Monday, September 29, 2008

One of the best Youtube political ads I've ever seen

Burnin' Down the House. What caused our economic crisis. It isn't all of it, but it's a lot of it.

"C'mom c'mon listen to the money talk"

EDITED Links due to Youtube removing the videos.

Posted here

And here

Bailout fallout - The good, the bad, and the ugly crap sandwich

There was an interesting dynamic to the bailouts. This was a populist revolution against leadership. About 40% of the democrats said no. Over 60% of the Republicans voted no. I salute those that voted no, from Mike Pence to Dennis Kucinich to our state delegation that said "No deals." Mike Rogers, Tim Walberg, Thad McCotter, Pete Hoekstra, Joe Knollenberg, Candice Miller, John Conyers, Bart Stupak, and Carolyn Kilpatrick. 6 Republicans and 3 democrats.

The finger pointing has begun. Some blame Pelosi. Some blame some Republicans who may have thought about voting for it until Pelosi ran her big mouth. Some blame Bush and Paulson. Some blame the dems. Some blame Mike Pence who was one of the few real leaders in this.

Simplify this.
John Boehner voted for this and was part of the GOP leadership. He called the bill a "crap sandwich". I agree with him. The question to Boehner is this. Why did you vote for a "crap sandwich?" Why did you push for the rest of the GOP to go for this "crap sandwich" that even 40% of the democrats refused to back? This isn't leadership. Real leadership is pushing an alternative plan to this, one that isn't a bandaid. This quote also isn't leadership and is part of the reason why democrats currently control the house.

"I do believe we could have gotten there today if it had not been for this partisan speech the speaker gave on the floor of the House"


That's Boehner. I think we could have gotten there if we wern't given a "crap sandwich" (your quote) of a bill. Boehner would have lost my vote if I lived in his district. This is why I wanted Pence to be minority leader.

Where did the real leadership come on this bill? McCotter started the major push in the house with a speech on TV. This was his post vote statement. "The voice of the Main Street has been heeded and obeyed by Congress. Americans said 'No!' to the Paulson bailout. Now, let our work commence in earnest and prudence on behalf of the American people."

Mike Pence was one the most visable leaders on this. ""Ask yourselves why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles. If, like me, you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, I urge you vote in accordance with your convictions. Stand up for limited government and economic freedom. Stand up for the American taxpayer. Reject this bailout and vote no on the emergency economic stabilization act,"

Pence and the Republican Study Committee had an alternative plan here that wasn't a crap sandwich.
Three of the best quotes here are from fellow Midwesterners in Indiana. One is Republican, one democrat. Both opposed the bill. All said close to the same thing.

From Baron Hill (D) - I have been rushed to judgment by the Bush Administration before. There hasn't been enough time to evaluate the impacts this legislation would have if enacted, or to consider alternatives. Congress deserves time to weigh the benefits and the potential pitfalls of borrowing this money."

From Steve Buyer (R) - "I am bothered that Secretary Paulson offered an immediate government solution rather than taking the time to explore effective private sector and market based solutions. The Paulson plan was an unprecedented infusion of government power into the private financial sector."

From Mike Pence (R) - “"The last time I heard that, I was on a used car lot. The truth is, every time somebody tells you that you've got to do the deal right now, it usually means they're going to get the better part of the deal."

Emergency and rushed Bills usually turn out to be real turkeys. That got us the Patriot Act approved by 99 senators. That got us the department of "Homeland Security." That got us a massive increase in government, the loss of our freedoms, and in my opinion did nothing to make us safer.

You can't rush this crap. You have to first try and prevent this. If that doesn't work, as it did not work here, you find the root of the problem. When a Japanese Maple (my dad will get that reference) wraps around a septic pipe and breaks it, you don't fix the pipe until you correct the Maple. Else, it will break again, and the maple roots would be even bigger. This bandaid does nothing to fix the problem. It is so Pelosi, Chris Dodd, GW Bush, Goldman Sachs Paulson, Barney Frank, and Boehner can say "Hey, we did something!" and go back to put their heads in the sand and hope the worse collapse happens when they retire so it isn't their problem.

There's no secret to the problems here. People spent more than they had. They screwed up. The banks also screwed up in lending. Fixed costs they did not budget for increased. Housing markets dropped. Jobs (in Michigan and some other places) were scarce. Energy prices increased dramaticly. Unless these are addressed, then this bailout will only make it worse down the road.

My plan would be this.
1. All of the above (Except ethanol which raises food costs) energy policy. We need to open up our domestic energy sources, creating jobs here and improving our national security at the same time. Drill in Alaska and offshore. Clean Coal electricity. Nuclear Power. And at the same time work for alternative fuel. Fuel Cell, cold fusion. This needs to be long term. As people spend less on energy costs, they have more money in their pocket. Demand will only increase with an industrializing China and India and their 2+ Billion people.

2. Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This should have been done 5 years ago.

3. Cut pork spending.

4. As far as the Wall Street plan, the Republican Study Committee has an alternative plan which I can support. Click here to see Pence and Jeb Hensarling's plan

Paulson put all his eggs in one basket, as did Pelosi, Boehner, Dodd, Frank, Bush, etc. The rank and file house democrats and republicans alike united against this crap sandwich. It's time to think things through, quit rushing, and deliver something that isn't a crap sandwich.

Good! Bailout FAILS in house.

This is a bipartisan rebuke. 60% of Republicans said no. 40% of Democrats also said no. Maybe Paulson can quit pushing to bail out Goldman Sachs and we can get something we can work with.

I'll update the votes on the state level. This is a strange combination.

NO
Mike Rogers
Carolyn Kilpatrick
John Conyers
Thad McCotter
Pete Hoekstra
Bart Stupak
Tim Walberg
Joe Knollenberg
Candice Miller

Aye:
John Dingell
Dale Kildee
Vern Ehlers
Dave Camp
Sander Levin
Fred Upton

Annenberg Factcheck's LIES on Obama's gun record

There's nothing unbiased about so called "Factcheck." The media loves to haul it out as a truth arbiter, but all the group does is call itself "factcheck" and set itself up as the authority on political ads. When it comes to the gun issue, they let their biases cloud the way of judgment. Much of this is the same stuff I debunked against the Washington Post (on record supporting a total gun ban). which Obama used as a source when he acted like the KGB in threatening to go after the FCC license of radio stations who aired the campaign ad.

First off, "factcheck" is "Annenberg Factcheck." Obama got his political start with terrorist Bill Ayers as part of Chicago's Annenberg Challenge. Both "Factcheck" and Annenberg Challenge have the same funders, the Annenberg Foundation. Annenberg Foundation also Gave $100,000 to the gun grabbers. Money talks, BS walks.

There's 'factcheck's' link on the NRA's target of Obama



There's the NRA's Response

I didn't even read it after the part of Annenberg funding Brady.

Factcheck calls this false: - NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense"

The truth - Chicago has a total gun ban. Obama in his vote supporting prosecuting those who used a firearm in their home as self defense in those gun ban areas.

Factcheck calls this false: - NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting"

The Truth - Ted Kennedy's own words debunk this claim.

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well.


Police vests are made for pistol rounds. The .30-30 is a low powered round today almost exclusively used for hunting. The other round targeted, the .223 (used to hunt varmints) is in some places ILLEGAL for deer hunting since it is NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH. Hunters do not want to wound deer. Kennedy said in his speech that it wasn't for "hunting", and factcheck takes his word for it despite him contradicting himself by wanting to ban .30-30 ammunication.

Factcheck calls this false - "NRA Claim: "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns"

The Politico Questionaire? Factcheck simply takes Obama's word that questionaire was a mistake.

Factcheck calls this misleading - "NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm"

Obama supports that on pistols. Last I checked, that's a firearm.

Factcheck concedes this is true - NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry"

They call this "partially true" - "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms"

They said it was true but didn't like the "millions" part.

Factcheck called this "unsupported" - NRA Claim: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment"

Obama voted against Scalia and even Justice Roberts.

Factcheck called these two "uncertain" - NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" and NRA Claim: "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America"

That was based on a Chicago Defender article. I didn't see it, so I can't comment, but Factcheck was going to only take Obama's word on that.

I'm glad to see the NRA going after so called "Factcheck." As I said about the Washington Post. Who the hell died and made those jokers the arbiters of truth?

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Is there a deal (Bailout)?

We'll see. This is Congressman Blunt's side by side comparison, but there is no "final bill" until it is signed by Bush. There's still the senate and conference committees.

