A big batch of ballots from Placer county got tallied late today that has given McClintock an statistically insurmountable lead that has prompted him to declare victory over Charlie Brown.

Here is a write up about the race from The Union of Grass Valley.

This is big, big win for the GOP and an even bigger win for grassroots conservatives who are eager to return our party to its Reagan roots.

Well, the State of Missouri has finally been called for McCain (Woo hoo!), so I figured I’d write a statewide election results diary. There’s some good, some not so good, but overall, Republicans came out alright in the Show-Me-State this year. Because of Missouri’s similarities to the nation as a whole in terms of demographics and rural/urban mix, the state is always an interesting case study.

President: As stated above, Missouri has went to McCain after two weeks of vote counting. McCain ended up winning by about 4,000 votes and this marks only the second time in 100 years or so that Missouri has not went with the winner. When phone-banking for Hulshof and McCain, I and the other volunteers kept saying to each other that if we can just get McCain to win Missouri, he’ll win the presidency, because Missouri is always right. Well, that turned out to be untrue this year, but I for one am glad – on behalf of the Missouri GOP team – that we will be delivering our 11 electoral votes to Sarah Palin and that old guy.

Governor: Jay Nixon (D) easily defeats Kenny Hulshof (R), 58% to 39%. This is a pickup for the Dems. Matt Blunt, the incumbent Republican (and son of U.S. Rep Roy Blunt), surprised everyone by opting not to run for re-election. This put the Republicans at a big disadvantage, given Jay Nixon’s big name recognition and massive campaign war chest.

Lt. Governor: Incumbent Republican Peter Kinder hangs on to win re-election against Anesthesiologist and State Senator Sam Page. My father actually used to support Page back in the day because he was in favor of tort reform, however he quit after Page’s militant pro-abortion views became evident. Anyway, this is the only statewide race that Republicans managed to win this year, except for McCain.

Secretary of State: Democrat incumbent Robin Carnahan wins re-election in a landslide against token Republican opposition. We really need to start contesting these Secretary of State races. We now see how important they are. Here in Missouri, Robin Carnahan got an anti-eminent domain amendment thrown off the ballot.

Attorney General: Kansas City Republican-turned-Democrat Chris Koster defeats Kirkwood-area State Senator Mike Gibbons (R) in a relatively close race. Gibbons is a great guy, but was hobbled by the fact that he has never tried a case in his life. Koster hammered him on that and I think they were (justifiably) effective.

Treasurer: Democrat Clint Zweifel narrowly defeats Republican Brad Lager.

U.S. House, District 1: William Lacy Clay Jr. wins re-election. This district encompasses much of the inner city of St. Louis, as well as north St. Louis County. It is No Republican even filed in this D +26 district. He faced token opposition by a Liberatrian party candidate. This is a safe Democrat district in perpetuity.

U.S. House, District 2: Todd Akin (R) cruises to re-election over goofball Bill Haas (D). This district includes many very wealthy areas of west St. Louis county, as well as the “ex-urbs” of St. Charles, O’Fallon, & St. Peters. Todd Akin keeps a low profile, but he is one of the finest people in all of congress. He has a son serving in Iraq, and is one of the most conservative members of the Republican caucus. This heavily Republican district is safe as long as Akin continues to run, and should be reliably Republican with a halfway competent candidate. Akin typically wins by 15% to 20%.

U.S. House, District 3: Incumbent Russ Carnahan (D) defeats Chris Sander (R), 66%-30%. Dick Gephardt used to hold this district. This district consists of the south St. Louis city, and some southern suburbs and rural areas. While the suburbs and rural areas vote Republican, the lion’s share of the votes are in the south city area, which is ethnic and heavily union. I would call these people “old Democrats”, not lefties. They tend to be more culturally conservative, yet liberal on economic policy. The district is has a CPVI of D +8. Carnahan probably keeps this seat indefinitely barring unusual circumstances.

