Wednesday, November 28, 2007
To be perfectly honest with you, I did not even hear Huckabee's response because my phone went crazy as I started getting calls left and right... But I did catch Tancredo angrily nailing me to the wall... I will have to sit down with him and talk space...He is, afterall, my congressman... and I have met him a few times (we run in the same crowds)...
Here is the video:
I know that some folks that I have discussed this issue with have stated that Space Exploration is bottom of their Totem... but Space Exploration demands innovation, technological advancements, and the inspiration to dream bigger than what we already have. Human exploration of Mars may even answer the questions of "are we unique" and "can we survive without the protection of earth".
The transcript is as follows:
Steve Nielson: My name is Steve Nielson. And this question comes to you from Denver, Colorado.
JFK's vision put a man on the moon from a nonexistent space program in about seven years. The new vision for space exploration has provided about 15 years for that same feat.
Meanwhile, Congress is pulling funding for human-to-Mars research altogether.
Is there a candidate amongst you willing to take a pledge on behalf of the Mars Society of sending an American to the surface of Mars by 2020? If not, what is your vision for human space exploration?
Cooper: Governor Huckabee?
NASA pumps some -- let's see, how many -- $5 billion into Florida's economy.
Huckabee: Whether we ought to go to Mars is not a decision that I would want to make, but I would certainly want to make sure that we expand the space program, because every one of us who are sitting here tonight have our lives dramatically improved because there was a space program -- whether it's these screens that we see or the incredible electronics that we use, including the GPS systems that got many of you to this arena tonight.
Some of you were late because you didn't have one, by the way. Or whether it's the medical technologies that saved many of our lives or the lives or our families, it's the direct result of the space program, and we need to put more money into science and technology and exploration.
Now, whether we need to send somebody to Mars, I don't know. But I'll tell you what: If we do, I've got a few suggestions, and maybe Hillary could be on the first rocket to Mars.
Cooper: Congressman Tancredo, 30 seconds, please.
Tancredo: The question is a serious one and it deserves a serious answer, and that is this: Look, we've been -- how many times up here, how many questions have dealt with the issue of deficit spending, the debt out of control? And yet, we have somebody saying, "But would you spend more money on going to Mars?"
And the suggestion that we need to spend more money on space exploration. This is it, folks. That's why we have such incredible problems with our debt, because everybody's trying to be everything to all people.
We can't afford some things, and by the way, going to Mars is one of them.
And my response to the candidates who answered my question last night...
Tancredo showed his inability to see past immigration, and his general anger towards NASA. What he fails to see is that NASA, regardless of being a government department, has had the most profoundly positive impact to our way of life. And the idea that removal of the space program to cut government budget would be effectiv is ludacris! NASA's budget is 0.6% of the total national budget. In fact, the ENTIRE funding of NASA since it's inception in 1958 (adjusted for current dollar value) has been $618.4 Billion...
That is right... Nearly the same amount of money that we have spent in 4 years on the Iraq war (currently at $450 Billion).
So Tancredo, who wants to continue a combat presence indefinately says that we cannot afford to spend pennies over the course of many years to inspire, innovate, and explore? But we surely have the money to wage war, which gobbles up HUGE amounts of money in a very short time period!
I think we, as intelligent beings, need to get our priorities straight! And I think Tom Tancredo needs to start thinking about more than just the border!
My Video Response to CNN/YouTube:
Mike Huckabee - 28%
Mitt Romney - 25%
Rudy Giuliani - 12%
Fred Thompson - 11%
Ron Paul - 5%
John McCain - 4%
Tom Tancredo - 4%
Duncan Hunter - 1%
This clearly spells trouble for Mitt Romney's campaign! Mitt has spent over $10 Million in the early voting states on advertisement, where Huckabee has spent fractions of that. And furthermore, this is an embarassing blow to Romney's national challenge to GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani. This surely takes the pressure of of the Rudy campaing from Romney, and will likely focus some of Romney's mud at the Huckabee campaign. Romney has already been taking stabs at Mike Huckabee over his fiscal record while Governor of Arkansas... however, Mike Huckabee seems to have a friend in Dick Morris, who is helping Mike maintain his Teflon Sports Coat.