Side by side comparison



I don't like it. I like it better than Chris Dodd sending tax money to crooks at ACORN, but I don't like bailouts. I'm waiting and seeing before further comment.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Got my Absentee Ballot

I got my absentee ballot in the mail today. I've never voted straight ticket, but came closest to doing so this year from Palin on down. All except one contested race. I usually throw off if anywhere, in the trustee races, and this was it once again. I planned on voting against incumbents in the university trustee races. I got the chance to hear all the Republicans at the convention as well which is good since I do not vote blindly. The one race I did not vote for the Republican was for MSU trustee. I voted for Lisa Bouchard, but not for Scott Romney. The reason being the 18% tuition increase. I went for David Brown, the libertarian instead. Lisa Bouchard is a non-incumbent so she received my vote.

Other races of contest on the non partisan portion of the ballot:

Cliff Taylor for Supreme Court. This was my first vote of all. He's one of the best justices in the country, along with Justices Bob Young, Stephen Markman, and Maura Corrigan. Justice Taylor needs to win once again.

"Blank" for 4th Appeals court. I just can't vote for either Manderfield or for Kelly. Kelly might be pro-life, but he's staunchly pro-plaintiff. Manderfield is more favorable to republicans than Kelly, but is too socially liberal (different than social libertarian) to get my vote. Both donated big money to Stabenow and that was the big dealbreaker with me. Sorry Norm if you are reading this, but I just can't do it. I'm going to skip that race and vote for "blank."

Jay Drick for District Court. Jay's running again and will get my vote.

Proposals:

Voting YES on proposal 1 and NO on proposal 2.

Friday, September 26, 2008

More Fascist tactics by Obama's supporters.

From the Gateway pundit blog

St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is.

It's one thing if they want to keep the campaign fair for both sides, but they clearly only want to enforce the issue for the Obama Camp.
St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.


They are already after the TRUTHFUL NRA ads. They went after Stanley Kurtz of the National Review. Now keep in mind while truth IS a defense, it's a real pain in the ass to have to defend this in court.

Keep fighting. Obama, Axelrod, Daley, and their Chicago Alinsky politics have to lose, by ANY LEGAL MEANS NECESSARY. Destroy them and stop fascism.

Bailout politics (Debates, ACORN)

First off, some people are complaining about McCain probably missing the debate. That's a big gamble, but McCain can make it to his advantage if there is a good deal that we can live with. Right now with Goldman Sachs man Paulson on Bush's team, and the democrats controlling the house/senate, I'm not real confident on this. We'll see.

As for the debate itself, what's more important. Two senators yapping behind a podium in the first of three or four debates, or doing the job they are currently elected to do right now in a near crisis situation. McCain and Obama have a job to do. They are needed at the capitol right now. I blame government to an extent for causing the problems in the first place with its atrocious handling of the house of cards over the past 10 years, led by people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

A lot has happened with negotiations. The media was reporting a deal, but that was premature. There was no deal.

Is the revolt due to an earmark to the Vote Fraud kings where Obama used to do his community organizing work? ACORN? Apparently, on Fox News, moderate Republican Lindsay Graham balked at a lot of this bailout money going to ACORN. I didn't see it, but it's confirmed by one Republican (Ed Morrisey) and one Democrat blog (Larry Johnson).

From Morrisey's blog


House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise. One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza:


and Graham's quote

And this deal that’s on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I can’t believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesn’t work.



Chris Dodd, the leading receiver of Fannie and Freddie funds? That gives me a lot of confort. I need a drink, and it's not even noon. Make it 151. I really hope Mike Pence and the RSC in the house can work a miracle, since I'm expecting a real turkey of a bill to pass. If I get half of what I want here, I'll be estatic. (No handouts to rich bankers like Goldman Sachs, only loans if anything, no pork, no crap to ACORN or other groups, no drilling bans)

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Obama sends goon squads to censor the truth about his gun record

I believe in Godwin's law, so I won't use the terms Nazi or Fascist here, but Obama's camp supports pissing on the first amendment as he does the second amendment. This is a typical page from the Chicago/Axelrod/Mayor Daley school of Machine Politics. Obama doesn't like the NRA ads, so he pushes to censor them. Look out NRA, you may wake up next to a stallion head next to you tomorrow morning.....

This is the NRA ad that Obama's goons wants to censor.

Politico has the source. Most of this was a letter from the NRA in response, so I'll post the whole thing here so I can disect this point by point. Normally, I post excepts. If politico or Ben Smith has a problem with the full posting, I'll adjust it afterward.

The Obama campaign has written radio stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, pressing them to refuse to air an ad from the National Rifle Association.

"This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama's position on the Second Amendment," says the letter from Obama general counsel Bob Bauer. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."


I know the bill in contention very well, as well as the context behind it, so the NRA not only is accurate, but in this case, the context of the ad is more inflammatory than the bill itselt. Most who know me know that I refer to one of the ammo bans as the "30-30 ban." That's the bill. I'll get to that later. Back to the politico:

The ad, "Hunter," conflates Obama's anti-gun stances of the 1990s with his current, more pro-gun, stand, and was chided for inaccuracy in The Washington Post, an item to which Bauer's letter refers.


The Washington Post? Who the hell died and made those jokers the arbiters of truth?

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, who provided the letter, said it shows clear evidence that the ads are "hurting him," and stood by their substance. He also provided a copy of the NRA's own letter to the stations and memo disputing the Post story, after the jump. He also said the ad is running only in Pennsylvania at the moment.


Good. Be prepared to take out Obama/Daley's goons.

MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
999100-0130
TO: Station Managers

FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
Counsel to National Rifle Association

DATE: September 25, 2008

RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")

This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.
The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.
Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.
The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.
The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.
Please feel free to contact me at (202) 295-xxxx if you have any questions. Thank you.


Be prepared. Here's the rebuttals.

Factual Response to Washington Post False Statements on NRA Anti-Obama Ads
Washington Post Claim—500% Tax on Guns
It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. … Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the “guns and ammo” most commonly used by hunters.
Facts:
The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. (emphasis added). Contrary to the Post’s assertion, the statement makes no distinction as to what type of guns Obama proposed to tax.
The Post is far too eager to let Obama off the hook just because he hasn’t mentioned the idea lately. Obama has supported the idea and has never repudiated that support. Therefore it is fair to say that the statement reflects his views on the issue.


Chicago Defender, December 13 1999. I can't get there, but it is consistent with his atrocious record.

Washington Post Claim—Ammunition Ban
Contrary to [NRA’s] claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at “virtually all deer-hunting ammunition.” Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would “not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles,” a point contested by the NRA.

Facts:
NRA contested the point for a simple reason: The Post is wrong.
The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
Finally, it is true that Sen. Kennedy denied his 2005 amendment would ban hunting ammunition. However, in a floor debate on a substantially identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced a hunting rifle cartridge:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 [sic] caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.
Cong. Rec. S1634 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2004). The relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester was introduced in 1895 and “has long been the standard American deer cartridge.” Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 52 (8th ed. 1997). As noted above, the .30-30 may be fired in a handgun.
Even apart from the Kennedy Amendment, Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would “support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” See Lynn Sweet, Obama’s 2003 IVI-IPO questionnaire may be getting closer scrutiny, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 11, 2007 (available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html). The rifles that were banned as “assault weapons” under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester—the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) (repealed Sept. 13, 2004). Therefore, this statement also supports a ban on hunting rifle ammunition.


The NRA is right on this. There were two IDENTICAL Bills. One was in 2004, before Obama was senator. The other was in 2005. The 2004 bill was S AMDT 2619 to S1805. The 2005 bill wasn S Amdt 1615 to S397. The Language of both bills is as follows:
SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.

(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.

``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.


What did Mr. Kennedy have in mind? He explained it in 2004

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well.


The .30-30 Winchester is the basic hunting round. .30-30 lever action. It is a mid level ammunition. Another target in Kennedy's comments it the less powerful .223, which is used in the AR-15. If this bill was passed, the Attorney General can unilaterially ban the .223 and .30-30.

As far as police vests go, they are supposed to protect them from pistol rounds, not rifle rounds. Just about any non pistol ammunition I have is "armor piercing", because most of my rounds are rifle rounds. Slugs? There's some real power there. 30-06? That's a lot more powerful than the .30-30 and is a hunting round.


Washington Post Claim—Gun Ban
The … claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.


Facts:
While Obama does support the ban (which actually expired in September, not March, of 2004), the statement in the advertisement is based on Sen. Obama’s vote for much broader legislation and his public statement in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms.
On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
Obama also supported banning a large class of popular hunting firearms on a 1998 Project VoteSmart survey. One of the questions, and the relevant part of Obama’s responses, were as follows:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
See Illinois State Legislative Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test (available at http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826:) (emphasis added). Millions of American hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for over a century.