U.S. House, District 4: Incumbent Ike Skelton (D) cruises to re-election over Jeff Parnell (R). Skelton is a blue-dog Democrat who is culturally conservative, and generally votes with Bush on Iraq and the WoT, but leans left on economics. The 4th is a primarily rural district that stretches from the southern and eastern Kansas City ex-urbs all the way out to Jefferson City in the middle of the state. It also includes a large amount of rural areas between Jeff City, Kansas City, and on down south toward Springfield. This district is the second most most Republican district in the state, with a CPVI of R +11. Ike Skelton has been here for decades, and will continue to hold the seat as long as he runs, but a Republican could easily take this seat in the event he retires. He’s almost 77, FYI.

U.S. House, District 5: Incumbent Democrat Emanuel Cleaver cruises to re-election by over 30 pts. The CPVI of the 5th is D +12 and consists of Kansas City proper and parts of the southern and eastern suburbs. Safe Democrat.

U.S. House, District 6: Early on, incumbent Republican Sam Graves was thought to be in trouble. The DCCC targeted this race, but in the end, Graves crushed former Kansas City mayor Kay Barnes, 59% to 36%. This district has a CPVI of R +5 and encompasses northwest Missouri, which includes some northern Kansas City suburbs as well as the rural communities of St. Joseph, Chillicothe, and Maryville. If Graves couldn’t be knocked off this year against a well-known, well-funded challenger, he’s probably safe as long as he’s there, barring an unusual event. Safe Republican as long as Graves is there, and Likely Republican for the forseeable future.

U.S. House, District 7: Former Minority Whip Roy Blunt cruises to re-election. The 7th has a CPVI of R +14 and encompasses southwest Missouri, which includes Springfield and the surrounding areas, as well as Joplin, Neosho, and Carthage to the west. Blunt typically faces nothing more than token opposition. In 2006 he was opposed in the primary by transvestite and Code-pink member Midge Potts. He/she ran again this year as a write-in and garned 49 votes. I wonder how long Blunt is going to hang on here. I’m not really worried, as any Republican should keep this seat, however given that he has stepped down from the leadership, I wonder how long he is going to stay in the house. Safe Republican.

U.S. House, District 8: Incumbent Republican Jo Ann Emerson cruised to re-election facing nothing more than token opposition. Despite coming from a heavily Republican district (R +11), Emerson is one of the more liberal Republicans in the caucus. She is solid on social issues, but leans left on economics and was one of the few Republicans in the house to vote to cut off funding for Iraq. She needs to be primaried, IMO, however no one is on the horizon to do that. This is a “good ole’ boy” district and Emerson is both well-know and well-liked. The 8th includes all of southeast Missouri, including Rush Limbaugh’s hometown of Cape Girardeau, Sikeston, Farmington, & Poplar Bluff. It is almost completely rural. Her late husband, Bill Emerson, represented the district for years before he passed away. Safe Republican.

U.S. House, District 9: Blaine Leutkemeyer (R) defeats Judy Baker (D) to retain an open seat for the GOP. This is the seat Kenny Hulshof vacated to run for governor. The DCCC targeted this district as well, but in the end Luetkemeyer wins, 50% to 47%. This district is R +7, so that margin is a bit low, but I think it reflects the fact that it was an open seat in a bad year for Republicans. Baker had national cash flowing in as well. I don’t think Luetkemeyer should have any problem holding this seat, and that’s good, for he is a solid conservative who had a good record in the state house. This district includes Columbia, and all of northeast Missouri, including Kirksville, the northern exurbs of St. Louis, and the hometown of Mark Twain, Hannibal. Likely Republican.

Missouri State House: In the Missouri house, the Democrats won four Republican-held seats, and the Republicans won one Democrat-held seat, giving the Democrats a pickup of 3, giving the Republicans an 89-72 majority. This should be considered a win for the Missouri GOP given that many pundits predicted that the Dems would retake the MO-House or come close.

