In today’s society more than ever before, people are putting getting ahead of the pack above all else, including honesty. People will even go so far as to lie in order to get ahead. I believe there is much more to be gained through honesty instead of through deceit.

Cheating on tests has become commonplace in our schools these days. Some kids believe that it is fine to cheat and pad their grade average because it will help them achieve their desired goal of getting ahead or perhaps of merely just staying on par with everyone else. This, I believe, hurts them in the long run because they are not really learning what they are supposed to be learning. Instead, they are simply setting themselves up for a precipitous fall. By being honest, they may neither do well nor get ahead immediately, but they may just learn something in the process.

The padding of resumes when applying for a job is also a fairly commonplace occurrence. People think that by padding their resume they are more likely to get a job than people who don’t pad their resume. This practice may get them a job, but it won’t be one that they’re going to be qualified to hold. The employer won’t know what hit him. By contrast, people who are honest in filling out their resume may neither be qualified nor get the job, but they will at least be giving their prospective employer an accurate description of whom he may be hiring.

Obviously, there are pitfalls in lying, and the benefits of honesty may not be immediately apparent, but the development of character will, I believe, prove to be well worthwhile. And there’s never a sense of guilt. Honesty helps one to respect himself more.

In life, everybody has somebody that they admire. Usually, people admire somebody for bravery in combat, a willingness to speak out/report on divisive issues, or giving their life for a cause. For me, this person showed a willingness to report on divisive issues fairly and impartially. That person is CNN anchor Erin Burnett, and I will explain why I think so in the following paragraphs.

Burnett got her big break on the business network CNBC, and during her 5 1/2 years on that network, she established a reputation as someone who reported the facts and called it as she saw it. For example, on the market advice show “Mad Money,” Jim Cramer, the host, did a report on a policy implementation by then-Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, which was confirmed to have resulted in the deaths of many camels. Burnett, a camel lover in her own right, called out Rudd as a “serial killer.” Cramer backed her up, referring to it as “camelicide.” Based on the facts of the story and due to her reputation as a camel lover, she was willing to call it as she saw it. That, in my view, deserves much praise.

On the first airing of her new show, entitled “Out Front,” she did a report on Occupy Wall Street, which garnered a lot of blowback, to say the least. The report featured her interviewing some of the protesters, which showed them to be the shallow fools that they were. She added that, if all they needed to know was that we had, indeed, made money off of the Wall Street bailouts, it seemed just a little pointless. In responding to critics, such as obscure media “critic” David Zurawik and that paragon of Leftism, legend in his own mind, and film-maker Michael Moore, she did not back down, and told them all to “get real.” To me, reporting the facts about OWS and not backing down showed a lot of courage and deserved more praise than it got.

On the February 16, 2012, airing of “Out Front,” Burnett did a report on Iranian nuclear capabilities. In it, she highlighted the great dangers these bombs posed, how the USA is responding, and how we would need to respond. She then interviewed Congressman and terrorism expert Peter King. They talked about the threats for several minutes, and then it was off to other stories. Blowback came the following day in the form of Glenn Greenwald and the long-ago irrelevant Matt Taibbi, and she would not back down from her reporting, saying she was proud of herself and her team for the reporting they had done. This also showcased her courage and deserved more praise.

These are but a few examples of the journalistic integrity and courage that Erin Burnett has shown and exemplified in her years of reporting. Obviously, not everybody will agree with my assessment of her, but I still hope to have presented my case in a clear fashion and hope to have, in the end, done her and her show some long overdue justice.

With every election cycle, it appears voter turnout is on a downward trajectory. Many factors have led to decreased turnout and depressed interest in elections. I will do my best to explain these factors in the next paragraphs.

A major factor in depressed turnout is the perception of an out-of-touch government. And who could blame them? Congress acts on its own accord, passing laws without public consent, and townhall meetings have been reduced to campaign rallies and canned stump speeches. Eventually, the public realizes that they’re not given a real choice in the elections. They’re just voting for the lesser of the two evils. And soon enough, the public gets bored with the whole thing. Why do you think turnout is, best case scenario, 30% in most places? People have lost interest in voting for a Congress seemingly independent of the people that voted them in and canned stump speeches. Then there’s the matter of the endless campaigning.

Campaigns, it seems, tend to start the day after the last election was held. It is believed that the only way to remain visible is to do the political equivalent to Bob Dylan’s “Never Ending Tour.” Instead of campaigning all the time, the politician needs to represent the values of his constituents and be held accountable for how he votes. Townhall meetings should be utilized to get the pulse of the voting public regarding one matter or the other. But that would be too inconvenient for the politicians, wouldn’t it? This is why Congress’ approvals don’t crack double digits. And have you seen some of the advertisements they run, which trash their opposition? Ugh.

When a politician hasn’t done his job right and he knows it, he doesn’t admit his sins to the public. Oh no. Instead, he seeks to define his opposition through the use of attack ads. These ads are considered his best option if he wants to survive this election cycle, and, to some extent, they are right. These ads have been known to swat on-the-fence voters who tune into the election later than most. But they can also leave a sour taste in people’s mouths, resulting in a politicians’ eventual defeat. These ads also play a pivotal role in turning people off entirely to politics, which often leads to depressed turnout.

These are what I believe to be the major reasons for the high level of disinterest in participating in our electoral system. I hope I have presented my reasons in a clear and ordered fashion, and have educated people in the process.

PS, 3 years ago yesterday, the Tea Party came to the forefront of modern American Politics. This is a tribute to them.

“Turn to Stone” is an unsung political anthem written by Joe Walsh and Terry Trebandt, which describes the frustrations of average Americans toward a seemingly corrupt, tyrannical government(written during the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon’s resignation). The term “turn to stone” alludes to Americans performing a sort of Midas Touch on the system, except the government is not deemed worthy enough to be turned into gold. They are, instead, turned to stones. In other words, the government officials are reduced to what the average American experiences on a day-to-day basis.

This is one man’s interpretation of the song. Enjoy.

It was Thomas Paine who once said that “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly.” Many people either agree or disagree with this statement. I am one who agrees.

I agree with the first part of Paine’s statement because history demonstrates the truth of it repeatedly. Thomas Paine was encouraging his fellow Americans to persist in the Revolutionary War. Fighting it wasn’t easy, but the result was the beginning of the nation that became the strongest on earth. Another example of the truthfulness of Paine’s statement is America’s involvement in World War II. America and the Allied Powers fought against the Axis Powers for just short of four years. Overcoming steep odds, America and the Allied Powers won, resulting in celebrations worldwide.

History has also shown that we don’t place high regard for what we attain at little or no cost. A case in point is the fact that President Lyndon Johnson won his bid for a full term with little difficulty. Johnson was thrust into the Presidency by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and was viewed as simply continuing Kennedy’s policies. He went on to waste his capital on unsuccessful poverty programs and an unnecessary conflict in Vietnam. These policies, for the most part, alienated even his most ardent supporters. Johnson opted for early retirement, knowing he couldn’t win another term.

Obviously, I thoroughly agree with Paine’s statement because history has validated both parts of it. I’m sure, if time permitted, I could easily give similar proofs of the truth of Paine’s statement by examining the experiences of both companies and private citizens.

In recent decades, people have put ever increasing value on the acquisition of “stuff.” Spending sprees are, nowadays, considered an instrumental part of life. Sometimes, people buy things for the sake of buying them. They may be trying to go out of their way for someone or trying to ease their own ills, such as depression. This epidemic is known as “materialism,” and I believe it is a cancer that is eating away at society. These next paragraphs will explain why I believe this.

Before I get into the new normals of lapping up more and more luxuries that we see every day, I will relate experiences of my own. I have tended to spend decent sums wherever I go. Whether it is at record stores, book stores, or other stores, I find myself buying things to satisfy whatever interest I have. When I was depressed, and even looser with my money, I would buy up things that interested me so that I could fill a void, bring me back to my normal self, or whatever I was trying to do. I bought things that, as time went by, I found I’d not much need for. Some of those things were items I later chose to give away. I was merely trying trying to immerse myself in other things, instead of admitting I was down and needed to get up. This, I believe, is the root of all materialism, which is a root of evil.