Finally, of course, a ban on hunting rifle ammunition (such as the Kennedy amendment Obama supported) would have been a very effective ban on the use of hunting rifles.


I haven't followed the Illinois .50 caliber gun ban, but almost all shotgun rounds are .50 caliber or higher. I'm going my memory, but I think by measurement, the calibler of your basic Mossberg 500 12 gauge is "72 caliber."

But that just covers the beginning of Obama's distain of the 2nd Amendment. I covered it all when the Elmer Fudds at AHSA endorsed him. From April 18, 2008


So what is Obama's record on the 2nd Amendment.

First off, he was a former Board member of the notorious Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is the main funder of gun grabbing organizations in the US. They fund groups such as VPC which supports a total ban. They have hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these astroturf organizations.

http://republicanmichigander.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-hates-civil-rights-and.html - I commented on one of his puff pieces here. He supports "Ballistic prints" which don't do anything for crimes. He supposed the so called "assault weapons" ban.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009664 - He voted present on another nasty bill.

He voted to ban almost all centerfire ammunition - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217

He voted to support frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufactuers. - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml - And this exposes his State Senatorial record.

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves. Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank." On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.

He supports guns for the important people, but not us. That's Obama's elitism for you. That fits the views of the Elmer Fudd organization that is supporting him as well. But wait, there's even more from Politico.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire1newest.html - Obama State Senate survey - pt 1

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html - Obama State Senate survey - pt 2

On guns...TOTAL BAN!

Now his aids tried to cover for him and say that wasn't his work. BS. Buck stops at the top. Politico called that as well.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat. Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire. They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.” But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

Is it really surprising that an organization headed by two, and formerly three gun grabbers, would back a gun grabber? Not really. The good news is that most of us know what AHSA is about, and no amount of photo ops are going to change that. It's the record that counts, and the records of Obama, Schoenke, Ricker, and Rosenthal show that none of them are friends of the 2nd Amendment.


Yeah, if I had that record, I'd want to shut up my opposition too. However, we have a thing called the first Amendment, and from someone who actually taught constitutional law, he should know better. Either he's an idiot who doesn't know it or more likely, doesn't give a damn.

However, we do, and we will make sure this jackass loses, so we can protect our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Millen Fired!!!!!!!!

From the Free Press

FOXSports.com and ESPN are reporting that the Lions have removed team president and CEO Matt Millen from his post, ending one of the most criticized tenures in Detroit sports history.



Now if Ford would sell the team, I'd be estatic.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Obama's radio ad on guns

First of all, Go State! Second of all, Fire Millen! The Lions are at it again. 0-3. As Darryl Rogers said, "What does it take for a guy to get fired around here?"

I just heard an Obama ad twice last weekend on a Classic Rock station. It was an ad by "pro gun" Ray Schoenke, former Washington Redskin who probably got knocked in the head a few times on the O-line by his comments. Schoenke is a democrat who once ran for governor in Maryland and also is the head of "American Hunters and Shooters Association." I covered these Elmer Fudds here.

AHSA backs Obama. Of course they would, as they are a bunch of Fudds. Now I need to back up my comments about AHSA being an Elmer Fudd organization. We can start with their two leaders and former board member (and co-founder).

Ray Schoenke - President. - http://www.newsmeat.com/

Newsmeat is a great website. You can look up who donated to who. Ray Schoenke is a longtime democrat from the Maryland/DC area. That doesn't stick out as much at these two donations.
SCHOENKE, RAY, WASHINGTON, DC - BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE - VOTER EDUCATION FUND $5,000primary 03/23/00

SCHOENKE, NANCY, WASHINGTON, DC, HOMEMAKER, BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE - VOTER EDUCATION FUND, $5,000primary, 02/02/00

$10,000 to the Brady Group - the leading gun grabbing organization in the country. That's no friend of hunters and shooters.


Gun grabbers have to hide their spots nowadays, but they should know better than to insult our intelligence. Obama's record betrays Schoenke's talk. Schoenke's actions betray his talk. Lastly, Schoenke sounds about as intelligent that this guy in his ad. Be vewy vewy quiet.....

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

What the hell is with these bailouts? (Fannie Mae, AIG, etc)

Fannie and Freddy, now this? The government is sending a message. If you are a bigtime company failing, do not worry. We'll save you from your mistakes.


WASHINGTON - Another day, but not just another bailout. This one's a stunning government takeover.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the most far-reaching intervention into the private sector ever for the Federal Reserve, the government stepped in Tuesday to rescue American International Group Inc. with an $85 billion injection of taxpayer money. Under the deal, the government will get a 79.9 percent stake in one of the world's largest insurers and the right to remove senior management.

AIG's chief executive, Robert Willumstad, is expected to be replaced by Edward Liddy, the former head of insurer Allstate Corp., according to The Wall Street Journal, citing a person it did not name. Willumstad had been at the helm of AIG since June.

A call to AIG to confirm the executive change was not immediately returned.

It was the second time this month the feds put taxpayer money on the hook to rescue a private financial company, saying its failure would further disrupt markets and threaten the already fragile economy.

AIG said it will repay the money in full with proceeds from the sales of some of its assets. It will be up to the company to decide which assets to sell and the timing. The government does, however, have veto power.

Under the deal, the Federal Reserve will provide a two-year $85 billion emergency loan at an interest rate of about 11.5 percent to AIG, which teetered on the edge of failure because of stresses caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and the credit crunch that ensued. In return, the government will get a 79.9 percent stake in AIG and the right to remove senior management.

AIG shares sank $1.34, or 36 percent, to $2.41 in morning trading Wednesday. They traded as high as $70.13 in the past year.

The government's move was similar to its bailout of Sept. 7 of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where the Treasury Department said it was prepared to put up as much as $100 billion over time in each of the companies if needed to keep them from going broke.

The Fed said it determined that a disorderly failure of AIG could hurt the already delicate financial markets and the economy.


I don't like this at all. Besides the socialism, this strikes me as a panicked decision. Every company now is going to be asking for even more handouts as usual.

Now, many saw problems far in advance on the horizon with this stuff. McCain called part of this back in 2005. Freddie and Frannie.



FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

The United States Senate

May 25, 2006 Section 16

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."


I'm not a big fan of regulation, and probably would have balked on this back in 05. McCain called the problems with that. McCain wasn't the only one who called this. Bush called it. Back in 2003



Now I wish Bush and McCain pushed this through in 2005 (and Obama was part of the problem too).

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

Then there is Barney Frank and Mel Watt, democrats.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.


Now, what about Obama's ties to Fannie and Freddie?
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008


1. Dodd, Christopher J D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E D-PA $65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F R-UT $61,499

And it gets worse for Obama. Former CEO Jim Johnson was Obama's VP vetter. Elect Obama, and you get more of the same.

Hey Stoopid!

I don't know who is behind this. This could be someone on the right being an ass (and helping Obama), or someone on the left setting up sympathy for Obama. It could be a few punks thinking this stuff is funny. I'm going to wait on the facts before commenting. If anyone can figure this out, it will be the Secret Service. Before the facts come out, I'll just say that there's a right way and a wrong way to do things. Whoever is guilty needs to get nailed, and this trash can't be tolerated. We have elections, and things should be settled there. The ballot box, not the cartridge box.

From The Argus
As reported last week, one letter was sent to Livingston County Democratic Party headquarters Thursday expressing a “wish” that Obama “gets a bullet.”

A second letter has surfaced, having also been sent Thursday, to a Howell business stating “Think hard about who you are trying to elect you liberal piece of s--- n----- lover.”

Both included the same six-page document printed out from Snopes.com about the college thesis of Obama’s wife, Michelle. Both had the messages next to a photo of the couple.

It’s been confirmed that the second letter was postmarked out of Lansing and came from a “G.W. Bush 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”



Secondly, from the Ann Arbor News
Racist slurs were spray-painted across a large Barack Obama presidential campaign billboard alongside a heavily trafficked stretch of US-23 in Pittsfield Township sometime overnight Tuesday.

And the U.S. Secret Service is investigating what now appears to be two threatening letters against Obama that were received in Livingston County, according to news reports.

Michigan State Police were on the scene of the billboard Wednesday morning, and have called in for tracking dogs, police said.

Black spray paint was used to draw three swastikas, symbols of Klan hoods and to write "KKK," "Rebel" and two racial slurs.

