too good?

What an extreme disconnect with the rest of the USA it seems to be.  Mitt doesn't have to worry about that at this point.  At this point he needs to focus on improving his image.  Other than in Utah he is going to struggle if he is not more forthcoming and comfortable with his belief, his body and his stances as can be seen by how the rest of the US views, responds and questions him.  In Iowa Huckabee is beating him. Even Orrin Hatch has suggested Romney open up making this concept of an "image too good" seem like wishful thinking.  Odd.

The headline should actually have read:

Can Romney improve his image?

You have to wonder what could possibly motivate any given person to run for President.  Granted they can usually survive the first four years but not without scars.  It is the second win that does them in.  Recent history shows that in a second win they usually leave office hated.  Reagan, Clinton and the current Bush slink out of back doors with the public united in relief.  It takes two terms to have the opposition's repeated bashing stick with the general public.  Reality has something and nothing to do with it.   At this point in time democrat candidates should have the edge in next year's election but anything can happen.  It would take another Kerry-style movement to lose this one.  Kerry was well behind the other candidates when the Democrat machine in Washington announced that only Kerry could win against Bush.  The voting democrats switched to Kerry who became the frontrunner and the rest is history. 

Important impact point this election: 

Any candidate now requires crossover votes to win and nothing unites republicans more than the word Clinton just as nothing unites the democrats more than the word Bush. Crossover votes are still the key to winning-that makes most candidates dreamers.  

I'll add my guess to the mix:  I think Obama can win it all in spite of being in Congress (Congressional candidates rarely win.)  If not, look for a Giuliani win.  That is my 2 cents.

More than 40 Christian conservatives are discussing that possibility

I am a registered third party Independent.  I have been an Independent for many, many years and long before it was popular to do so.  I personally welcome left and right to the party as my party is pretty much useless but for local elections.  The word Independent says it all - we third party Independents are too independent to vote for one party.  Welcome to chaos but bring the brain as it is the only respected tool of the historic Independent voters.  This is not to be confused with the Independent Party leadership or dogma which year after year reaffirms an agenda while we ignore it.  Add in that the party has never learned how to use its potential power and what you end up with is extreme voters scrambling to get into something they may never understand.

If the far right or the far left think they will have a voice in the third party then I suggest they contemplate the sound of one hand clapping in a forest to measure the impact.

The third party does have the power to draw the extremes but the extremes just don't understand the web they are stepping into.  Kind of a "Final Joke" scenario.  Gotta love a revenge that brings sweet justice!

The USSC is busy worrying over photo ID's for voters but competency to vote is not on the radar.  I'm sorry to inform you but it is time for a competency test first.   I know many are automatically screaming "Big Brother" but to that my answer is "Oh Brother!"  Before taking this test please inform the tester whether you know how to write.  If you don't know how to write,  a verbal test will be issued (you can use your mouth to answer.)  Stomping your foot once for "yes" and twice for "no" is also permitted.  You are required to answer at least two questions correctly to vote:

1.  What is your name?
    (If you don't know your exact name skip to next question.)
2.  Where do you live?
    (correct address is not required any answer that is close is acceptable.)
3.  Can you guess how old you are?
4.  Is November 8th an election day or Thanksgiving?
5.  When someone holds up 4 fingers, how many fingers are being held up?
6.  When voting for a candidate do you write in "all of the above"?

We continue to read that headline of Record Numbers but it only builds on confusion:

Every death since the first death is a record number if I understand how this statement has been used and is being used.  Certainly the amount of deaths for any historic war is far greater than Iraq's toll.  What constitutes "Record Numbers"?  I'd really like the answer to that because the headlines about the numbers have never made much sense in local or national news.

For a war the numbers are a record low so I am certain news entities do not mean what their headlines infer.  I suspect what they are trying to project is it is time to disengage and set timelines for Iraqi leaders to take over.  That I understand and agree with but the statement  "Record Number" makes sense only if we factor in the the losses in the Iraq war loss and no other war . In which case the first soldier killed was a record.

Unless I am missing something, it makes no sense.

But the candidates are rather unremarkable but for one candidate in each party. 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5075.html
#fundchart

Currently, Democrats are raising ten to one money over Republicans which is a sign of the times.  Democrats should have the edge in the presidential race.  But will they.  There are still a few things the democrats can do to turn off the public by implementing what sounded like such a great idea but blew up in their faces.  They can still toss logic to the wind and impeach Bush leaving Cheney as the new President.  That would be a dumb enough move to qualify as typical democrat self destruction.  They can also convince themselves Hillary would be the bestest and mostest winnable candidate.  That one is the most likely losing move they are confronted with.  As for republicans.  The good news is they have no candidate that is Presidential material.  What makes this good is expectations won't kill them if Democrats also place their unimpressive candidate against yours.  The best news for Republicans is their candidates are not all selected from Congress.  Any history buff knows Congressional candidates bomb as a general rule.  Perhaps because too much is known about their contorted records.  

Today's Democrat Front Runners 

 Barack Obama - a real shot at winning it all.  One of the few fresh faces and ideologies with a throwback relationship to the greats of history.  Potential plus.

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Morphing Candidate for Dreamers - DOA

John Edwards - Outside chance

Today's Republican Front Runners:

Fred Thompson -  Acting career helped

McCain - Morphing Candidate for Dreamers - DOA

Rudy Giuliani - Outside Chance

Mitt Romney - Outside Chance (a little better if his religion is not brought up)

Prediction Democrats:  Obama should win it all but one can expect something habitually illogical from the power behind the party to unseat him. 

Prediction Republicans:  Fred could win this mainly because Democrats like to undermine their best candidates (those who can actually get the crossover votes needed to win) and because Fred is also an actor and we do like fantasy.