The latest fashion fads never cease to amaze me. Here, we have youngsters putting their parents’ money into clothes. These aren’t just any clothes, mind you, they’re “cool clothes.” The kind of clothes that make you look “cool” to other people. Kids today are selling their souls just so they can “look cool” and gain “friends” along the way. It’s all a futile endeavor, really. If one can’t see someone for who he/she is, and instead they have to sell out to you, then that, my friends, is no kind of friendship at all. No respect is earned, and it all shows a certain lack of self respect. Self respect was what used to get people through the day, sweating, slaving, and saving to put food on the table. Materialism, particularly fashion fads, doesn’t gain you any real friends. All it does is show that you’ve got neither character nor respect for yourself. Looking cool is great in the moment, but what will you do when the moment’s gone?

Lifestyles of the rich and famous also bring the cancer of materialism to the fore. Take, for example, everyone’s dream of, when famous and having other peoples money at your disposal, owning an expensive, luxury car. Many famous types own a vast collection of these type cars. For what, really? Are they for show like most of the female Fox News anchors? Are we aspiring to look “cool” while driving down the highway? It’s all pointless, really. Driving is not supposed to be “cool.” The places you’re visiting? Yes. The driving itself? No. Driving is merely what you do to get from one town to the next. It’s all a vain attempt to sell out to society’s standards, and is, again, another indicator of a lack of both character and self respect. And I will never get the point of collecting Porsche’s as if they are little Matchbox and Hot Wheels cars. Never.

In conclusion, I hope to have clearly and educatedly presented and articulated my view of materialism. Even if you’re not convinced of my point, I still hope I’ve given you something to think about as you go through your day.

Barack Obama(65%)-The DNC may be trying to roll him along, but the voters are beginning to smell a rat.

Someone else(25%)-A clear, coherent, reasonant argument for a brokered Democratic Convention has been coming together these past few months. Obama’s constant under-performing has given the masses much pause.

Randall Terry(6%)-His shocking second place finish in OK, resulting in his gaining 7 delegates, has earned him some free press and is putting some wind in those sails. Maybe some come from behind victories in Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming will result in Obama bowing out of the Primaries. Maybe.

Jim Rogers(2%)-He’ll soon be out, as his “Favorite Son” campaign in OK only netted him 3 delegates

Darcy Richardson(1%)-Q: Will his fame for being an internet blogger earn him any real support? A: Not in the very least.

Bob Ely(1%)-Bob who?

Last Tuesday, President Obama scored an underwhelming victory in the primaries in the state of Oklahoma. Obama won 57%(64,257 votes), versus Randall Terry’s 18%(20,291 votes), Jim Rogers’ 14%(15,536 votes), Darcy Richardson’s 6%(7,193 votes), and Bob Ely’s 5%(5,320 votes). The fact that he lost 12 counties(including the ENTIRE panhandle of Oklahoma) to a heap of no-names should, and probably does, have the White House and the DNC pissing potatoes, as their beloved leader has shown time and again that he is fallible against even the slightest of challenges(his scant, no-name opposition routinely gets, on average, 10% in primaries where they are on the ballot). Another matter of pivotal importance is the unemployment rate. According to numbers released Friday morning, the unemployment rate has remained in a relative holding pattern at 8.3%. Only 227,000 jobs were added to the economy during the space in time in which these numbers were taken. Propaganda organizations like Current TV(who’s about as no-name as Obama’s opposition, I might add), Daily Kos, MSNBC, among many dozens of others, have spun this as a plus. After all, we did create 227K jobs, didn’t we? Yes, point taken. 227K is better than the zero that the Obama economy fostered into existence in August, 2011. But exactly how does a mere 227K jobs affect the unemployment rate? That’s right, not in the very least. Oh, and you know what else is in a relative holding pattern? The Presidents’ job approval rating. His approval’s have remained steady at 49% approval, versus 47% disapproval(some polling outfits have the disapproval rating higher). This has to be disconcerting for the Obama Administration, who are sporting the deaths of Bin Laden and Quaddhaffi and an economic recovery as they go into the November elections. These next paragraphs will present the clear, cohesive argument for why a brokered Democratic convention, which I touched on last time, is the route of most sensibility.

THE ROAD TO 270 WITH OBAMA/BIDEN

Given said economic numbers and recent Primary blunders, the re-nomination of Obama/Biden could prove apocalyptic for the Democratic Party as a wholesome whole. Obama under-performing in OK diminishes his chances of winning the midwest, which contains 62 electoral votes{one of which(Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District) he won last time around}. Obama/Biden’s Progressive/Regressive ideals have sealed his fate in the South, which contains 135 electoral votes{57 of which(FL, NC, and VA) he won in 2008}. Add that up with Bush/McCain states, and you get 227 electoral votes in the GOP’s column. Gore/Kerry/Obama states without a chance of a GOP victory account for 167 electoral votes. That leaves 144 electoral votes in the undecided column(CO, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, WA, WI). We can safely take IN, IA, and MO off the table for Obama, bringing undecideds down to 117 electoral votes and the GOP nominee up to 254 electoral votes. MN and OR will probably go to Obama regardless, bringing undecideds down to 100 electoral votes and Obama up to 184 electoral votes. All the other states hinge on the economy(though NM could probably go for the candidate most likely to allot fundage for research into UFO’s). Given current market indicators, the economy won’t improve by much, if at all. If these indicators are correct, Obama is travellin’ down the lonesome rode toward a horrific, landslide defeat in November, which, in and of itself, is a strong argument for a brokered Democratic convention.

THE CONVENTION

So let’s say Democrats have the brass balls to take it to the convention. The ticket they choose will have to be a unity ticket, as the grassroots will be agitated at what they perceive as the Washington Democratic establishment paying off delegates in the choosing of their nominee. Who will they choose? I don’t know, but I have some ideas.

Barney Frank/Al Sharpton
Wesley Clark/Russ Feingold
Tom Vilsak/Roy Barnes
Bill Richardson/John Hickenlooper
Janet Napolitano/Al Franken
Brian Schweitzer/Jay Nixon
Jerry Brown/John Lynch
Tim Kaine/Sheldon Whitehouse
Steve Beshear/Deval Patrick

All of these tickets would unarguably, undoubtedly, and unquestionably fare better than Obama/Biden, and the Democrats know this. That is why chatter regarding a brokered Democratic convention has been on the uptick since my last post hit the blogosphere sprinting. The next big, pressing question is this: How would they fare against Santorum?

THE ROAD TO 270 WITH BROKERED CONVENTION NOMINEE

So the Democrats have picked a unity ticket in their brokered convention. For this article, we’ll say the choice was Clark/Feingold. It’s time to campaign for the General Election, slated to be held on November 6, 2012. Clark/Feingold is holding onto Obama’s 184 electoral votes. With Obama gone, we can add IA and MO to the undecided column, and NM, OR, and WA to the Democratic column, bringing the undecideds down to 99 electoral votes, Republicans down to 238 electoral votes, and Democrats up to 201 electoral votes. With the economy improving over the thought of no more Obama, we can also move CO, MI, NH, and WI into the Democratic column, bringing undecideds down to 60 electoral votes and Democrats up to 240 electoral votes. Santorum’s social conservatism and grassroots appeal would give him back IA and MO and win him NV, bringing undecideds down to 38 electoral votes(OH and PA) and Republicans up to 260 electoral votes. Grassroots appeal and favorite son status would give Santorum the United States Presidency by a 298-240(50.5-48.2) margin. A brokered convention for Democrats may not help them in 2012, but it would build/construct them a road to victory in 2016 or 2020.

In conclusion, Democrats are in desperate shape if they keep Obama/Biden as their standard bearers. In fact, a Rasmussen Reports poll has Mitt Romney leading Obama by his largest margin yet(48-43) and Rick Santorum leading Obama by one point(45-44, I believe). A brokered Democratic convention is not a natter of expediency anymore. Rather, it is a matter of pure necessity if they are to stand a fighting chance against Santorum and the average, everyday Americans who will high-power his campaign into over-drive. Should they stand with Obama/Biden, they will be flirtin’ with disaster every night and day. This much I do know: It’s over for Obama, and it will be for the Democrats if they fail to utilize a brokered convention for the purpose of dumping him and saving themselves from themselves.