The billboard, roughly 10 feet tall by 50 feet wide, is located where Textile Road deadends near US-23, east of Carpenter Road.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Obama and ACORN

If you are a Republican, we need you if at all possible to the watch the polls on election day. ACORN is up to its usual tricks. This is a "community organizer" does, right here from the community Saul Alinsky school of politics.


From the Free Press


Several municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.

The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN's Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.

"There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications," said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's Office. "And it appears to be widespread."

Chesney said her office has had discussions with ACORN officials after local clerks reported the questionable applications to the state. Chesney said some of the applications are duplicates and some appear to be names that have been made up. The Secretary of State's Office has turned over several of the applications to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

The U.S. Attorney's Office on Friday declined to confirm whether an investigation was taking place.

In recent years, ACORN's voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Washington, with some employees convicted of voter fraud.



This is nothing new. I hear at least one story about ACORN or PILGRIM or a similar group every single election year. ACORN is non-partisan technicaly, but is one of the biggest left-wing groups out there (funded by the Tides Foundation and George Soros), and is not above breaking the law to achieve its goals. At least nine convictions for illegal electioneering. Now I know Chicago had a tradition of illegal electioneering going back to the Daley machine (And Obama's pal Axelrod worked for Daley), but it needs to be stopped here on a nationwide scale so they don't steal the election Chicago style.

Obama has a long history with ACORN. In 1992, Barack Obama ran "Project Vote/Acorn" in Chicago. It was his launching pad into politics. Obama then was on the board of three boards of directors, two of which tied to unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers. The third board is the gun grabbing Joyce Foundation. If there's a gun grabbing event or organization, the money usually leads back there. The Ayers groups are the Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund of Chicago. Ayers and Obama, both University of Chicago Professors, served together as board members on the Woods Fund. Despite the "now distancing" of the two, Ayers held a fundraiser in his home for Obama. That's a good friend there. (Page 7 source). The Annenberg Challenge is no longer around, and was transferred to heiress and Obama campaign fundraiser Penny Pritzker. The Chicago branch was started by a grant application from Bill Ayers and funded by the Annenberg Foundation.



ACORN is funded by left-wing foundations similar to those Obama worked on. It's a network of big money and big leftism. With the shady work of ACORN we all need to be poll challengers and out to work the polls and watching the counting of the polls and absentee ballots making sure that the elections are run fairly.

Friday, September 12, 2008

No money for Train to Nowhere, Hamburg election developments (EDITED and UPDATED 9/13)

The latest from the Argus shows that there is no money for the train.

The chairman of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners says the county will neither fund a proposed commuter rail line nor be a part of any taxing authority.


Bill Rogers said county officials have told Washtenaw Livingston Line (WALLY) coalition members that the board cannot afford to finance the project, which would connect Howell to Ann Arbor. Officials have previously estimated annual funding from each county ranging from $75,000-$150,000.

“Not that we’re not in favor of mass transit or participating, but I just don’t think it’s economically feasible today,” said Rogers, who anticipates the county still being involved in WALLY talks. “We’re just not going to have the cash.”

Anticipated startup costs for the proposed 27-mile route came in at $32.4 million in a recent feasibility study. Meanwhile, Rogers and other commissioners were busy trimming 1.7 percent from all departments financed by general fund monies and are currently trying to deal with additional anticipated cuts in coming years.


Good move guys.

Also from the Argus,
Joanna Hardesty is running as a write-in for the Hamburg Township Clerks position. In a rather bitter primary election battle, Matt Skiba defeated her in the primary. There's some hard feeling there, and not just because of the election results.

Her comments followed Skiba's accusations that she and her supporters stole or tampered with his campaign signs; attempted to flatten one of his tires in the township municipal campus parking lot; and abused authority in overseeing the Hamburg Family Fun Fest.

Skiba also lobbed barbs at Hardesty for a lawsuit filed by her husband and son against the township Police Department alleging illegal entry to the family's home.

Hardesty said Skiba, who won the primary with less than 20 percent of registered township voters casting ballots, ran a "malicious campaign" that distracted voters from his lack of experience and own personal issues, including a bankruptcy filing.

"Mr. Skiba, you were not held accountable for your false allegations," Hardesty said, eyeing Skiba, who sat in the back row of the board room.

"I will be running a very vigorous campaign in the November election. Write in Hardesty, please," she added.


I can't say I'm surprised here. From a partisan standpoint, it hurts the Republicans in a bad way seeing two of them battle in a general election. I think the winner here is Debby Buckland.

EDIT/UPDATE (After Michael's comment)

I hesitate to take sides with these Hamburg contests, but it's time for me to do so. In this race with the information I had, I would have voted for Hardesty in the primary. Most of that was based on the debate between her and Skiba. I don't know either of them very well and don't have any personal dogs in that fight. I also would have voted for Michael Zelegelski and Bill Hahn. I know and like both Pat Evon and Bobbi Vaughan and I'm glad I did not have to make a decision there. Pat Evon will do a good job, I'm not worried about that. I don't vote based on slates, and I hope those who read this know that about me. I've always gone my own way with endorsements, voting decisions, and issues. I don't get into the grudge matches and personal contests out here. I've been there and done that with a different organization. It's not fun, and I avoid that stuff unless I have one hell of a dog in the fight.

That said, it's time for the Livingston County GOP to get behind Matt Skiba. The primary is over and the voters who showed up clearly made the decision. I trust the voters of Hamburg as they know their township better than I do. They made the decision to pick the candidates who run under my banner in that township.

Back on August 15, I posted this:

The question is whether with the house cleaning in Hamburg, is the infighting over. If the winner was all three incumbents, all winning by 50 votes, then I would have bet on the democrats. That was not the case, and all incumbents are gone. The primary I think made things tougher for the dems. However, do Pat Hohl (unopposed), Matt Skiba, and Pat Evon realize what happened and work to put this behind them? Do the outgoing incumbents provide a smooth transition? If the answer is yes, then I think we hold these seats. If not, then the papers will have a big story about an "upset" in November. Nobody wants to read about their township in the paper every day. Two of the newcomers I think are real strong candidates in Pat Evon and Bill Hahn. I'm not worried about them. One other candidate however concerns me. I won't say who it is in public, but I wasn't that impressed with that individual in the candidate forum. With the current situation, none of these are gimmes, but one of these actually scares me a bit.


We don't have a smooth transition, and commenter Michael's comment here was right on.
"It is time for an intervention, perhaps from a county and state level." I agree. County level. I missed the last meeting, and I know something is in the works. I hope this race is covered and covered well. It is now our most difficult race in the county, and while the McCain/Palin race is important, the Livingston County Republican Party can not forget the first two words in its name either. I had an eye on this race anyway, but now Skiba will need a lot of help. The Bucklands (both Dave and Debby) are experienced campaigners and need to be taken seriously. I have no doubt that Debby will run ahead of Obama (who I expect to get John Kerry percentages around here) to begin with due to the township politics. Skiba also now has an independent challenger as well who will take some GOP votes. John Kerry got 41% and Gore 42%. With a third party, that's enough to sometimes win.

There's an old saying used about rough language and profanity and I think it applies to politics as well. Time, place, and manner. This I do not believe is the proper time, place, and manner for the challenge. I think the best way for a defeated candidate who is unhappy with the campaign is to be a team player for a contested general election, and then run again four years later in the next primary. That is the proper time, place and manner.

Electoral College Math - Part 9 - Scenarios

First off, based on the polls and issues, along with my gut feeling, I moved Iowa to lean Obama. One word. Ethanol.

Now's the actual Math. I have as follows:
Solid McCain - 139
Lean McCain - 61 (North Carolina, Georgia, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana)
Total McCain - 200

Solid Obama - 171
Lean Obama - 26 (Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Maine's 2nd District)
Total Obama - 197

Assuming this is true, that means McCain needs 70 votes, and Obama 73 votes. (or 72 votes to tie and likely win by legislatures)

I'll seperate the tossups into two categories. "Big 4" and the rest.
Big 4:
Florida - 27
Pennsylvania - 21
Ohio - 20
Michigan - 17
Those four are 85 votes.

Rest:
Virginia - 13
Wisconsin - 10
Minnesota - 10
Colorado - 9
Nevada - 5
New Mexico - 5
New Hampshire - 4

56 votes out of the rest. Total of 141 votes in the tossups.

Assume the "lean" states stay that way (else it is a landslide). Now how big are the big 4 states? The magic numbers are 70 for McCain and 73 for Obama.

Scenario 1 - All four "Big 4" states to one candidate. 85 votes. It's over. Pop the champaign glass. Who ever wins all of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan wins.