One deeper issue is that the Super Tuesday states still show Rudy as the clear leader... but the surprising second place finisher in the most recent Rasmussen poll is Mike Huckabee.
So as the Primary / Caucus season fast approaches, there are some questions that are beginning to rise:
- Has Romney burned out, despite his Hugh Hewitt endorsement and constant free press?
- Does Rudy have to fear Mike Huckabee more than Mitt, McCain, and Fred?
- If Mike Huckabee wins Iowa in January, does that put the final nail in Mitt Romney's coffin?
- What ever happened to Fred Thompson?
- Does this kind of polling spell a major shake-up for the GOP candidates?
- And, If Mike Huckabee beats Rudy for the nomination, can he win the General Election?
Things just officially got exciting in the GOP field! Let's see if it gets mention in the CNN / YouTube debates tonight!
I have watched a large number of the nearly 5000 submitted videos on YouTube, and most of them are hate-filled slams at Republicans by ignorant fools... but there are some that address the key issues. So I ask, what purpose does this debate serve if the same questions will be asked... just because it is coming from a normal citizen it is somehow more compelling?
Listen... these debate questions need to be different... questions that the candidates may have not had to face before... or perhaps questions that are rarely asked at these debates. THAT would be a ground breaking debate... Alas, we can expect to hear questions on Iraq, Gay Marriage, Iran, Taxes, and Immigration... it may be the case that little is said in the area of education, space exploration, federal infrastructure, energy independence (except in the form of a Global Warming question by a talking snowman).
I recommend that you tune in... But in the case that you don't, I am sure that you can check in tomorrow on this site and hear what I thought about the format, questions, and most importantly... the responses!
BTW, I read this morning that Alan Keyes has not been invited to this debate... Though he is a non contender, it would answer some of the mud that the left is slinging with respect to the "all white panel of GOP candidates"... not that Keyes is a prop for racist left comments... but it should be known nationally that the GOP has a black candidate who is struggling only because of a late start to the race... I think his message is fairly sound.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
According to this article, the Iraqi government is requesting an official end to foreign peacekeepers in their country, the removal of all UN sanctions against the country that no longer apply, and a continued US presence in the country for stability.
What does this look like? Well, it looks similar to Germany and Japan, where the US sets up bases outside of and away from major cities, giving the government some independent legitimacy, while at the same time ensuring no threats on the sovereignty of Iraq.
Such a move means that the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom may be over by the end of 2008. Setting up bases and standing down combat operations is the only logical way to conclude the war and maintain stability in the nation.
This could also change the entire tone of the 2008 Presidential elections. The discussion of bringing all the troops home has always been laughable because a power vacuum would ensure civil war and genocide based on religious warfare... and furthermore, splitting the nation into three sovereign nations was even worse of a plan. But now, with invitation of the Iraqi people, the presence of American bases, as well as the continued training of Iraqi security forces and support of their local economy, Iraq has taken the initiative needed to truly be a free society. No politician can argue that this is a bad idea... except Ron Paul who does not believe that we should deploy peaceful troops around the world for stability reasons...
I am curious as to why this is not getting more air time?!? Perhaps the news agencies are waiting until the actual requests are filed in the next month to the UN. Or perhaps this is part of the "ignore the good news, report the bad" program that the MSM has been following for years.