Many people are speculating on the prospects of the Republicans having a brokered convention. Personally, I don’t think Republicans will follow through with the wind they’re blowing on this non-issue. With that said, there is much antipathy, discontent, and malcontentment within the ranks of the Democratic Party over President Barack Obama’s re-election hopes. Many factors have them pissing themselves silly, including the economy, gas prices, abortion, foreign policy, energy, and the President’s job-approval ratings. These are but only a few of the reasons why there is a growing sense of disarray within the infrastructure of the Democratic Party. In these next paragraphs, I intend to lay bare the case and rationale for a brokered Democratic Convention.

THE CASE

Obama’s job-approval ratings have been flagging since the passage of the Health Care Reform bill. Passage of the reform bill led Republicans to their biggest House seat gains since 1894. As of today, the RealClearPolitics average has President Obama’s approval rating at 49%, versus 47% who disapprove. Tepid approval numbers, indeed, and let’s remember one thing: History has shown that Presidents who have an approval rating under 50% lose re-election to the Presidency. This has Republicans and their Conservative counterparts excited, and has the Party of Death pissing themselves. Having a President with tepid approval ratings such as these at the top of the ticket would be a monumental drag on down-ticket races and ballot initiatives. There has been some chatter lately regarding putting forth a strong, late-entry Democratic Primary challenger to President Obama. Flagging job-approval numbers would leave some blood in the water, but on this point, history is on Obama’s side: No incumbent President has ever lost re-nomination. Party insiders know this, and may opt to seek an alternative route, such as a brokered convention.

THE RATIONALE

Barack Obama has done many things to put himself into the pickle with his own party that he’s in. These are the stand out issues that put him in the position that he’s in:

1. The Economy: Barack Obama has the worst economic policy of any administration, even by Democrat’s standards. Yes, the economy has been on an upward trend as of late, but this bear run may not last as long as one suspects. You see, bonds backed by subprime mortgagaes are back in black again. If Obama’s regulations were such a barnstorming success, then this would not be happening(I’m not arguing for more regulations by any stretch of the imagination). The far left is up in arms, as they believe his regulations to be ineffective, and that it is a vital, pressing, and urgent necessity to pile on with that free-wielded shovel the burdensome ball and chain of extra and further enhanced regulations, ones that would reach into every business and corporate practice good and evil. Democrats of the center-right belief system and the far left crystal blue persuasion see this as bad, albeit from some pretty far-removed perspectives, and have pinned the tail on the donkey by putting the blame on Obama. This is reason #1 why he is vulnerable to either a brokered convention or a late entrant.

2. Gas Prices: Gas prices have, as of late, been on the upswing. Current gas prices average out to be $3.57 a gallon. In part caused by the Keystone pipeline decision, the increase in gas prices always tends upon hurting the party with the advantage of incumbency. Barack Obama has not the greatest record, even by his own party’s standards, of economic practitioning, which does directly affect the price of gas(regular, unleaded, and diesel). Obama’s being backed into a corner by both sides, and pretty soon he’ll either take a firm stand or simply get brokered out of the nomination by the Democratic Party, which has grown alarmingly wary of Obama in the past few years.

3. Abortion: This issue is more or less applicable to certain specific wings of the Democratic Party(eg: Southern Democrats, Pro-Life Democrats, Liberty-Oriented Democrats). These types rightly feel that states rights and the rights of the unborn are being trampled underfoot by Obama and his minions. This group will never ever support Obama again in light of these clusters of political missteps. This may be a small group within the Democratic Party, but Obama will need every vote just to win re-nomination.

4. Foreign Policy: This is the issue of greatest contention for Democrats in regards to Obama’s policies. Many perceive him as either too weak or too war-hawkish on the matter. That he is not pursuing matters more strongly with Iran, is indecisive on Iraq/Afghanistan, or is withdrawing troops from Iraq too slowly. These perceptions of him will serve as a magnificent albatross, whether in a Primary or a General Election.

5. Energy: Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline has risen a furor within party ranks. Many Democrats, minus the far left, are either supportive of or indifferent to the idea of Keystone pipeline. This will be seen, even by Democrats, as sacrificing our national interests for his own bottom line. This will backfire on him, BIG TIME.

As I’ve indicated, many Democrats are disgruntled with President Obama over many different things. They, for the most part, believe he is not strong enough and/or is just flat out wrong. They are diametrically at odds with the Leftist grassroots. They ardently believe that Obama is a great President and are hitting the ground running for Obama’s re-election. The grass smokers are in the clear and present minority, and they know it. There may very well be a civil war within the Democratic Party if word gets out about plans of the excecution of said alternative methods, so they must play their hand carefully. I propose a secret summit in Princeton, New Jersey, on Independence Day to talk over alternative options which would dump Obama for a stronger candidate to face Rick Santorum in November. They will determine that a brokered convention is the option of greatest efficiency. The convention will be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, from September 3-6, and it will be very, very, very interesting to watch.

THE SOLUTION

Brokered conventions are a somewhat rare quantity in American politics. They were frequently used before the Primary process really grew to fruition in 1832. The only times since then where a convention has been brokered was in 1924, 1948, and 1952. Many conventions have come close to being brokered(most famously 1968 and 1976), but none have been brokered in the past 60 years. This would be an impressive feat if such were to transpire.

So let’s say they decide to utilize this alternative method to nominating a candidate. This would be sure to make the Democratic Convention a highly-charged event, with lots of hand-wringing, arm-twisting, smoke and mirrors/back room deals, vote-buying, and paying off going on behind closed doors, all to keep Obama from dragging them down to a Goldwater-style slamming in November. No matter who they choose, he will be tanned, rested, and ready to fight the onslaught and barrage of attacks coming from Santorum’s campaign. But the 800 pound, inescapable, pressing question is this: Who will they choose? I don’t know for sure, but I have some ideas.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Vice President Joe Biden
Former Vice President Al Gore
Reverend Al Sharpton
General Wesley Clark
Former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold
Former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
Former Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry
Former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh
California Governor Jerry Brown
Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon
New York Senator Chuck Schumer
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber
Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak
Former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton
Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr.
Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill
Montana Senator Jon Tester
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr.
Minnesota Senator Al Franken
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Will the Democrats show brass balls and follow through with this plan, or will they cave like the sackless wimps that they are? Only time will tell, but with the growing furor within the party over Obama and his lousy-as-piss re-election prospects, I see no reason to believe that this is completely out of the realm of possibility. Brace yourselves, gang, ‘cos here it comes. Comin’ right down the pike.

Here’s how I think the 2012 elections, state and federal, will go 9 months out.

Presidency:

Mitt Romney/Rick Santorum: (375 EV’s)(54.5%)AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
Barack Obama/Joe Biden: (163 EV’s)(44.8%)CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT

Governorships:

Delaware: Jack Markell(D) 64-36 over Jeff Cragg(R). DEM HOLD.
Indiana: Mike Pence(R) 59-41 over John Gregg(D). GOP HOLD.
Missouri: Jay Nixon(D) 56-44 over Dave Spence(R). DEM HOLD.
Montana: Rick Hill(R) 55-45 over Steve Bullock(D). GOP GAIN.
New Hampshire: Ovide LaMontagne(R) 54-46 over Maggie Hassan(D). GOP GAIN.
North Carolina: Pat McCrory(R) 58-42 over Walter Dalton(D). GOP GAIN.
North Dakota: Jack Darymphle(R) 60-40 over Ryan Taylor(D). GOP HOLD.
Utah: Gary Herbert(R) wins running unopposed. GOP HOLD.
Vermont: Peter Shumlin(D) 53-47 over Randy Brock(R). DEM HOLD.
Washington: Rob McKenna(R) 54-46 over Jay Inslee(D). GOP GAIN.
West Virginia: Bill Maloney(R) 52-48 over Earl Tomblin(D). GOP GAIN.