Scenario 2 - Three of the big 4. Whoever wins three of the big four states forces the other candidate to almost run the table.

Most likely for this for McCain:
Florida (27), Ohio (20), Michigan (17) - 64 - votes. That gives McCain 264 votes. He then wins if he holds Virginia (13), Colorado (9), or both New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5). He also wins if he flips either Wisconsin (10) or Minnesota.(10) or flips New Hampshire (4) and any other tossup state.

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania - 68 votes - That gives 268 votes to McCain and he wins if he gets one more state listed above.

Less likely for McCain:
Ohio (20), Penn (21), Michigan (17) - I don't see McCain losing Florida and winning these three. That gives him 258 needing 12. Virginia wins, or any combination of two states outside of the 5 or less vote states where he needs 3 (NH, NV, NM)

Florida (27), Michigan (17), Penn (21) - Least likely, since if Ohio flips, Michigan stays blue. Too many similarities. 265 votes, one other tossup state wins outside of New Hampshire which will tie.

I think Florida and Ohio are most likely for McCain, with Michigan and Pennsylvania plausible, but less likely.

More likely for Obama (197 votes):
Pennsylvania (21), Michigan (17), Florida (27): - 65 votes, giving Obama 262. He then wins if he holds Wisconsin (10) or Minnesota (10), or if he flips Virginia (13) or Colorado (9). Also winning is holding New Hampshire (4) and flipping either New Mexico (5) or Nevada (5)

Pennsylvania (21) Michigan (17), Ohio (20): - 58 votes, giving Obama 255. The magic number is then 15. The following combinations win:
Virginia and any other tossup state:
Wisconsin/Minnesota and Wisconsin/Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, or Nevada
Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico.
Tie possible with:
Wisconsin/Minnesota and New Hampshire
Nevada, New Mexico and New Hampshire

Less Likely:
Ohio, Florida, Michigan - 64 votes, giving Obama 261. That means 9 votes needed. Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia, or Minnesota win it, or any two of New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida - Least likely, for the same reason why McCain won't win Michigan if Ohio flips. 68 votes giving Obama 265. Any state ourside New Hampshire will win. New Hampshire will tie.

Florida and Ohio will be tougher for Obama. Pennsylvania and Michigan won't be easy, but more likely than the other two.

Scenario 3 - Splitting the Big 4.

McCain - Florida/Ohio - 47 votes for 247
Obama - Pennsylvania/Michigan - 38 votes for 235

This will mimic the last two elections. McCain needs 23 more votes, and Obama 35. Keep in mind that I already conceded Iowa to Obama, which falls in line from 2000, not 2004.

McCain wins with:
A. Virginia (13) and Wisconsin (10) or Minnesota (10)
B. Virginia, Colorado (9) and any other state
C. Virginia, New Mexico (5), and Nevada (5)
D. Wisconsin and Minnesota, and any other state
E. Wisconsin (or Minnesota), Colorado, and any other state
F. Wisconsin (or Minnesota), New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire (4)
G. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire
Virginia and Colorado tie.
Virginia, New Mex/Nevada and New Hampshire tie.

McCain - Florida/Pennsylvania 48 votes for 248, 22 votes needed
Obama - Ohio/Michigan - 37 votes for 234, 36 votes needed
Same Scenarios as above, except also Virginia and Colorado wins.

McCain - Florida/Michigan - 44 votes for 244, 26 votes needed
Obama - Ohio/Pennsylvania - 41 votes for 238, 32 votes needed
Very unlikely (because If Michigan goes McCain so does Ohio, but if I'm wrong)
A. Virginia (13), Wisconsin/Minnesota(10), and one other state.
B. Virginia (13), Colorado (9), and one other state.
C. Virginia (13), Nevada (5), New Mexico(5) and New Hampshire (4).
D. Wisconsin (10), Minnesota(10), and Colorado (9)
E. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and two of New Mexico/Nevada/New Hampshire.
F. Wisconsin/Minnesota(10), Colorado (9), and two of New Mexico/Nevada/New Hampshire

McCain - Ohio/Michigan - 37 votes for 237 votes, need 33 votes
Obama - Florida/Pennsylvania - 48 votes for 245 votes, need 25 votes
It gets tricky here.
A. Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), and Minnesota (10)
B. Virginia, Wisconsin (or MN), Colorado (9), and one other tossup state.
C. Virginia, Wisconsin (or MN), and Nevada and New Mexico
D. Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire
E. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and one other tossup state
F. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire.

McCain - Michigan/Pennsylvania - 38 votes
Obama - Florida/Ohio

See above, almost the same.

McCain - Ohio/Pennsylvania - 41 votes for 241 votes, need 29.
Obama - Florida/Michigan - 38 votes
See above, slightly easier.

The biggest thing this shows is that in order to have a chance, either candidate must win at least two of the "Big 4" states. Three makes it easy to win. If the four are split, a major advantage goes to whoever takes Florida. Without Florida, Virginia is a must win, or McCain will have to run the table to win. With Florida, Virginia makes it much easier, particulary as Wisconsin and Minnesota are more difficult states to win. From what I heard, Colorado is target 1 for the dems. Assuming Iowa is going blue, picking off Colorado makes it very tough, but not impossible to win if Virginia says red. McCain would have to run the table then with New Mexico and Nevada (or pick off Wisconsin or Minnesota). This is why that third state of the big 4 is so important.

If that call is made early for either Pennsylvania or Michigan, then I'm almost certain we win. I can't see either of those two going our way and then end up losing Florida or Ohio. If Obama takes both, it'll be a long night of waiting.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Electoral College Math - Part 8 - Michigan

Home sweet home. This will be more than likely another close race similar to 2000 and 2004. There are a lot of questions about what will happen here. I have all the 2000 and 2004 data on the county pages. They are out of date for 2006 results and 08 previews due to time contraints, but the 2000/2004 stuff is still there and accurate. I recommend looking there if you want to get more detailed than this post here.

John Kerry won 15 counties in Michigan. Al Gore won 24 counties in Michigan (out of 83?) Kerry won one county that Gore lost, Alger County, which is in the UP. Kerry and Gore did underperform in a lot of normally base counties, but there are a lot of democrats which are "local democrats" but not federal democrats. Bush ran into some of that problem in central Oakland County and to a lesser extent in parts of West Michigan where there are "local republican" that aren't "federal republicans."

In 2004, there were 4,839,252 voters. Kerry won the state by 165,707 votes. Gore won the state in 2000 by 217,279 vote. Every region here is important, from Detroit City to the corner of the UP.

Dividing the regions:
1. The UP:
The UP is locally democrat and federally a swing area. They went heavily for Granholm twice, heavily for Bill Clinton, and then voted for Bush twice, or more than likely, against Gore, and against Kerry. These are some of the most independent voters in the state and should not be taken for granted by either party. Bush won the UP by 6462 votes in 2000, and by 6388 votes in 2004. The democrats only won three counties here in 2000 and 2004. Their base counties here are Marquette and Gogebic (Ironwood), which they won both times. Marquette went 53-43% for Gore and 54-45% for Kerry. Gogebic went 48-46% in 2000 and 52-47% in 04. The third county in 2000 was Iron county, which Bush amazingly won in 04 by 9 votes. In 2004, the third county was Alger County which Kerry won by 77 votes after Bush won it by 71 votes in 2000. Houghton County is one to watch. Bush won big there in 2000 and 2004, but for different reasons. The City of Houghton flipped. Bush lost it in 04 after winning it by 10% in 2000. The Nader vote went to Kerry and then some. Bush made up for it in the other parts of the county. Overall, the Eastern UP is more Republican than the Western UP. The whole UP though can not be neglected.

NE Lower:
This is another swing area, and overlooked. Pundits say that "Up North" is Republican. That is NOT the case. I repeat. That is NOT the case. It is socially conservative. There is a difference. Bush did win here, but narrowly, with a spread of 2562 votes (50%) in 2000 and 6805 (53%) votes in 2004. Bush did win every county in what I considered NE Lower Michigan in 2004, and he lost Alpena, Ogemaw, Iosco, and Roscommon Counties in 2000. All four of those flipped. Alpena is a democrat base county on the state level, so that was surprising. Cheboygan, Presque Isle (Rogers City), Montmorency (Atlanta), Alpena, Oscoda (Mio), Alcona, Ogemaw (West Branch), Iosco (East Tawas), and Roscommon Counties were included. Montmorency and Oscoda Counties are the most Republican in this area. The rest are all fairly competitive. Much of this area is represented on the state level by two democrats, Joel Sheltrown and Matt Gillard and by Republican Tony Stamas on the senate level (thanks more to Midland).