Monday, November 26, 2007
- Elimination of defunct government programs/departments/programs
- The hidden taxes currently built into the current price system will go away - the prices will have to drop as consumers will be outraged to see a corporate profit increase of unreasonable amounts
- We no longer will have to subsidise those failing to pay income tax. This is a system where more people will be paying into it, so the rates are lower with the same results
Life is more than traffic, work, paychecks, and dinner at 5:00. Life is what we are working towards... the greatness of mankind. The conjunction of the spiritual and physical self, and perfecting this. Perfecting the work/life balance. It is about sacrificing the self to better someone else. This is the season of introspection. What have you done to humble yourself, to make yourself spiritually worthy to continue to the quest, or what do you need to do to best continue?
The spiritual Patriarchs were not of any one religion, but they were upright men. They humbled themselves, and in return were given the gift of revelation, understanding, and spiritual knowledge.
As this season progresses, look into your heart, asking yourself "how have I humbled myself"... "what have I sacrificed?"... "How have I bettered someone else's life, while asking nothing in return?"
'Tis the season to love thy neighbor... 'tis the season to love thy planet... 'tis the season to know yourself, and to better understand your place in this universe.
You are all in my thoughts and prayers as we enter this holiday season. Be safe, be smart, be spiritual.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released today the
education plan he would enact if elected. The full 15-page plan includes a variety of proposals, including reforming early education programs. The last section of the plan, titled “A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility” explains how he would pay for these initiatives. The passage of relevance here: “The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years,” among other steps. According to MSNBC, Obama would leave in place $500 million/year for Constellation’s “manufacturing and technology base”, but would otherwise transfer the funding to the education effort. None of the campaign’s official statements or other media reports indicate any alternative measures the campaign would take to address what, on its face, would appear to be a five-year delay in the introduction of Ares 1, Orion, and the other main components of NASA’s current exploration
(A potentially ironic item, depending on your opinion on the importance of Constellation: one other section of the Obama education plan is titled “Make Math and Science Education a National Priority”.)
The Republican National Committee has criticized the move to delay Constellation, The Hill reports, quoting RNC spokesman Danny Diaz: “It is ironic that Barack
Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by
slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.”
This would spell disaster for the leader in world space exploration. And though there is a push for privatizing space, the industry has been held back so long that we are not able to pick up the pieces and send man to space privately right away. This would still leave the US without the means to send man to space.
This may seem like small potatoes, but when China and India are preparing for moon missions by 2020, we cannot delay our own efforts.
The problem with America is the lack of drive to speak out until it is too late... This is a case where it will be too little too late.
Write your local congressman, call Barack's campaign, call a talk radio show. Get the message out that sacrificing the Human Space Program is not an option.
Monday, November 19, 2007
The interesting trend is that Fred Thompson seems to be taking a nose dive in the national polls, and looking at state polls, he isn't doing much better. His slow start, slow motion, and perceived (rightfully IMHO) laziness has all but ended his bid for the White House.
Rudy support seems fairly consistent at 25%, and barring any huge gaffe he will not fall, but I don't see him making any gains either.
McCain, who was an early contender in this race as the alternative to "Moderate Rudy", is showing some stabilization at 15% from his falling support. His stunning debate performance in early September saved his campaign from an embarrassing plummet of support, but I do not see him gaining much more traction as the moderate republican. Rudy has that field pretty much locked up nationally.
The big battle is going to be fought between two campaigns vying for the Conservative vote: Romney and Huckabee. Romney has the money, Huckabee the message. Huckabee seems to have a lot of national momentum, where Romney seems to be stuck in the 12% - 15% for over a month now. Romney is spending millions on ads in the early states, and it is paying off... but fast approaching in the early states is Governor Huckabee, who seems to be making huge strides without spending on ads. One has to wonder what effect Huckabee's upcoming ads in Iowa and N.H. will have on getting his message to more voters. But one also has to ask if Huckabee can finish strong in these early states and make a legitimate national campaign overnight.
As we move closer to the Iowa Caucus, I expect to see Romney and Huckabee battling it out for 2nd place in the national polls... Once Iowa comes and goes, the winner (projected tie between these two in that state), perhaps the 18% undecided GOP voter will choose a camp to support, and we will see a new field of front runners.