Senate:

Arizona: Jeff Flake(R) 56-44 over Richard Cardona(D). GOP HOLD.
California: Dianne Feinstein(D) 58-41 over Dirk Konopik(R). DEM HOLD.
Connecticut: Chris Murphy(D) 55-45 over Linda McMahon(R). DEM GAIN.
Florida: Adam Hasner(R) 52-48 over Bill Nelson(D). GOP GAIN.
Hawaii: Linda Lingle(R) 54-46 over Ed Case(D). GOP GAIN.
Indiana: Richard Mourdock(R) 58-42 over Joe Donnelly(D). GOP HOLD.
Maine: Olympia Snowe(R) 61-39 over Matt Dunlap(D). GOP HOLD.
Maryland: Ben Cardin(D) 59-40 over Dan Bongino(R). DEM HOLD.
Massachusetts: Scott Brown(R) 52-48 over Elizabeth Warren(D). GOP HOLD.
Michigan: Pete Hoekstra(R) 53-47 over Debbie Stabenow(D). GOP GAIN.
Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar(D) 53-45 over Dan Severson(R). DEM HOLD.
Mississippi: Roger Wicker(R) 63-37 over Albert N. Gore Jr.(D). GOP HOLD.
Missouri: Sarah Steelman(R) 55-45 over Claire McCaskill(D). GOP GAIN.
Montana: Denny Rehberg(R) 53-47 over Jon Tester(D). GOP GAIN.
Nebraska: Jon Bruning(R) 66-34 over Steven Lustgarten(D). GOP GAIN.
Nevada: Dean Heller(R) 54-45 over Shelley Berkley(D). GOP HOLD.
New Jersey: Bob Menendez(D) 53-46 over Anna Little(R). DEM HOLD.
New Mexico: Heather Wilson(R) 56-44 over Martin Heinrich(D). GOP GAIN.
New York: Kirsten Gillibrand(D) 62-38 over George Maragos(R). DEM HOLD.
North Dakota: Rick Berg(R) 51-49 over Heidi Heitkamp(D). GOP GAIN.
Ohio: Josh Mandel(R) 51-47 over Sherrod Brown(D). GOP GAIN.
Pennsylvania: Bob Casey Jr.(D) 52-46 over Tom Smith(R). DEM HOLD.
Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse(D) 65-35 over Barry Hinckley(R). DEM HOLD.
Tennessee: Bob Corker(R) 68-32 over Larry Crim(D). GOP HOLD.
Texas: David Dewhurst(R) 63-37 over Paul Sadler(D). GOP HOLD.
Utah: Orrin Hatch(R) 69-31 over Pete Ashdown(D). GOP HOLD.
Vermont: Bernie Sanders(I/D) 60-40 over Thom Lauzon(R). INDY/DEM HOLD.
Virginia: George Allen(R) 51-48 over Tim Kaine(D). GOP GAIN.
Washington: Maria Cantwell(D) 57-43 over Michael Baumgartner(R). DEM HOLD.
West Virginia: Joe Manchin(D) 53-46 over John Raese(R). DEM HOLD.
Wisconsin: Mark Neumann(R) 52-47 over Tammy Baldwin(D). GOP GAIN.
Wyoming: John Barrasso(R) wins running unopposed. GOP HOLD.

House:

Republicans:(+60)AZ-2, AR-4, CA-3, CA-9, CA-16, CA-41, CA-47, CO-7, CT-2, CT-4, CT-5, GA-12, HI-1, IL-12, IN-2, IA-1, IA-2, IA-3, ME-1, ME-2, MD-2, MD-5, MA-1, MA-3, MA-4, MA-6, MA-8, MA-9, MI-5, MN-1, MO-5, NV-4, NJ-6, NJ-12, NM-1, NM-3, NY-1, NY-22, NY-23, NY-26, NC-7, NC-8, NC-11, NC-13, OK-2, OR-1(Cornilles wins 51-47 over Bonamici tomorrow), OR-4, OR-5, PA-12, PA-13, RI-1, TN-5, TX-25, UT-4, VA-11, WA-1, WA-2, WA-9, WA-10, WV-3
Democrats: (+8)FL-22, FL-25, IL-8, MD-6, NH-2, TX-14, TX-27, TX-35

Many arguments can be made as to who’s the stronger candidate to face President Obama and why, whether it’s Willard M. Romney’s name recognition and Moderate image or Richard J. Santorum’s appeal to the pivotal base of support that is the grassroots activists. I will be looking at the electoral aspects of their strengths, where, and why they would perform strongest.

WM Romney’s Strengths:

New England-Home to none other than Mitt Romney himself, New England is obviously and unarguably going to be his sole strength. He will play well with the Moderates/Independents, which constitute the majority of voters up here(minus Vermont) and fiscally oriented Conservatives. If he’s the nominee, he would put away New Hampshire, give Obama a serious fight for his money in Maine, and stand a decent shot in Connecticut. Santorum, however, would lose Connecticut in a landslide, be in a slightly weaker position in Maine, and probably still be ahead in New Hampshire. While Santorum would play well with the aforementioned fiscally oriented Conservatives and Independents, he wouldn’t play terribly well with the Moderates.

RJ Santorum’s Strengths:

Midwest-An anchor of Conservatism, the Midwest is likely to vote for the GOP nominee regardless. That said, Santorum has a better chance of turning out the Conservative voters than does Romney. A Romney vs Obama race could well dampen turnout(as did McCain vs Obama in 2008) and put Missouri, the Dakotas, and Nebraska’s Second Congressional district in play, as the district went to Obama in 2008.

Old Confederacy-The biggest anchor of Conservatism since Oklahoma, both candidates should be expected to do well here, right? Not so. The Old Confederacy, more than anywhere else, would be a problem spot for the Moderate Romney. Why? In 2008, John McCain underperformed across the board(losing Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia in the process) because of a rightly perceived Moderate streak running straight through his legislative record. Such would be about the same for Romney, except with more of a Moderate record plus the radical inconsistencies in what he says on a day to day basis, he would be in worse shape than McCain was(losing Georgia and possibly Texas and South Carolina in the process).

Rocky Mountains-With the exceptions of Colorado and New Mexico, the Rocky Mountains are a hotbed of Conservatism. Considering Obama’s approvals as of late, either candidate would stand a chance against Obama in the two swingy states and rake in landslide victories in the others. That said, Conservatives will be less inclined to get out and vote if the Moderate candidate Romney(like John McCain in 2008 and Bob Dole in 1996) is the nominee, while they will turn out big time if the Conservative candidate Santorum is the nominee.

Equal Strengths:

Great Lakes-The Great Lakes states[minus Illinois(Democrat), Indiana(Republican), and New York(Democrat)] will be by and far the most hotly contested region in the entire country in the upcoming Presidential race. Several factors will influence the end result, such as high unemployment, Obama’s flagging approvals, and the ongoing war against public-sector unions. If the union busting is successful, unemployment is high, and Obama’s approvals continue to flag, then it does not matter if the nominee is Romney or Santorum, as either will win handily. But if the inverse happens, then Romney would have to be considered the best bet to defeat Obama. If the latter circumstances transpire, even Romney would face long odds.

Pacific Northwest-The Pacific Northwest has tended toward favoring Liberalism in the past few decades. Oregon may be within reach if my predicted Presidential numbers by Congressional district averages pan out(resulting in a 49.8%-49.4% GOP victory), and Washington is definitely within reach for two reasons. (1) The President has registered negative approval ratings in Washington State, and (2) state Attorney General Rob McKenna is poised for a landslide victory in the Governors race, which may provide coattails for either Romney or Santorum.

These are my views on how either candidate will perform in the various regions, and I would like to hear yours in the comments.

In this ongoing Presidential election, there are many candidates out there angling for our support. After long and careful consideration, I have decided to support former US Senator Rick Santorum, and here are the issues on which I base my support:

1. Health Care: Mr. Santorum has been a long-time proponent of market-driven, patient-centered health care solutions. He believes that everybody should have access to high-quality and affordable health care, with decisions being made by patients and their doctors instead of by government. If elected, Santorum will work to repeal President Obama’s universal health care plan, make more readily available such options as Health Savings Accounts and high deductible insurance plans, reduce health care costs through competition, allow patients to buy coverage with pre-tax dollars, and enact meaningful tort reform. By contrast, Mitt Romney was the genius behind the universal health care system in Massachusetts on which Obama based his health care system, and Newt Gingrich was, at one time or another, a proponent of the individual mandate, which was an instrumental part of Obama’s health care plan.

2. Second Amendment: Mr. Santorum is an ardent defender of every law abiding citizen’s Second Amendment rights. As a US Senator, Santorum wrote legislation eliminating the requirement that fishermen and hunters turn over their Social Security numbers when obtaining a license, supported legislation protecting law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits, and vehemently opposed the Assault Weapons Ban, guided by his belief that the real answer to gun violence is the enforcement of existing laws. If elected, Santorum would be guided by the same principles that guided him through those votes in the Senate. By contrast, Romney was a supporter of gun control during his gubernatorial run and signed gun control legislation into law on July 1, 2004.