Northest Lower:
This is more the base area that the pundits refer to. I do think it's a little shaky up there. The more tradition republican coast is changing, but the interior is more republican these days. Bush won it overall by 26,040 (57%) votes in 2000, and 32,327 (59%) votes in 04, but there is more than meets the eye in SOME of these areas. It was a Republican sweep in the counties I included in NW Michigan outside of Manistee County in 2000. I did NOT include Lake County here, but in West Michigan, so keep that in mind with these numbers. The main thing I notices in the numbers here, and in my travels is that the coastal areas with money are going more purple, while the interior areas are going more red. I think it's cultural issues between liberal outdoors and conservative outdoors. Biking and sightseeing v hunting and snowmobiling. That's overly simplistic and I really like both the coastal and the interior, but there is a clash between the cultures. Grand Traverse County was 59% Bush in 04 and 58% Bush in 2000. Not a lot of change right? Wrong. Traverse City went 51% for Kerry in 2004, and 45% for Gore. The townships masked the numbers. Leelanau County shows it more. Bush won it with 56% in 04, down from 57% in 00. Interior Kalkaska County shows a reverse. Bush won with 56% in 00, and 61% in 04. It's not just Traverse City either, as I've seen signs along the coasts outside of Antrim County. Petoskey and Charlevoix are going more purple as well, to a lesser extent than Traverse City. The two most competitive Counties are Manistee County which is about 50/50 and Benzie County which was close in 2000, although took a right turn in 2004. Frankfort there is still blue however. I do not know if it is cultural or union, as I am unfamiliar with the area. If McCain is going to win this state, he needs to hold the line in the coastal areas, and improve on the interior improvements in 04. Missaukee County is by percentage the 2nd more Republican County in the state. 68% in 2004.

I included Emmet (Petoskey), Charlevoix, Antrim (Elk Rapids), Otsego (Gaylord), Crawford (Grayling), Kalkaska, Grand Traverse (Traverse City), Leelanau (Suttons Bay), Benzie (Frankfort), Manistee, Wexford (Cadillac), and Missaukee (Lake City) Counties.

Saginaw Valley:
I think this is one of the most important areas to watch. The election will be won or lost here. In 2000, Gore won this area by 63,132 (57%) votes. In 2004, Kerry won it by 51,343 (55%). Can McCain knock down Obama's numbers in this social moderate to conservative area, but economic liberal area? That is the question here. Gladwin and Midland went for Bush. Gladwin is not a Republican county, but a 50/50 county, along with Arenac County. Midland County is a 56% base county for the GOP. Most of the real democrat strength comes from three counties. Bay, Saginaw, and Genesee Counties. Bay County is probably the strongest "white" county for the democrats. It's more democrat than next door Saginaw County. 55% (6100 spread) in 2000 and 54% (5600 spread) in 2004. It's more democrat locally than statewise. It's comparable to Downriver. Saginaw County is 54% (9700 spread) in 2000 and 53% (7700 spread) in 2004. I figured it would be more because of the minority heavy areas in the City of Saginaw, Bridgeport, and Buena Vista, but there is also heavily Republican Frankenmuth as well. Frakenmuth is one of the most conservative areas in the state and while small, gave a 2000 vote spread to the GOP, cutting the margins in Saginaw County. The big county here is Genesee County, home of Flint, once Buick City. Gore got 63% (53,200 vote spread) here in 2000, Kerry 60% (44,500) in 2004. The northern and Eastern suburbs (Clio, Montrose, Burton, Davison) are generally democrat in Genesee County, the Southern Suburbs (Fenton/Grand Blanc) more Republican.

I included Arenac (Standish), Gladwin, Saginaw, Bay (Bay City), Midland, and Genesee (Flint) Counties here. The question is whether McCain or Obama can sell here. If either can, I think they win. I don't expect McCain to win here, but I think, if he's smart, he can cut the margin in half. He's got to sell hope in the economy though and expand on his new plans for the economy. He needs to give the conservative democrats there a reason to vote for him. Bush didn't sell enough there (daddy's boy problem). McCain paid his dues and then some in the military. Obama isn't working class enough, and Bush isn't on the ballot.

Central Michigan:
These areas are often included as part of "up North." Bush won the area with 53% (7764 vote spread) in 2000 and 54% (9590 vote spread) in 2004. Two counties went democrat here in 2000, one in 2004. The Democrat base here is Isabella County. It is home to Mt Pleasant and Central Michigan University. It is not a deep blue area, but going more and more blue. Gore won it with 49% and 175 vote spread. Kerry with 51% and a 580 vote spread. I don't see Obama losing Isabella County. Mt Pleasant is 1/4 of the vote there. Only if the rural vote completely turns on him. Clare County is about 50/50. Bush won it in 04 by 150 votes and Gore in 2000 by 350 votes. Osceola County is a base GOP county. Montcalm County is interesting. It's GOP leaning, but has a labor streak to it. Clinton won it. If Kerry or Gore couldn't win it, I can't see Obama winning it. Mecosta is also interesting and runs about 55% GOP. It is a GOP county outside of Big Rapids. Big Rapids is a college town with Ferris State. I'd keep an eye out there. I included Osceola (Reed City), Clare, Mecosta (Big Rapids), Isabella (Mt Pleasant), Gratiot (Alma/St Louis), and Montcalm (Greenville) Counties.

West Michigan:
Some counties many considered North Michigan I put under West Michigan. I'm an East sider, so what can I say. Out west, you consider anything east of Lansing (or Lowell) "Detroit". Even with the expansions, it is overall the most GOP area of Michigan based on vote spread. Bush won it twice with 57% (137,420 spread) and 58% (151,670 spread) of the vote. Three counties went blue here, all twice. Lake County, Muskegon County, and Kalamazoo County. The latter one concerns me the most in 2008.

Lake County (Baldwin) is strongly democrat but small. It went 55% with a 623 vote spread for Gore and 51% with a 173 vote spread for Kerry. There is a sizable black population in Idlewild and Baldwin which may pump numbers up for Obama. I'm not sure how things will go there. Muskegon County is the union capital of West Michigan. It twice went 55% for the dems, more so than Bay City or Saginaw. Kalamazoo County is more narrowly democrat, but I doubt it will be in 08. Western Michigan University. 48% Gore, 51% Kerry. I expect 52-53% for Obama thanks to the university crowd there.

Areas to watch:
Oceana County - Leans GOP, but has a large Mexican population.
Van Buren County - Very close, narrowly won by the GOP.
Kent County - A GOP base county, but Grand Rapids itself leans democrat. How much will it cut the numbers.
Berrien County - Leans GOP, but Benton Harbor will go big for Obama there. Will it cut the numbers?

The rest are base counties. Ottawa is the most GOP area in the state. 72% with a 56,500 vote spread. Newaygo, Ionia, Allegan, and St Joe County should all hit at least 60%.

I included Lake (Baldwin), Mason (Ludington), Oceana (Hart), Newaygo (Fremont), Muskegon, Kent (Grand Rapids), Ionia, Ottawa (Holland), Barry (Hastings), Allegan (Holland), Kalamazoo, Van Buren (Paw Paw), Berrien (Benton Harbor/St Joe), Cass (Dowagiac), and St Joseph (Sturgis) Counties.

South Central/Capital Area:
This is a good bellwether for the state. Gore won this area in 2000 by 4128 votes. Bush won it in 2004 by 16,817 votes. This area is very significant if McCain is going to win.

Two counties went for Gore. Ingham and Calhoun. In 2004, Calhoun County flipped. It is a swing county if there was one. Battle Creek and Albion go democrat, withthe rest of the area going Republican for the most part. The key is how democrat Battle Creek itself goes. It's leans that way, not overwhelmingly. Shiawassee and Eaton Counties are also very competitive. Bush narrow won then in 2000, although won them by a more comfortable margin in 2004. They are very friendly to democrats on the state level however, so don't take them for granted. Clinton County is a base Republican county for the most part, but not as much on the state level. The Lansing influence affects all three of those counties. Clinton County also has a bit of East Lansing moving into Bath. Will that effect the numbers this year? Kerry won Bath Township by 3 votes and East Lansing's Clinton County portion by 99 votes. Few were cast there.

Ingham County is the base of the democrats in this area. It's the home of Lansing and East Lansing. Okemos is also strongly democrat. It went 58% in 2004 and 57% in 2000. In both elections there was about a 22,000 vote spread. McCain will lose big in those three areas, but can make up for some of it in Holt, Mason, and the rural areas. If he can get the spread under 20,000 he'll be a great shape. I don't expect that there.