Of course there are the what-if's. What if Romney finishes 2nd in Iowa to Huckabee? Does he withdraw from the race? What if Thompson finishes in the ranks with Ron Paul in Iowa, NH, and SC? Does he give up his bid entirely? And can Rudy keep his high numbers with poor showings in the early voting states?
Look for any candidate to pick up the momentum and surge above the 15% mark (and maintain). Especially Romney or Huckabee. If either one can break and maintain the momentum over the 15% mark, you may see the next GOP candidate (and president).
I was recently (as I often am) charged with racism because I am opposed to illegal immigrants living within our borders. The charge, in this case, supposed that I would be less likely to be troubled by a "white" illegal immigrant than an "other than white" illegal immigrant. I refuse to answer allegations of race in the immigration debate. For some people they may be legitimate, but for me they are a direct contradiction to my character.
The fact of the matter is that I am opposed to ANY illegal immigration. I don't care if you are white, green, yellow, if you have wings and three legs... The very fact that you are breaking the law is enough to fire me up... Moreover, if you are an illegal immigrant who refuses to conform to the American way of life, understanding the peaceful existence of a JUST society, then you are an illegal immigrant of the worst kind.
There are legal ways to come to America. Those are the paths that people should take, almost as a testament to WANTING to be AMERICAN.
ANY individual who comes to the United States ILLEGALLY, and continues to shame this country by maintaining allegiance to their home country, refusing to pledge allegiance to the way of life in the United States should return to the country that they love so much! Immigrants who come to this country legally, and become citizens, have to work hard, pass tests, and take an oath to swear off their allegiances to their home countries... and thus fully embrace what it is to be an American.
Illegals, en masse, appear to be filled with a sense of entitlement. The citizens of the US have something, and they (illegals marching in the streets) deserve it. They say they want to be American, but refuse to end allegiance to their native lands (proof: Waving flags of their homeland, and flying them above the US flag). They refuse to learn the language and laws of their new land (conducting business and living day to day without ever knowing English - would this fly in France?). They claim to want to retake the land for people of their own pigment (supported by racist organizations such as La Raza - the race - who drafted the previous shamnesty plan).
The fact of the illegal immigration debate comes down to what it means to be a nation. We are the great melting pot... well, we used to be. We are more like the cob salad now, where a bunch of different societies are living within one border. Unless we can return to one society, we will become a house divided, and we will fail as a society.
It is not a race issue. Mexican, Venezuelan, Ukrainian, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Australian, British... If you want to come to this land for good and embrace our way of life, come as Americans. Hold your head high that you are part of the greatest and most accepting society in the history of the world. Don't come as brown, white, black, yellow, red skinned people in search of a community where you can spew hate speech against those of other pigmentation.
Come as Americans, or do not come at all.
And if you ever find yourself in a debate and are slandered with a charge of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc... first, check your premises... ask yourself if you are... If, in fact, you are not, then know that the opposing debater is using fear tactics designed specifically to remove all logic from the debate, replacing it with emotion and fear. Stand strong in your convictions, because you know that you are right. And tell them that the immigration debate is not a racially charged debate. It is a debate on principles... on the kind of society that we want to live in... that being one of American pride, or that of American guilt.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
I am going to spell out my feelings on certain issues very plainly, so there is no confusion:
- I am against amnesty for illegal immigrants who come to a free land and disgrace the very institution and sanctity of that freedom. I am very much against anyone who supports race-based and ignorant movements like La Raza, who believe that they are entitled to that which they did not earn, solely based on ethnicity / skin color / primary language. These are violent and vulgar establishments that I equate with hate groups like the KKK, Radical Islam, etc. They have no place in a free society, and work only to tear down a free and just society. Anyone, ANYONE, who supports these movements will find a very harsh word from me in person and in writing on this blog.