3. Entitlements & Spending: Rick Santorum believes that entitlement reform and caps on spending are the way to economic solvency. He believes we must live within our means, prioritize our national security and defense spending, refocus the government on constitutional principles, consolidate duplicative programs, eliminate wasteful programs, and reform and modernize Medicare and Social Security in order to put us on the path to fiscal solvency. If elected, Santorum pledges to cut $5 trillion of congressional spending within five years, reduce spending levels down to at least 2008 levels, freeze defense and entitlement spending levels for five years, pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, stop the implementation of all remaining federal stimulus dollars, freeze pay for federal workers for four years, eliminate agriculture and energy subsidies, and eliminate funding for the following: United Nations-owned agencies, the National Labor Relations Board, Dodd/Frank regulatory reform, and Planned Parenthood. He also vows to phase out bankrupt mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within five years and sell wasteful and inefficient federal properties. By contrast, during his term of office as Governor, spending levels increased by 32%(from $26.3 billion to $34.7 billion), which does not account for the costs of RomneyCare.

4. Foreign Policy: Rick Santorum is one of the few people sounding the alarm about the dangers that Iran poses to the United States. While a US Senator, he sponsored a bill authorizing taxpayer dollars to support Iranian pro-democracy movements and keep dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from attaining a nuclear warhead. If elected, Santorum will assist Iranian pro-democracy groups, refuse to negotiate with Iran, work with Israel to deflect the nuclear threat and determine the proper course of military action against Iran, treat all scientists tied to the Iranian regime as enemy combatants, freeze bank accounts and issue travel restrictions to Iranian officials, build a comprehensive missile defense system, re-evaluate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and authorize research into the threats posed by an electromagnetic pulse attack. This all sharply contrasts with Ron Paul’s views on this matter. Paul’s positions are that Iranian affairs are none of our business, that it does not concern us if Iran attains a nuclear weapon, and that Israel’s safety is of no importance in the greater scheme of things.

5. Taxes: Mr. Santorum is a staunch advocate for lower taxes and a simplified tax code. As a US Senator, he voted for both Bush tax cuts. If elected, Santorum will work to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, the Death Tax, the Marriage Tax penalties, the cap on deductions for losses stemming from real estate sales, the corporate income tax for manufacturers, and the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income. He would also work to lower the capital gains and dividend taxes, to triple personal tax deductions for every child, to cut the corporate tax rate in half, to retain deductions for charitable giving and necessities, and to increase and make permanent the research & development tax credit. By contrast, taxes went up during Romney’s tenure to pay for programs he implemented.

6. Life & Marriage: Rick Santorum is one of the leaders in the charge against abortion, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. As a US Senator, he supported measures banning both partial birth abortions and judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex and unmarried couples. He also supported extending legal protection both to babies who survive attempts at induced abortion and to unborn babies who are victims of crimes. If elected, Santorum would work to stop taxpayer funding of both overseas abortions and embryonic stem cell research. He would also defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, ban all chaplains from performing same-sex marriage ceremonies on federal property, and amend the Constitution to include a Personhood Amendment(declaring everybody, born and unborn, a person) and a Federal Marriage Act(banning judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex and unmarried cohabiting couples). By contrast, Gingrich and Romney have taken alternating positions on these issues through the years, while Paul is a proponent of same-sex marriage.

7. Border Security & Immigration: Rick Santorum is an ardent proponent of securing our borders and restricting illegal immigration. As a US Senator, Santorum opposed amnesty, in-state tuition, health care services, Welfare, and educational benefits for illegal immigrants. In addition, he opposed chain migration(meaning one immigrant sponsors numerous other immigrants for admission), the establishment of guest worker programs, and allowing illegals to participate in Social Security. He supported building a border fence on the mexican border, the visa lottery, allowing foreign workers into the US for farm work, and visas for skilled workers. If elected, Santorum would do as he did in the Senate and fight to secure our borders and to make the legal immigration process faster and more efficient so that we can attract skillful, talented entrepreneurs from all regions around the world. Contrast this with Romney, who has favored an in-state tuition program and hired illegals for work at his home, and Paul, who has compared a border fence to the Iron Curtain, and you see the stark differences.

8. Energy & Offshore Oil Drilling: Rick Santorum is an ardent proponent of energy independence and offshore oil drilling. As a US Senator, Santorum opposed disallowing oil leasing programs in Alaska’s “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;” opposed slashing oil usage by 40% by 2040; and opposed banning drilling in ANWR. He supported the Bush administration’s energy policy, which targeted 100,000 hydrogen powered vehicles by 2010, drilling in ANWR on national security grounds, preserving a budget for ANWR oil drilling, and the authorization of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. If elected, Santorum would approve the Keystone Pipeline slated to go from Canada, through the Midwest, to Illinois. By contrast, Romney opposed the Yucca Mountain Repository.

In conclusion, I hope this endorsement has been informative and has convinced you to support Rick Santorum for president. Since this election is the most important one in modern times, there is a high volume of other options out there, so choose carefully.

In case you’re not aware, in the closest vote in Iowa Caucus history, Mitt Romney beat out Rick Santorum by 8 votes. One week ago, Santorum was in the single digits. Considering his strong showing in IA and Conservative desperation to support a formidable alternative to Romney, the money and poll numbers will start flowing Santorum’s way. Bachmann’s departure will most assuredly help Santorum more than anyone else. People are skeptical that Santorum can make it. I’m optimistic that he can. Here’s how I think Santorum could wrap up the nomination battle by Super Tuesday.

New Hampshire(1/10/12): Santorum’s got no shot at winning here. The best he can shoot for is third place. One thing that could really hurt Mitt Romney is Newt Gingrich’s attacks on him going into NH. Gingrich may not reasonate, but his attacks just might. If some of those attacks stick, we could be looking at either a narrow Romney victory over Ron Paul or an outright defeat of Romney. I currently think Romney will win with 34%, versus Paul’s 29%, Santorum’s 19%, Jon Huntsman Jr’s 9%, Gingrich’s 6%, and Rick Perry’s 3%. Huntsman would drop out and endorse Romney, but seeing how thin Huntsman’s support is, I don’t see how that particularly helps Romney.

South Carolina(1/21/12): This will be the big fight. A make or break moment for Santorum, and Perry’s last stand. Santorum must unify the Evangelical vote behind him in order to win. Romney only needs a Perry/Santorum split to win. I see Santorum unifying the Evangelicals(who will realize soon enough that Perry is doomed) and winning SC with 44%, versus Romney’s 28%, Gingrich’s 15%, Perry’s 9%, and Paul’s 4%. Perry would drop out and, like Bachmann, not endorse anybody, and his voters would largely go to Santorum, with the rest going to Gingrich.

Florida(1/31/12): Another make or break moment for Santorum, and Gingrich’s last stand. Gingrich must win over the large senior vote that has flocked in droves to the home of the fountain of youth in the past few decades in order to win. Santorum, buoyed by his win in SC, must win over the Grassroots Conservatives, for which an endorsement from Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Rick Scott, and/or Congressman Allen West would go a long way. I see Santorum unifying the Grassroots Conservatives and winning FL with 39%, versus Romney’s 29%, Gingrich’s 21%, and Paul’s 11%. Out of money, out of hope, and verging on destruction, Gingrich drops out and endorses Santorum.

Nevada(2/4/12): Santorum’s got no shot at winning here. This is viewed by many as a Romney stronghold, but this could be what breaks Romney. Why? Paul polled a formidable second place here in 2008, and with his organization and the number of youth voters in the Las Vegas area, he could poll either a narrow second or actually beat out Romney, delivering the fatal blow to Romney’s campaign. Don’t worry, Romney will be in this until Super Tuesday, but by this point, his once great chances at the Presidency have just about vanished overnight.

Maine(2/4/12-2/11/12): With the support of Governor Paul LePage(and the forthcoming support of Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, if they’ve not endorsed him already), Romney’s got a decent advantage going in. Santorum only has a remote chance here. I see Romney prevailing 47-36-17 over Santorum and Paul.