Jackson is a key county here. It's narrowly Republican with the city leaning democrat and the county leaning Republican. It went 56% in 2004 which surprised me a little. It's normally not that solid. South of the Jackson area, the GOP base counties are Hillsdale and Branch Counties. Lenawaee County is conservative, not republican, but Bush won it by a good margin in 2004. That is Tim Walberg country, and he'll get his backers out to vote. I think all three of them go big for McCain. They have to, if he'll have a chance.

I included Shiawassee (Owosso), Clinton (DeWitt), Eaton (Charlotte), Ingham (Lansing), Jackson, Calhoun (Battle Creek), Branch (Coldwater), Hillsdale, and Lenawee (Adrian) Counties.

The Thumb:
The thumb is conservative, not necessarily republican. There are a lot of ticket splitters here. It's like North Michigan. In fact, two state reps there are democrats, as well as state senator Jim Barcia (partly due to Bay City). Bush did win the area twice with 53% (13,364 spread) and 56% (23,585 spread) of the vote. All of the thumb counties went for Bush. St Clair County is competitive and Tuscola County is sometimes compeitive (more so locally). They both shifted right in 2004. Lapeer leans GOP and was 58% in 2004. Huron County leans GOP (locally competitive) Sanilac County is a GOP base county consistantly. The cultural issues should work well in McCain/Palin's favor here.

I included Huron (Bad Axe), Sanilac (Sandusky), Tuscola (Caro), Lapeer, and St Clair (Port Huron) counties.

SE Michigan (Outside Tri-County)
I included three counties here as I do not consider them "Detroit area" like I do the tri-county area. Livingston County is 1/2 between four metro counties of different areas. Washtenaw County is its own main area. Monroe County is closer to Toledo, Ohio than it is to Detroit. This area overall went 52% to Gore by 20916 votes and 53% for Kerry by 22,248 votes largely on the strength of one county. Livingston County is base GOP. Washtenaw County base democrat. Monroe County is up for grabs each election.

Livingston County went 59% Bush in 2000 with a 15,900 vote spread and 63% for Bush in 2004 with a 24,900 vote spread. If McCain's going to win, it needs to improve on the 2004 numbers because of Washtenaw County.

Monroe County is a swing county. Gore won it in 2000 by 2600 votes(51%) and Bush won it in 2004 by 1400 votes (51%). Western Monroe County leans more Republican and Eastern Monroe County leans more democrat, however democrats can win in the western part of the county, and republicans in the eastern part. It is largely blue collar and has a labor heritage.

Washtenaw County is the number two democrat county in the state. Gore won it in 2000 with 60% and a nearly 35000 vote spread. Kerry won it in 2004 with 63% and a nearly 49,000 vote spread. Most of that gain is from Ann Arbor, Ypsi, and its main townships like Scio, Pittsfield, and Superior. I expect something similar to the latter with Obama. He might not run as well in the rural areas that lean slightly GOP like Manchester, but he'll fit right in at Ann Arbor. He's one of them right to the core.

The only way this section is close is if Monroe goes big for McCain (55%+) and Livingston gets big turnout and a 65%+ for McCain. I can see Livingston going that way. Monroe maybe, for one reason. One thing I notice that surprised me at the McCain event in Sterling Heights was a group of Catholic nuns. I did not expect that at all. Most nuns I do know lean democrat because of pacifism and labor sympathies, although they are pro-life. Monroe is home to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Depending on the issues, I can see that as an advantage to either side.

Tri-County Detroit area:
Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne Counties. Overall this area went 58% for Gore and 58% for Kerry. The vote spread in 2000 was 322,635 votes and in 2004 was 339,045 votes. These three counties are the key.

Macomb County - Gore won it with 50% and by almost 8400 votes. Bush won it with 50% by slightly over 6000 votes. That's not good enough to win. McCain needs to get at least a 15,000 vote margin here. That means reducing his losses in Warren, Mt Clemens, Clinton Township (must win), St Clair Shores (Must win) Eastpointe, and Roseville, and getting better gains out of the northern tier (Shelby Township, Washington Township, Macomb Township) The most important areas are around M-59 and I-94. Sterling Heights, Clinton Township, Harrison Township, Chesterfield Township, and St Clair Shores. That will make or break either candidate.

Oakland County - The most misunderstood county in Michigan. Believe it or not, it got redder in 2004 than it did in 2000. Gore won it with 49% and by almost 7,000 votes, and Kerry won it with 50% and 2760 votes. But, I thought the Knollenberg district almost went for Kerry in 2004? It did, but the county is more than that district, although that district is obviously very important.

McCain's job here is twofold. He must win back the Bush 2004 defectors while also improving on the lesser known parts of the county. Obama has a very good base here. Southfield, Oak Park, Lathrup Village, Royal Oak Township and Pontiac are black majority areas. Expect a 50,000 vote defecit from those five areas right off the bat. That, along with outmigration to other counties like Livingston, is why Oakland County is so much harder to win. There are also cultural left areas that will go dem in a big way over on the east end. Berkley, Huntington Woods, Ferndale, Pleasant Ridge, Madison Heights, Royal Oak City, Hazel Park (more labor there, bleeding might be stopped), and in Central Oakland - West Bloomfield (unless Obama is viewed as too friendly with Muslims), and Farmington Hills is going that way. Based on 2004 numbers, that will be another 22,500 votes. 72,500 defecit off the bat.
Auburn Hills will be tough to call. It's voted democrat, but also for Tom McMillan. The good news is that can be made up. The key is stopping the bleeding in the money areas. Southfield Township (Bingham Farms, Franklin), Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Troy, and the Rochester areas took a big step back in 04. Clawson took a step forward. McCain needs to do very there. Birmingham had an 1800 vote spread in 2000, but 1200 in 2004. Bloomfield Hills? 1027 to 851. Troy? 7300 to 6000. In 2004, those areas overall had slightly under 25,000 votes. That needs to go up. The other edges are the best shots. West of I-275 or North of M-59. Novi westward and Clarkston Northward. They moved in a big way towards Bush in 2004. McCain needs to keep that up. That area went 60% for Bush and racked up a 47,000 vote spread. The combination there based on 04 numbers....72,000. Oakland is more than the Bloomfields and the Oxfords, Lake Orions, Clarkstons, Milfords, and South Lyons can not be forgotten. It is a key county in 2008 as the pundits say, but all of it is key.

Wayne County:
John Kerry won Michigan by about 165,707 votes. He won Wayne County by 342,297, and 69%. Gore got 69% and won it by 307,393. Kerry got 94% of the Detroit vote and won it by 285,915 votes, more than the difference in the entire state. With Obama on the ticket, I expect a similar margin if the election is run above board there...if...more if some of the same shenanigans went on as it did in 04. We as Republicans need to make sure that the cheating does not happen.

Outside of Detroit itself, John Kerry won Wayne County 55-44% and by 56,575 votes. Take out Hamtramck and Highland Park within Detroit, and it is 54-45% That area is what needs to be targeted and targeted heavily. Most of it can be seperated into three areas. Grosse Pointe area, Downriver, and Western Wayne County. For those outside of Michigan, Downriver refers to the southern suburbs of Detroit near the Detroit river. Dearborn (and for some uninformed people on the right, it's not Dearbornistan) southward, generally.

The Grosse Pointe area leans republican, but Bush bled heavily there in 2004, as he did in a lot of money areas. McCain can't do that in 08. I threw in the more middle class Harper Woods area as well here. Overall it went 56-43% for Bush, with a 4683 vote spread. McCain needs to do well there.

Western Wayne County is more split. Some areas are democrat, and some republican. The far west is generally more Republican until you go more south to Van Buren and Sumpter closer to the airport (labor). The Ford Rd and Michigan Ave cooridor is very democrat outside of Canton which leans republican by the skin of its teeth. Plymouth (Township, not City) and Northville are mostly solid Republican (but they like Granholm). Livonia leans GOP. Redford is now solidly democrat and Dearborn Heights is as well, but maybe not as much as it was in 04. Garden City, Wayne, Westland, Romulus, Van Buren, Belleville are dem. Inkster is like Detroit. Overall this area went about 53% for Kerry and a 20,240 vote spread. This area can be won with the right candidate or wrong candidate on the democrat side. McCain needs to work this area, particulary Canton, Livonia, and even Westland.