- I whole-heartedly support the existence of a Jewish Nation in Israel. The Islamic movement to destroy a nation based on religion is a movement that will surely perpetuate war for all of time. The land is Holy to all religions, and all religions are allowed to freely worship in Israel. There was a time where that was not so. The existence of Israel is the existence of sanity in the Chaos of the Middle East. There is no place in a just world for radical religions. Anyone who disagrees will have much to debate with me in person and via this blog.
- I firmly believe in the founding principles... There is a moral compass that guided the US into existence. I right to be free, granted not by government, but by the Creator of nature... whomever you believe that to be. Every Man, Woman, and Child (including the unborn) have a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness... We all deserve to live. We all deserve to live freely, free from Tyranny. And we all deserve the right to follow our dreams, our ambitions, as long as we do not hinder the rights of others. The existence of socialized programs run by governments and funded by increasingly high taxes is a direct threat to the Pursuit of Happiness... it is attempting to re-write the pursuit into the "RIGHT of Happiness". This leads me to Marxism....
- I am adamantly against the Marxist belief of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In a principle of charity, I believe that this is a great compass... but when this is the government agenda, you lose your rights to choose happiness... instead you are obligated by the government to help... Forced Charity, if you will...
- I strongly support gun ownership. I believe that the first line of defense is the self, and the first line of societal protection is the armed citizen. What hope do we have if we cannot, in the least, defend our very right to Life? Guns are more than a means with which to hunt. Guns are the extension of the will to remain free. The very existence of the Bill of Rights is protected by the 2nd amendment... without it, the others seem to fade with time.
- And I believe in honest and even debate. I will surely admit that I am being attacked when a debate begins by my having to defend my very belonging to a political party, or to an ideology. Attacking an individual's belief system is the very core of bashing... and is used, successfully, by those (IMHO) on the left to keep the debate off of the topic, and more on the opponent attempting to prove negatives... It should be known that I am a conservative. Don't question my reasoning for being a conservative... rather, let's discuss the issues... you offer your opinions and facts, and I will do likewise... let us then meet somewhere in between with a common understanding, and we both leave as better individuals... better thinkers!
So to my friend... Your comments, your thoughts, your feelings... they are all welcome... Just know that in the world of political debate the temperatures can run red hot... especially when venting after an attack... ummm... I mean a debate... And know that I always try to reply... I live for the debate... as we all should! I take nothing on the issues personally... unless it is made personal... then what choice do I have?
Thank you for reading! You are a dear friend!
Monday, November 12, 2007
Imagine that. They or their parents/grandparents immigrate to this country... the land free of oppression, open to all who want to live a life in the pursuit of whatever makes you happy. And once they get here, they decide that they don't approve of how everyone else is living, and plan to change it into an oppressive land, just like the one they fled.
What I don't understand about Muslims is why do you think that your religion trumps any other? What has your religion done to your society? The Middle East was the cradle of civilization, but has since become a cesspool of violence and non-advancement. The cause? Islam!
Now you see that the world has begun doing something great for humanity! We are advancing science, technology, space travel, free enterprise, art, and other various forms of culture... and your only answer is to "Behead those who insult islam"... Your instinct is to destroy advancements, destroy progress...
And the audacity to openly share your plans to take over our free land...
That is exactly why I am a gun owner. This is the very reason that my children will be well trained in current firearm use. And this is the reason that you will have one hell of a fight on your hands.
Your Religion of Peace is nothing more than a plague on this great world. As with any plague, you can only survive if you spread... and as with any plague, it is up to those who do not wish to be infected to protect ourselves.
I, for one, will not live to see a day where Islam trumps the freedoms of the US. I will surely give my life to protect the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that would strive to destroy the greatest experiment in self-government and freedom that the world has ever known.
So I say to As-Sabiquin... bring it on you crazy sons-of-bitches! It will be my pleasure to make an example out of you!
*As a note to my readers, I apologize for the harsh words, but I have such trouble believing that this can be taking place in the US, and no-one is daring to stand up and speak out... well, let me be among the first!