Colorado(2/7/12): There’s not been any polling from Colorado for one month, but the last one showed Gingrich up 19 over Romney. Considering all that’s gone on by this time and vote pockets in Boulder and Denver, Paul starts this one out with a built-in advantage. Paul prevails over Santorum and Romney 40-31-29.

Minnesota(2/7/12): With Bachmann not endorsing anybody and former Governor Tim Pawlenty behind Romney, Romney’s chances are pretty good here. Santorum still may have a decent shot, though. At this point, I see Romney winning by a 45-39-16 margin over Santorum and Paul.

Arizona(2/28/12): Senator and 2008 GOP Presidential nominee John McCain’s endorsement is supposed to help Romney, right? Not necessarily. McCain’s job approval numbers have been flagging for the better part of a year, and is now almost as unpopular in AZ as Joe Lieberman is in Connecticut. With the high volume of Conservative Republicans in AZ accounted for, I see Santorum winning Arizona with 49%, versus Romney’s 38% and Paul’s 13%.

Michigan(2/28/12): Michigan, the state that elected Mitt’s father, George Romney, to the Governorship way back when. For this reason, Romney’s home free here. Santorum’s got no chance. Romney wins with 54%, versus Santorum’s 37% and Paul’s 9%.

Washington(3/3/12): There has been no polling on this, so there is no way to tell.

And then it’s on to Super Tuesday, where Santorum attains the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America.

Tonight’s the night of the Louisiana elections. Here’s my final predictions on these races which are on the ballot in LA.

LA-GOV:

Bobby Jindal(R)-69%
Tara Hollis(D)-17%
David Blanchard(I)-8%
Cary Deaton(D)-6%

All others register below 1%. Jindal carries all 64 parishes.

LA-LT GOV:

Jay Dardenne(R)-56%
Billy Nungesser(R)-44%

LA-SOS:

Tom Schedler(R)-51%
Jim Tucker(R)-49%

LA-AGF:

Mike Strain(R)-71%
James LaBranche(D)-27%
Belinda Alexandrenko(Reform)-2%

LA-INS COM:

Jim Donelon(R)-71%
Donald Hodge(D)-29%

From the UK Daily Express:

Gaddafi was captured and wounded in both legs at dawn as he tried to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked, National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid Mlegta said.

“He was also hit in his head,” the official said. “There was a lot of firing against his group and he died.”

Gaddafi died of wounds near his home town, according to NTC officials

The Libyan dictator was wounded and captured near Sirte as he tried to flee in convoy after attacks, according to reports.

The U.S. State Department said it could not confirm that deposed Muammar Gaddafi has been captured.
“We’ve seen the media reports but can’t confirm them,” State Department spokeswoman Beth Gosselin.

Libyan fighters drove the last holdouts of Gaddafi out of his hometown of Sirte in a few hours of fierce gunbattles, then declared victory over the last major resistance two months after the fall of Tripoli.

The ecstatic former rebels celebrated by firing endless rounds into the sky, pumping their guns, knives and even a meat cleaver in the air and singing the national anthem.

This is great news for the Libyan people and the rest of the world. May he burn in hell.

From the Greenwich Times:

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Bob Stenehjem, the Republican majority leader of the North Dakota Senate for a decade, was killed Monday when the SUV he was riding in overturned during a fishing trip in Alaska, family members said.

Stenehjem, 59, of Bismarck, had been on a halibut fishing vacation near Homer on the state’s southern coast. He had been visiting his older brother, John, and his son, Rob, both of whom live in Alaska, said Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, Bob Stenehjem’s brother.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple called Bob Stenehjem “a great asset to the North Dakota Legislature” and said in a statement Monday night that his “warmth and friendliness will be sorely missed.”

“He was the glue that held (the Senate) together,” said Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo, the House majority leader.

Bob Stenehjem was an avid hunter and fisherman, Carlson said. “He had been up doing one of the most favorite things in his whole life, and that was going to Alaska fishing,” Carlson said.

Rest in peace.

2011 races

1. House Specials

NY-26 Special:

Jack Davis(TP)-36%
Jane Corwin(R/C/IP)-35%
Kathy Hochul(D)-29%

CA-36 Special:

Debra Bowen(D)-27%
Janice Hahn(D)-24%
Mike Webb(R)-19%
Marcy Winograd(D)-9%
Mike Gin(R)-6%
Dan Adler(D)-4%
Lorraine Goodwin(D)-4%
Kit Bobko(R)-3%
Stephen Eisele(R)-2%
George Newberry(R)-1%
Craig Huey(R)-1%

CA-36 Special Runoff:

Debra Bowen(D)-53%
Janice Hahn(D)-47%

NV-2 Special:

Kate Marshall(D)-51%
Brian Krolicki(R)-32%
Mark Amodei(R)-10%
Greg Brower(R)-4%
Sharron Angle(R)-2%
Kirk Lippold(R)-1%

Dem +1, Tea Party +1

2. Gubernatorial Races

KY-GOV:

David Lewis Williams/Richard Dwight Farmer Junior(R)-49%
Steven Lynn Beshear/Jerry Edwin Abramson(D)-48%
Louis Gatewood Galbraith/Dea Riley(I)-3%

LA-GOV:

Piyush Jindal(R)-59%
Cathryn Caroline Fayard(D)-33%
John Georges(D)-7%
Daniel Northcutt(I)-1%

MS-GOV:

Phillip Bryant(R)-66%
Johnny DuPree(D)-33%
Shawn O’Hara(Reform)-1%

WV-GOV:

Earl Ray Tomblin(D)-55%
William Maloney(R)-44%
Robert Henry Baber(M)-1%

GOP +1

2012 Races

1. United States Senate Races to Watch

CT-SEN:

Susan Bysiewicz(D)-57%
Michael Fedele(R)-43%

FL-SEN:

Adam Hasner(R)-51%
Bill Nelson(D)-49%

MA-SEN:

Alan Khazei(D)-52%
Scott Brown(R)-48%

MI-SEN:

Thad McCotter(R)-53%
Debbie Stabenow(D)-47%

MO-SEN:

Sarah Steelman(R)-54%
Claire McCaskill(D)-46%

MT-SEN:

Dennis Rehberg(R)-52%
Jon Tester(D)-48%

NE-SEN:

Jon Bruning(R)-60%
Benny Nelson(D)-40%

NJ-SEN:

Joseph Pennachio(R)-51%
Robert Menendez(D)-49%

NM-SEN:

Greg Sowards(R)-51%
Martin Heinrich(D)-49%

ND-SEN:

Brian Kalk(R)-71%
Jasper Schneider(D)-29%

OH-SEN:

Kevin Coughlin(R)-53%
Sherrod Brown(D)-47%

PA-SEN:

Samuel Rohrer(R)-52%
Robert Casey Junior(D)-48%

VA-SEN:

George Allen(R)-54%
Timothy Kaine(D)-46%

WA-SEN:

David Reichert(R)-51%
Maria Cantwell(D)-49%

Resulting in a GOP net gain of +11

2. Gubernatorial Races to Watch

MO-GOV:

Peter D. Kinder(R)-53%
Jeremiah Wilson Nixon(D)-47%

MO-GOV:

Richard Hill(R)-55%
Steve Bullock(D)-45%

NH-GOV:

Ovide LaMontagne(R)-51%
John H. Lynch(D)-49%

NC-GOV:

Patrick Lloyd McCrory(R)-57%
Beverly Eaves Perdue(D)-43%

WA-GOV:

Robert McKenna(R)-53%
Jay Robert Inslee(D)-47%

WV-GOV:

Earl Ray Tomblin(D)-54%
Clark Barnes(R)-46%

GOP +5

3. United States House of Representatives Pickups

Democrats(+2): NY-25, TX-27
Republicans(+72): AZ-7, AZ-8, AR-4, CA-11, CA-18, CA-20, CA-47, CA-51, CO-7, CT-2, CT-4, CT-5, GA-2, GA-12, IN-2, IA-1, IA-2, IA-3, KY-3, KY-6, ME-1, ME-2, MA-3, MA-5, MA-6, MA-10, MI-5, MI-9, MI-15, MN-1, MN-7, MO-3, MO-5, NJ-6, NJ-9, NJ-12, NM-1, NM-3, NY-1, NY-4, NY-9, NY-22, NY-23, NY-26, NY-27, NC-7, NC-8, NC-11, NC-13, OH-9, OH-10, OH-13, OK-2, OR-1, OR-4, OR-5, PA-4, PA-12, PA-13, PA-17, RI-1, TN-5, TX-5, TX-15, TX-25, UT-2, VA-11, WA-2, WA-6, WA-9, WV-3, WI-3

Resulting in a GOP net gain of +70

4. United States Presidency

Republican Ticket: Donald John Trump/Richard John Santorum
Democratic Ticket: Barack Hussein Obama/John Forbes Kerry

Trump/Santorum(389 EV’s)(54%): AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
Obama/Kerry(149 EV’s)(43%): CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NY, RI, VT

Those races I didn’t mention were held by the incumbent party. In several states, I see Democrats getting demoted to 3rd party status. Pretty soon, Democrats will be the equivalent of the old Whigs. These are my thoughts, and I’d love to hear yours.