Missouri State Senate: In perhaps the brightest spot for the Missouri GOP, they picked up 3 seats in the State Senate, including a big upset win by young attorney Kirk Schaeffer (R) over Chuck Graham (D) of Columbia. The Republicans now hold a near veto-proof majority in state senate.

All in all, I think the Missouri GOP has to be happy with these results, in a difficult year for Republicans. It was disappointing to lost the statehouse, but with comfortable majorities in the General Assembly, the GOP should be able control much of the agenda in Jeff City.

As of right now, Ted Stevens’ lead has dwindled down to 900 votes or so as the counting of the absentee and provisional ballots.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/586989.html

Norm Coleman’s lead is down to 206 votes, and there is a partisan Secretary of State in Minnesota overseeing the process. Mort Kondracke just predicted that Franken would come away the winner up there. Great.

In Georgia, Saxby Chambliss has to survive a runoff against Jim Martin. The Dems realize that this race can clinch 60 votes for them and will pull out the big guns to GOTV for Martin.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Despite Norm Coleman claiming victory, that race is headed for a recount. We won’t know the outcome for a few weeks, and Coleman is only leading by about 500 votes out of 2.9 million cast. As awful as this sounds, it’s entirely possible that Franken wins this thing.

In Georgia, Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin appear to be headed for a run-off in December. While this is a GOP state, Martin could still win, as there is a lot of anger pent up at Chambliss over the bailout.

In Alaska, things look good for Stevens right now, but he leads by only 4,000 votes and there are 40,000 votes outstanding. I think Stevens eventually wins, but anything can happen here.

Also, the Oregon race was just called for Jeff Merkley. Gordon Smith goes down.

My Dilemma:

I am torn between my genuine fear of what an Obama presidency combined with a far-left Congress would do to this country, and what the potential consequences of a McCain win are. I’m not a great writer, so I’ll list my concerns in bullet points:

If Obama Wins:

• Disadvantages:

• A wide array of far-left programs enacted, Freedom to Choose Act, Fairness Doctrine, tax increases, Free Choice Act, Cap & Trade, etc

• Left-wing judges appointed to every level of the federal judiciary, including most likely the Supreme Court

• An army of Alinsky-ite activists populating the federal bureaucracy (State Dep, Education Dep, etc) that will be there FOREVER.

• Socialized healthcare

• Advantages:

• The Republican Party can be a conservative opposition throwing grenades at the Democrats on everything they do.

• Increases the likelihood that Republicans can make significant gains in the 2010 mid-terms and can run a genuine grassroots conservative for president in 2012, possibly Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin.

• I don’t want any of the aforementioned leftist legislation to pass, but when the Dems bring it up, it will be on display for the whole country to see that these people are out-and-out socialists.

• 2-4 years of Obama/Pelosi/Reid will energize the conservative grassroots base in a manner similar to 1980 or 1994. That’s not a sure thing, but I believe it is likely.

If McCain Wins:

• Disadvantages:

• At best, McCain and the GOP will only be able to block the worst of what the Dems propose. This will give ammo the Dems and the media to portray McCain and Republicans as “obstructionists”, and could use that to their advantage in the 2010 mid-terms.

• McCain winning in 2008 means that we won’t have a true grassroots conservative candidate until at least 2016, and even that is in doubt. I do not buy into the fact that McCain is going to serve only one term.

• Expanding on my point above, the party out of power typically (not always) gains seats in the mid-term of a presidency. I do not want that to happen.

• There’s a distinct possibility that McCain will go along with some Democrat proposals like cap & trade or amnesty. Once they are signed into law, the Republican party will get tagged as supporting these things, thereby diluting our conservative image.

• Sarah Palin. What if there is some scandal that engulfs the McCain administration? What if the economy tanks or something happens that is blamed on the White House? Sarah Palin could be permanently damaged goods and would thereby jeopardize her future value as a grassroots conservative leader, perhaps even a presidential candidate in the future.