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
This year Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize...
A great commentary on the absurdities in the Muslim world, and a stark contrast to the "Evil Jews" that they are fighting against. How can any one of them not see this difference?
Hate Watch Hall of Shame - HateWatchHallofShame
Socialism states: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
This philosophy means that if I am a doctor, I am obligated to serve every sick or injured person, regardless of my professional desires. If I am a baker, I am obligated to give my bread away to the poor. If I am an automaker, I am obligated to provide automobiles to anyone in need of transportation.
There is no free choice, no free market, no reason to dream or to invent. I cannot save for a vacation, because my desires to explore are outweighed by the poor's need for money... so if I have the ability to pay for my neighbors dinner, I am forced into that obligation.
That is no way to live.
The philosophy of freedom states: Need does not necessitate right.
This means that if I am a doctor I have the choice to treat your ailments. If I am a baker, I can choose to offer my bread at $2 a loaf, and you are free to find a better priced bread. If I am an automaker, I can build as many cars as I can afford, and you have the choice to negotiate a price with me, or to take your business somewhere else.
Not that materialism should be the focus of life, but as a society, we are at least in the need of the basic material items: Clothes, food, shelter. So in the least, we are free to choose which clothes to purchase, or if we make our own... we are free to purchase the food we wish, or to grow it ourselves for ourselves... we are free to live where we please, at a price that is negotiated between the owner and the renter/buyer. The key difference is choice.
So when the federal government requires upwards of 40%-50% in taxes, there are government regulations on what I need to do to work in a profession, and the government officials are now talking about forcing me to participate in a socialized health care system... well, I begin to question how free I actually am.
Are we a people who choose to live in a society of freedom and choice, or are we electing representative who further strip away our right to personal choice?
We are officially less than one year away from electing our next president. Keep these questions in mind as we move forward to select our representatives. Who is going to ensure freedoms, and work to get back the freedoms that have been lost? Who is going to fight to make government less of a spectator sport, and more of a full contact profession as it relates to our personal lives?
Ask yourself... how free do I want to be?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
I am a vocal advocate for environmental conservation, reusable energy, and moral obligations to maintaining resources... but Ritter's motivation seems to be influenced by the "Global Warming" band wagon.
I continue to place "global warming" in quotes because the "science" behind mans involvement in "global climate change" is shaky at best. There are several scientists who supported the theory at it's early conception, but after further review had failed to see any conclusive evidence that "global warming" is being propelled by human intervention.
Having reviewed Ritter's proposal, I would support a number of the ideas... increased personal responsibility, increased focus on alternative energy, and education of the populous on the perils of being poor environmental stewards... however, his plan of education and reduced carbon emissions have a central focus of "Global Warming"...
The debate about environmental conservation, energy independence, and clean air are being hampered by the debate over "global warming"... and to throw in an education plan that specifically teaches about the human cause of "global warming", well, for skeptics like myself, that is where we have to draw the line.
There should be a moral obligation to be good stewards of our environment, passed on by our families and communities... We should strive for alternative energy in a quest to further liberate ourselves from reliance on foreign oils and from reliance on big power industries... we should want to clean the air not because "global warming" threatens to flood our cities and destroy our future, but because we owe it to ourselves to live healthier lives under clean, clear skies.
Ritter's sweeping plan is an extension of the liberal agenda on "global warming", plain and simple.
Instead of working on environmental issues for the sake of moral obligation, the smattering of terms associated with "global warming" in it's focus on human fault are found in abundance in the document.
Though I credit ANY government official willing to champion the cause of energy independence, alternative fuels, and conservation... it all comes down to tact and intent. When you have to use inferred science to force policy, there is something wrong.
You should be able to pose a question to the community:
"Reducing particulate emissions because it will clean up Denver's air, is
it right or wrong?"