If Conservatives are to get a bulletproof majority in the House in 2012, these are the seats they must target:

Democrat-held seats:

AZ-7: Raul Grijalva
AZ-8: Gabrielle Giffords
AR-4: Mike Ross
CA-10: John Garamendi
CA-11: Jerry McNerney
CA-18: Dennis Cardoza
CA-20: Jim Costa
CA-47: Loretta Sanchez
CA-51: Bob Filner
CO-7: Ed Perlmutter
CT-1: John Larson
CT-2: Joe Courtney
CT-3: Rosa DeLauro
CT-4: Jim Himes
CT-5: Chris Murphy
DE-AL: John Carney
GA-2: Sanford Bishop
GA-12: John Barrow
IN-2: Joe Donnelly
IN-7 Andre Carson
IA-1: Bruce Braley
IA-2: Dave Loebsack
IA-3: Leonard Boswell
KY-3: John Yarmuth
KY-6: Ben Chandler
ME-1: Chellie Pingree
ME-2: Mike Michaud
MA-3: Jim McGovern
MA-4: Barney Frank
MA-5: Niki Tsongas
MA-6: John Tierney
MA-10: Bill Keating
MI-5: Dale Kildee
MI-9: Gary Peters
MI-15: John Dingell
MN-1: Tim Walz
MN-7: Collin Peterson
MO-3: Russ Carnahan
MO-5: Emmanuel Cleaver
NJ-6: Frank Pallone
NJ-9: Steve Rothman
NJ-12: Rush Holt
NM-1: Martin Heinrich
NM-3: Ben Lujan
NY-1: Tim Bishop
NY-4: Carolyn McCarthy
NY-22: Maurice Hinchey
NY-23: Bill Owens
NY-27: Brian Higgins
NC-4: David Price
NC-7: Mike McIntyre
NC-8: Larry Kissell
NC-11: Heath Shuler
NC-13: Brad Miller
OH-9: Marcy Kaptur
OH-10: Dennis Kucinich
OH-13: Betty Sutton
OK-2: Dan Boren
OR-1: David Wu
OH-4: Peter DeFazio
OH-5: Kurt Schrader
PA-4: Jason Altmire
PA-12: Mark Critz
PA-13: Allyson Schwartz
PA-17: Tim Holden
RI-1: David Cicilline
SC-6: Jim Clyburn
TN-5: Jim Cooper
TX-15: Ruben Hinojosa
TX-25: Lloyd Doggett
TX-28: Henry Cuellar
UT-2: Jim Matheson
VA-11: Gerry Connolly
WA-2: Rick Larsen
WA-6: Norm Dicks
WA-9: Adam Smith
WV-3: Nick Rahall
WI-3: Ron Kind

Republicans to keep an eye on for RINO tendencies:

AL-2: Martha Roby
CA-19: Jeff Denham
CA-41: Jerry Lewis
FL-5: Rick Nugent
FL-13: Vern Buchanan
IL-15: Tim Johnson
IL-16: Don Manzullo
IA-4: Tom Latham
KS-3: Kevin Yoder
LA-5: Rodney Alexander
KY-5: Hal Rogers
MD-1: Andy Harris
MI-6: Fred Upton
MS-1: Alan Nunnelee
NE-2: Lee Terry
NH-2: Charlie Bass
NJ-2: Frank LoBiondo
NJ-4: Chris Smith
NJ-7: Leonard Lance
NC-3: Walter Jones Jr.
VA-5: Robert Hurt
WA-8: Dave Reichert
WV-1: David McKinley

GUBERNATORIAL RACES:

AL-GOV:

Bentley(R)-56%
Sparks(D)-44%

AK-GOV:

Parnell(R)-59%
Berkowitz(D)-39%
Others-2%

AZ-GOV:

Brewer(R)-60%
Goddard(D)-40%

AR-GOV:

Beebe(D)-62%
Keet(R)-38%

CA-GOV:

Brown(D)-51%
Whitman(R)-42%
Others-7%

CO-GOV:

Tancredo(C)-49%
Hickenlooper(D)-47%
Maes(R)-4%

CT-GOV:

Foley(R)-51%
Malloy(D)-49%

FL-GOV:

Scott(R)-52%
Sink(D)-48%

GA-GOV:

Deal(R)-52%
Barnes(D)-43%
Monds(L)-5%

HI-GOV:

Aiona(R)-50.5%
Abercrombie(D)-49.5%

ID-GOV:

Otter(R)-72%
Allred(D)-28%

IL-GOV:

Brady(R)-49%
Quinn(D)-42%
Others-9%

IA-GOV:

Branstad(R)-65%
Culver(D)-35%

KS-GOV:

Brownback(R)-71%
Holland(D)-29%

ME-GOV:

LePage(R)-41%
Cutler(I)-32%
Mitchell(D)-25%
Others-2%

MD-GOV:

O’Malley(D)-55%
Ehrlich(R)-45%

MA-GOV:

Baker(R)-46%
Patrick(D)-45%
Cahill(I)-9%

MI-GOV:

Snyder(R)-58%
Bernerio(D)-37%
Others-5%

MN-GOV:

Emmer(R)-47%
Dayton(D)-44%
Horner(I)-9%

NE-GOV:

Heineman(R)-87%
Meister(D)-13%

NV-GOV:

Sandoval(R)-64%
Reid(D)-36%

NH-GOV:

Lynch(D)-53%
Stephen(R)-47%

NM-GOV:

Martinez(R)-55%
Denish(D)-45%

NY-GOV:

Cuomo(D)-54%
Paladino(R)-45%
Others-1%

OH-GOV:

Kasich(R)-52%
Strickland(D)-48%

OK-GOV:

Fallin(R)-54%
Askins(D)-46%

OR-GOV:

Dudley(R)-51%
Kitzhaber(D)-49%

PA-GOV:

Corbett(R)-57%
Onorato(D)-43%

RI-GOV:

Chaffee(I)-38%
Robitaille(R)-33%
Caprio(D)-29%

SC-GOV:

Haley(R)-59%
Sheheen(D)-41%

SD-GOV:

Daugaard(R)-63%
Heidepriem(D)-37%

TN-GOV:

Haslam(R)-70%
McWherter(D)-30%

TX-GOV:

Perry(R)-54%
White(D)-44%
Others-2%

UT-GOV:

Herbert(R)-67%
Corroon(D)-33%

VT-GOV:

Dubie(R)-51%
Markowitz(D)-47%
Others-2%

WI-GOV:

Walker(R)-56%
Barrett(D)-44%

WY-GOV:

Mead(R)-73%
Petersen(D)-27%

SENATE RACES:

AL-SEN:

Shelby(R)-74%
Barnes(D)-26%

AK-SEN:

Miller(R)-37%
McAdams(D)-35%
Murkowski(WI)-28%

AZ-SEN:

McCain(R)-62%
Glassman(D)-35%
Others-3%

AR-SEN:

Boozman(R)-63%
Lincoln(D)-37%

CA-SEN:

Fiorina(R)-48%
Boxer(D)-47%
Others-5%

CO-SEN:

Buck(R)-53%
Bennet(D)-47%

CT-SEN:

Blumenthal(D)-56%
McMahon(R)-43%
Vassar(L)-1%

DE-SEN:

O’Donnell(R)-52%
Coons(D)-47%
Rash(L)-1%

FL-SEN:

Rubio(R)-46%
Meek(D)-29%
Crist(I)-25%

GA-SEN:

Isakson(R)-60%
Thurmond(D)-35%
Donovan(L)-5%

HI-SEN:

Inouye(D)-84%
Cavasso(R)-16%

ID-SEN:

Crapo(R)-78%
Sullivan(D)-22%

IL-SEN:

Kirk(R)-44%
Giannoulias(D)-43%
Jones(G)-8%
Labno(L)-5%

IN-SEN:

Coats(R)-65%
Ellsworth(D)-35%

IA-SEN:

Grassley(R)-63%
Conlin(D)-37%

KS-SEN:

Moran(R)-79%
Johnston(D)-21%

KY-SEN:

Paul(R)-55%
Conway(D)-43%
Others-2%

LA-SEN:

Vitter(R)-59%
Melancon(D)-38%
Others-3%

MD-SEN:

Mikulski(D)-62%
Wargotz(R)-38%

MO-SEN:

Blunt(R)-57%
Carnahan(D)-43%

NV-SEN:

Angle(R)-50%
Reid(D)-46%
Others-4%

NH-SEN:

Ayotte(R)-58%
Hodes(D)-42%

NY-SEN A:

Schumer(D)-58%
Townsend(R)-42%

NY-SEN B:

DioGuardi(R)-51%
Gillibrand(D)-49%

NC-SEN:

Burr(R)-57%
Marshall(D)-43%

ND-SEN:

Hoeven(R)-81%
Potter(D)-19%

OH-SEN:

Portman(R)-59%
Fisher(D)-41%

OK-SEN:

Coburn(R)-88%
Rodgers(D)-12%

OR-SEN:

Wyden(D)-55%
Huffman(R)-45%

PA-SEN;

Toomey(R)-54%
Sestak(D)-46%

SC-SEN:

DeMint(R)-76%
Greene(D)-24%

SD-SEN:

Thune(R)-100%

UT-SEN:

Lee(R)-63%
Granato(D)-37%

VT-SEN:

Leahy(D)-59%
Britton(R)-41%

WA-SEN:

Rossi(R)-51%
Murray(D)-49%

WV-SEN:

Raese(R)-52%
Manchin(D)-48%

WI-SEN:

Johnson(R)53%
Feingold(D)-47%

AL-GOV:

Bentley(R)-54%
Sparks(D)-46%

AR-GOV:

Beebe(D)-57%
Keet(R)-43%

CA-GOV:

Whitman(R)-52%
Brown(D)-48%

CO-GOV:

Hickenlooper(D)-55%
Maes(R)-31%
Tancredo(C)-14%

CT-GOV:

Malloy(D)-51%
Foley(R)-49%

GA-GOV:

Deal(R)-53%
Barnes(D)-44%
Monds(L)-3%

ID-GOV:

Otter(R)-77%
Allred(D)-23%

IL-GOV:

Brady(R)-56%
Quinn(D)-44%

IA-GOV:

Branstad(R)-58%
Culver(D)-42%

KS-GOV:

Brownback(R)-71%
Holland(D)-29%

ME-GOV:

LePage(R)-53%
Mitchell(D)-47%

MI-GOV:

Snyder(R)-57%
Bernerio(D)-43%

MN-GOV:

Emmer(R)-51%
Dayton)D)-47%
Horner(IP)-2%

NE-GOV:

Heineman(R)-80%
Meister(D)-20%

NV-GOV:

Sandoval(R)-65%
Reid(D)-35%

NM-GOV:

Martinez(R)-52%
Denish(D)-48%

OH-GOV:

Kasich(R)-54%
Strickland(D)-46%

OK-GOV:

Fallin(R)-55%
Askins(D)-45%

OR-GOV:

Kitzhaber(R)-53%
Dudley(D)-47%

PA-GOV:

Corbett(R)-59%
Onorato(D)-41%

SC-GOV:

Haley(R)-59%
Sheheen(D)-41%

SD-GOV:

Daugaard(R)-61%
Heidepriem(D)-39%

TN-GOV:

Haslam(R)-57%
McWherter(D)-43%

TX-GOV:

Perry(R)-55%
White(D)-45%

UT-GOV:

Herbert(R)-64%
Corroon(D)-36%

WY-GOV:

Mead(R)-67%
Petersen(D)-33%

In summary, of the states that have held Primaries, Democrats are poised to pick up 1 seat and Republicans are poised to pick up 12 seats.

Here’s a rundown of how I think tomorrow night’s GA Primaries will go:

Governor:

Republican Primary:

Handel 27%
Deal 24%
Johnson 19%
Oxendine 15%
McBerry 9%
Chapman 5%
Putnam 1%

Deal wins the Runoff 54-46.

Democratic Primary:

Barnes 55%
Baker 29%
Porter 13%
Poythress 2%
Mangham 1%
Camon and Bolton receive less than 1%.

Deal beats Barnes 52-48.

Lieutenant Governor:

Democratic Primary:

Porter 80%
McCracken 20%

I See Incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle beating Porter 57-43.

Secretary of State:

Republican Primary:

Kemp 55%
MacGinnitie 45%

Democratic Primary:

Buckner 27%
Mills 23%
Horlacher 20%
Moore 19%
Sinkfield 11%

Mills wins the Runoff 53-47.

I see Kemp beating Mills 59-41.

Attorney General:

Republican Primary:

Olens 39%
Wood 38%
Smith 23%

Wood wins the Runoff 51-49.

Democratic Primary:

Teilhet 56%
Hodges 44%

Wood beats Teilhet 53-47.

State School Superintendent:

Republican Primary:

Woods 55%
Barge 45%

Democratic Primary:

Martin 37%
Westlake 34%
Farokhi 29%

Westlake wins the Runoff 50.5-49.5.

Woods beats Westlake 58-42.

Agriculture Commissioner:

Republican Primary:

Black 70%
Carter 30%

Black beats Democratic State Senator JB Powell 56-44.

Insurance Commissioner:

Republican Primary:

Purcell 18%
Harp 16%
Knox 15%
Sheffield 12%
Hudgens 11%
Northington 10%
Mamalakis 8%
Collum 7%
Cain 3%

Harp wins the Runoff 53-47.

Harp beats former Democratic State Senator Mary Squires 65-35.

Labor Commissioner:

Republican Primary:

Everson 55%
Butler 45%

Democratic Primary:

Coleman 60%
Hicks 40%

Coleman beats Everson 54-46.

US Senate:

Democratic Primary:

Thurmond 61%
Hadley 39%

Incumbent Republican US Senator Johnny Isakson beats Thurmond 55-45.

CD-2:

Republican Primary:

Keown 54%
Ferrell 29%
Allen 17%

Keown beats Incumbent Democratic US Congressman Sanford Bishop 53-47.

CD-4:

Republican Primary:

Carter 54%
Gause 35%
Ruth 11%

Democratic Primary:

Johnson 67%
Jones 26%
Stokes 7%

Guam does not tip over by a margin of 71-29.

CD-7:

Republican Primary:

Efstration 35%
Woodall 29%
Cox 28%
Kirby 5%
Parrott 3%
Hice, Fincher, and Grist poll below 1%

Woodall wins the Runoff 52-48.

Woodall beats Democratic Financial Executive Doug Heckman 64-36.

CD-8:

Republican Primary:

Scott 60%
Deloach 31%
Vann 9%

I see Scott beating Incumbent Democratic US Congressman Jim Marshall 54-46.

CD-9:

Graves 33%
Tarvin 28%
Hawkins 19%
Reese 14%
Cates 6%

Tarvin wins the Runoff 51-49.

Tarvin beats Independent Marketing Executive Eugene Moon 86-14.

CD-12:

Republican Primary:

Smith 58%
McKinney 33%
Seaver 8%
Horner 2%

Democratic Primary:

Thomas 56%
Barrow 44%

Thomas beats Smith 57-43.

CD-13:

Democratic Primary:

Scott 43%
Frisbee 42%
Murphy 15%

Frisbee beats Scott 51.5-48.5.

Republican Primary:

Honeycutt 51%
Parchment 33%
Dudek 9%
Crane 6%
Orr 1%
Flanegan receives less than 1%.

Frisbee beats Honeycutt 60-40.

Your thoughts.