• Advantages:

• First and foremost, the big advantage to a McCain win will be the absolute devastation and demoralization of the American left. They will become angrier and more desperate than they already are, thereby weakening their future electoral viability.

• Sarah Palin. This one cuts both ways. If, on the other hand, McCain has a reasonably successful administration, he will have succeeded in elevating a future leader of the conservative movement and the Republican Party to a higher level, cementing her place as a leader. Sarah Palin also has the opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of leftist feminism as it exists in this country.

• Stopping horrendous pieces of legislation like the Free Choice Act, socialized healthcare, and the things I mentioned at the top.

In the end, I think that I would take a McCain defeat so long as I could be assured that the Republicans could successfully block the most objectionable bills that Pelosi would send down the pike – I have mentioned those in this piece. Since that is FAR from a sure thing, McCain may be our only hope to stop things that have the potential to remake our country into the Euro-socialist model.

I’m backing McCain, mostly out of genuine fear of Obama & Pelosi, but I have reservations.

Thoughts?

My Dilemma:

I am torn between my genuine fear of what an Obama presidency combined with a far-left Congress would do to this country, and what the potential consequences of a McCain win are. I’m not a great writer, so I’ll list my concerns in bullet points:

If Obama Wins:

• Disadvantages:

• A wide array of far-left programs enacted, Freedom to Choose Act, Fairness Doctrine, tax increases, Free Choice Act, Cap & Trade, etc

• Left-wing judges appointed to every level of the federal judiciary, including most likely the Supreme Court

• An army of Alinsky-ite activists populating the federal bureaucracy (State Dep, Education Dep, etc) that will be there FOREVER.

• Socialized healthcare

• Advantages:

• The Republican Party can be a conservative opposition throwing grenades at the Democrats on everything they do.

• Increases the likelihood that Republicans can make significant gains in the 2010 mid-terms and can run a genuine grassroots conservative for president in 2012, possibly Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin.

• I don’t want any of the aforementioned leftist legislation to pass, but when the Dems bring it up, it will be on display for the whole country to see that these people are out-and-out socialists.

• 2-4 years of Obama/Pelosi/Reid will energize the conservative grassroots base in a manner similar to 1980 or 1994. That’s not a sure thing, but I believe it is likely.

If McCain Wins:

• Disadvantages:

• At best, McCain and the GOP will only be able to block the worst of what the Dems propose. This will give ammo the Dems and the media to portray McCain and Republicans as “obstructionists”, and could use that to their advantage in the 2010 mid-terms.

• McCain winning in 2008 means that we won’t have a true grassroots conservative candidate until at least 2016, and even that is in doubt. I do not buy into the fact that McCain is going to serve only one term.

• Expanding on my point above, the party out of power typically (not always) gains seats in the mid-term of a presidency. I do not want that to happen.

• There’s a distinct possibility that McCain will go along with some Democrat proposals like cap & trade or amnesty. Once they are signed into law, the Republican party will get tagged as supporting these things, thereby diluting our conservative image.

• Sarah Palin. What if there is some scandal that engulfs the McCain administration? What if the economy tanks or something happens that is blamed on the White House? Sarah Palin could be permanently damaged goods and would thereby jeopardize her future value as a grassroots conservative leader, perhaps even a presidential candidate in the future.

• Advantages:

• First and foremost, the big advantage to a McCain win will be the absolute devastation and demoralization of the American left. They will become angrier and more desperate than they already are, thereby weakening their future electoral viability.

• Sarah Palin. This one cuts both ways. If, on the other hand, McCain has a reasonably successful administration, he will have succeeded in elevating a future leader of the conservative movement and the Republican Party to a higher level, cementing her place as a leader. Sarah Palin also has the opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of leftist feminism as it exists in this country.

• Stopping horrendous pieces of legislation like the Free Choice Act, socialized healthcare, and the things I mentioned at the top.