"Increasing funding for alternative energy incentives to reduce dependence
on oil, right or wrong?"
"Investing in personal sustainability in the area of energy, right or
Instead, what we get is:
"The world is going to flood, and we are going to be responsible for destroying
the earth for our children and the polar bears. Shame on us!"
So I have to give partial Kudos to Ritter...
But I also have to scold the Republicans for not effectively taking up the cause, and for allowing the liberals agenda to dominate, yet again, another important issue.
Republicans, remember, personal freedom and free market does not give a license to abuse the resources, or take without giving something back. With personal freedom comes moral obligations.
Do what's right.
Monday, November 5, 2007
One thing in particular caught my attention, and inspired this blog. It was during the discussion of Israel. He was trying (poorly) to form an argument in support of the Palestinian rebellion in Israel, while I was rebutting with his own words about people being allowed to live in a land and govern themselves... He made a statement that really helped explain the mindset of Hamas, Syria, and the Iranians...
He said, "We do not hate the Jews, just the Zionists".
So they don't have a problem with Jews, just Jews that choose to govern themselves.
I sat in meditation on this statement, and am continuously astounded by the backwards (il)logic that is in the mind's of these people... Everyone deserves to be free, and govern themselves... unless they choose to do so in a way that is un-islamic...
The statement that he made is "common sense" in Iran... and the fact that he said it so un-apologetically is frightening... not frightening to the effect that I am afraid of Iran, but to the effect that you can kill a man, but it is meaningless unless you can kill the ideology...
Thursday, November 1, 2007
But recently I have been plagued by the national presidential polls. I keep hearing about the almost certain general election showdown between Rudy and Hillary. National polls show one edging out the other on any given day. And it is right time that we all shake off the results of these polls and understand that the United States does not elect a President in the General election based on a national popularity vote... we use the amazing Electoral College System.
The great thing about the Electoral College system is that it forces candidates to campaign in the "flyover states" as well as in the big cities of New York and Los Angeles. It ensures that the "little guys" have power via delegates that takes away from the sheer quantity of citizens (and sometimes illegally voting non-citizens) found in the big cities.
So the question that I have for these poll takers is this: Where are you making your phone calls? Do they call Farmer Henry in Nowhere Kansas and Forest Ranger Steve in Montana, or do they make calls to Tom, Dick, and Harry living in St.Louis, New York, and San Francisco?
The problem with the National Polls is that when Hillary loses the General election, there is going to be a huge outcry because she was leading the national polls, and further calls for the elimination of the Electoral College System of voting in favor of Mob Rule.
The question is going to be this: Which candidate can pick up, for their respective parties, states that traditionally have supported one party over the other? Consider the 2004 results map:
The national polls, as fun as they are, should be replaced with a poll facing the candidates off in a state by state match-up, and determining which gains can be made.
In a Rudy/Clinton match up, there has been much discussion about a third party contender taking a large split of the votes... this is not a new concept. Consider the Bull Moose party of Teddy Roosevelt, splitting the Republican vote and delivering electoral victory to Woodrow Wilson. This was a case where a third party candidate actually received electoral votes... the cause? The Republican party had shifted too far from it's platform.
What states could Clinton steal? Perhaps Florida is in play... Perhaps Nevada and New Mexico... and Ohio is always a key player... But if she were head to head with a Liberal candidate like Rudy, who knows where the states would go.
What about Rudy... could he take New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania? Perhaps...
But what if a conservative third party candidate were to take the stage? This could throw the "fly-over states" into a Democratic win overall, as these states may give their electoral votes to the third party candidate, or split the Republican ticket so badly that Hillary wins the state.
But if the GOP elects a conservative candidate that rallies the base, one could expect that the electoral map would not vary much from the above image, and the Republicans would continue to hold on to the White House.
So, I say, enough with the attention on the National Polls... what are the state by state results, and how do the match-ups in those states relate to electoral votes? Who, then, will the victor be?