Downriver is strongly labor democrat. It went 58% for Kerry with a 33,000 vote spread. I think McCain can cut this down some in places like Brownstown and Flat Rock, which moved towards the GOP slightly. Grosse Ile is GOP. Allen Park, Trenton, Riverview, Woodhaven, and Gibralter should be targets. Ecorse and River Rouge will go big for Obama. Dearborn will be tough, but Bush DID win it in 2000. Wyandotte, Taylor, and Lincoln Park are solidly democrat, but could their numbers be reduced. It's possible. This area needs to be targeted. There are a lot of seniors in this area, and McCain could do well there. McCain won't win Wayne County, but if he can run close within 5% outside of Detroit itself, he's in very good shape, especially if he pulls in big numbers out of Macomb County.


Overall, I think this state will be down to the wire. I like our chances this year with this candidate and opponent, despite Bush. Bush isn't on the ticket. Granholm is still governor however. If McCain wins here, it's most likely over. Much as the Republicans can not lose Ohio and win, the democrats can not lose Michigan and win. (If Michigan goes Republican, so does Ohio). Turnout is the biggest key here.

Electoral College Part 7 - Ohio

Ohio was the deciding votes in the last election. In 2000, Gore for some odd reason did not contest it strongly. In 2004, Kerry contested Ohio strongly and did enough to win in most years. Bush won in 2000 50-46 and in 2004 51-49. He won in 04 because he racked up big margins in the rural areas, and won big in some of the suburban areas outside of Cincy and Columbus. All roads to election lead through Ohio. There are four big states that can not be lost unless the table is run. For the democrats, that is Pennsylvania and Michigan. For the Republicans that is Florida and Ohio. While it is possible to win without those two, it is very unlikely. There are two September polls. Rasmussen has McCain by 7, Quinnipiac has Obama by 5. That doesn't tell you much except that there's a battle. The GOP overall took a big hit here thanks to Mr. 18%. former governor Bob Taft. I don't know who disliked Taft more, conservatives or democrats. Taft was a crook. Taft was anti-gun. Taft raised taxes. That's not good. This helped the democrats with a major takeover in 2006. Will that continue in 08? We'll see. McCain isn't from Ohio, so that helps.

John Kerry won 16 counties in Ohio. Al Gore won 16 counties as well. The two counties that flipped were Clark County to Bush and Stark County to Kerry. Those are both imporant counties. Clark County is Springfield and Stark County is Canton. The percentages increased in both base counties between 00 and 04. Dividing the area up by regions:

Northeast Ohio:
This is the main base for the democrats. The Cleveland and Youngstown/Warren area. There are 5.6 million voters in Ohio. Over 2 million of them are in Northeast Ohio. 8 of the blue counties are also in Northeast Ohio. The biggest one is Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) - John Kerry got 67% here. Gore got 63% here. That is the biggest reason why 04 was closer than 00. Kerry got 90,000 more votes than Gore. Bush got 30,000 more votes in 04 than 00. Most of the democrat gains were in East Cleveland, the mostly black areas, although they gained a lot of votes in the white areas (Kucinich district) as well. Slightly over 670,000 votes came from Cuyahoga County. Kerry started out with a 227,000 vote spread out of Cuyahoga County. The other counties in Northeast that went over 60% were Mahoning and Trumbull Counties which are Youngstown and Warren. Between those two counties, there are almost 250,000 votes. Those are strong union/labor areas. The other two democrat bases there are Lorain and Summit (Akron) counties, also labor areas. There's about 420,000 more votes in those two areas. Portage (between Cleveland and Youngstown) and Ashtabula (between Cleveland and Erie PA) are democrat leaners but could be competitive. They have about 120,000 votes. The last blue county was Stark County which has 188,000 votes. Kerry won it 51-49 and Bush won it 49-47 in 2000. There are some Republican bases in Northeast Ohio. Geauga County is a 60-40% county with 51,000 votes. Medina (between Lorain and Akron), Wayne, and rural Ashland Counties are also strong bases for the GOP. Lake County is competitive, but usually goes GOP. Overall, Northeast Ohio is not democrat due to cultural issues like some of the Philly burbs. They are democrat due to the union influence. If I have to make a comparison to Michigan, I'd say this area is like a giant mix of Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City. Even Dennis Kucinich for years was pro-life. Tim Ryan has had the NRA endorsement in the past. Jim Traficant came from Youngstown and was the most independent member of congress. Can Obama sell here with Bush not on the ticket? Can he sell outside of city centers in Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, and parts of Lorain, Warren and Akron? That remains to be seen. The democrats need to do well in Northeast Ohio to have a chance.

East/Southeast Ohio - This area is why the democrats lost Ohio in 2000 and 2004. It is rural and conservative for the most part. It is not Republican either. Ted Strickland represented this area for years before being governor. Strickland is economic liberal, but pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment. The other part of the district was represented by Bob Ney whose screw ups caused his district to go democrat. Bush won both districts, but neither were solidly republican. This area is politically similar more to West Virginia. It won't vote for an ultraliberal, but Republicans can NEVER take it for granted. Four counties here went blue out of about 21 or 22. Athens County is the major one, going 63%-36% for Kerry and 51%-38% for Gore. It's the most culturally liberal part of Ohio and is home to Ohio University. The other three are Jefferson, Belmont, and Monroe counties. Those are more competitive areas although they lean democrat. The rest of the areas all went for Bush, some by narrow, some by a larger number.

Central Ohio - Franklin County leans Democrat, and all the rest of the counties are solidly Republican, most of which over 60%. Franklin County is Columbus and a few burbs. Outside of Cleveland, this was the big gain for democrats. Kerry won it 54-45% Gore 49-48%. 5000 vote spread became a 48,000 vote spread. Bush made up for 15,000 of it in the surrounding counties, all of them over 60% Bush. Fairfield county spread 14,000 to 18,000. Pickaway 4,000 to 6,000. Madison 3,500 to 5,000. Union, 5,500 to 9,000. Delaware County 19,000 to 26,000. Licking County, 14,000 to 19,000. The other counties north of there are also solid Republican, enough to the area evens out. That said, there's a lot of work that needs to be done in the Columbus area.

Northwest Ohio - Two counties went Blue here. Lucas County (Toledo) and Erie County (Sandusky). Both are working class areas, Toledo industrial and Sandusky is the home of Cedar Point. Erie County is a little more competitive. 51-46% in 2000 and 53-46% in 04. Lucas is a stronghold 60-40% and 58-40%. Ottawa County (Port Clinton) and Wood Counties (Bowling Green) next door to Toledo are competitive, but went for Bush. The GOP base counties here are the rural counties bordering Indiana, and suprisingly to me, Hancock and Allen Counties. Allen surprises me especially, since it has Lima, which I figured was democrat. Allen was 66% for Bush. Hancock 70%. All of the other Northwestern Counties are 60%+ except for Fremont's Seneca County which is 58% for Bush. McCain needs big numbers out of all these area to win. I think Palin helps here.

Southwest Ohio - Overall, this is the main Republican base, but there has been shakeups locally down there that affect the congressional races. I do not know how that will affect the presidency. I hope it doesn't. We'll see. One county went democrat in 2004, two in 2000. Montgomery (Dayton) is a competitive county with the 2nd most votes. 51-49 and 50-48 were the percentages. Clark County (Springfield) went democrat 49-48 in 2000 and for Bush 51-49 in 2004. The only other competitive county at the top of the ticket is Hamilton (Cincy). 53-47% in 2004 for Bush and 54-43% for Bush in 2000. The reason for the reduction? Minority vote. Cincy is almost 43% black. A lot of conservatives are also leaving the state to the Kentucky suburbs, not just the Ohio suburbs. That lowers some of the base. The 43,000 vote spread out of Hamilton County in 04 was reduced to 23,000. The suburbs and rural counties made up for the 20,000 difference and then some. Butler county's spread increased from 40,000 to 53,000. Warren County from 29,000 to 42,000. Clermont 27,000 to 37,000. Miami County from 11,000 to 16,000. Greene County 13,000 to 18,000. That is why Bush survived Ohio in 2004, despite a triple whammy from Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincy.

Can McCain sell? Can Obama sell? I made the solid/lean/tossup categories objectively. My gut feeling here is that McCain will win because Obama won't sell here. If this was a Hillary/Biden ticket, I think Ohio flips.

While all states are important, the big four states in elections are Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The dems can not win without Penn and Michigan, and the Republicans can't without Florida and Ohio. If they split two each like the last two times, then it comes down to smaller states. If three go one way, it's almost impossible to win without a monumental blunder or shocker. The toughest candidate to beat is the one that can sell to these four areas, all of which have a large Reagan Democrat population.

I'll get to the scenarios in part 9. Part 8 will be Michigan.