In the end, I think that I would take a McCain defeat so long as I could be assured that the Republicans could successfully block the most objectionable bills that Pelosi would send down the pike – I have mentioned those in this piece. Since that is FAR from a sure thing, McCain may be our only hope to stop things that have the potential to remake our country into the Euro-socialist model.

I’m backing McCain, mostly out of genuine fear of Obama & Pelosi, but I have reservations.

Thoughts?

My Dilemma:

I am torn between my genuine fear of what an Obama presidency combined with a far-left Congress would do to this country, and what the potential consequences of a McCain win are. I’m not a great writer, so I’ll list my concerns in bullet points:

If Obama Wins:

• Disadvantages:

• A wide array of far-left programs enacted, Freedom to Choose Act, Fairness Doctrine, tax increases, Free Choice Act, Cap & Trade, etc

• Left-wing judges appointed to every level of the federal judiciary, including most likely the Supreme Court

• An army of Alinsky-ite activists populating the federal bureaucracy (State Dep, Education Dep, etc) that will be there FOREVER.

• Socialized healthcare

• Advantages:

• The Republican Party can be a conservative opposition throwing grenades at the Democrats on everything they do.

• Increases the likelihood that Republicans can make significant gains in the 2010 mid-terms and can run a genuine grassroots conservative for president in 2012, possibly Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin.

• I don’t want any of the aforementioned leftist legislation to pass, but when the Dems bring it up, it will be on display for the whole country to see that these people are out-and-out socialists.

• 2-4 years of Obama/Pelosi/Reid will energize the conservative grassroots base in a manner similar to 1980 or 1994. That’s not a sure thing, but I believe it is likely.

If McCain Wins:

• Disadvantages:

• At best, McCain and the GOP will only be able to block the worst of what the Dems propose. This will give ammo the Dems and the media to portray McCain and Republicans as “obstructionists”, and could use that to their advantage in the 2010 mid-terms.

• McCain winning in 2008 means that we won’t have a true grassroots conservative candidate until at least 2016, and even that is in doubt. I do not buy into the fact that McCain is going to serve only one term.

• Expanding on my point above, the party out of power typically (not always) gains seats in the mid-term of a presidency. I do not want that to happen.

• There’s a distinct possibility that McCain will go along with some Democrat proposals like cap & trade or amnesty. Once they are signed into law, the Republican party will get tagged as supporting these things, thereby diluting our conservative image.

• Sarah Palin. What if there is some scandal that engulfs the McCain administration? What if the economy tanks or something happens that is blamed on the White House? Sarah Palin could be permanently damaged goods and would thereby jeopardize her future value as a grassroots conservative leader, perhaps even a presidential candidate in the future.

• Advantages:

• First and foremost, the big advantage to a McCain win will be the absolute devastation and demoralization of the American left. They will become angrier and more desperate than they already are, thereby weakening their future electoral viability.

• Sarah Palin. This one cuts both ways. If, on the other hand, McCain has a reasonably successful administration, he will have succeeded in elevating a future leader of the conservative movement and the Republican Party to a higher level, cementing her place as a leader. Sarah Palin also has the opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of leftist feminism as it exists in this country.

• Stopping horrendous pieces of legislation like the Free Choice Act, socialized healthcare, and the things I mentioned at the top.

In the end, I think that I would take a McCain defeat so long as I could be assured that the Republicans could successfully block the most objectionable bills that Pelosi would send down the pike – I have mentioned those in this piece. Since that is FAR from a sure thing, McCain may be our only hope to stop things that have the potential to remake our country into the Euro-socialist model.

I’m backing McCain, mostly out of genuine fear of Obama & Pelosi, but I have reservations.

Thoughts?

I watched George Will this past Sunday on This Week. He seems to think that the polls we are seeing now are vastly underestimating Obama’s strength because he theorizes that Obama will bring out millions of new young voters and black voters that are not being accounted for in current turnout models that the pollsters are using. George Will thinks the race isn’t really close, that Obama is WAY ahead, and we are looking at a repeat of 1980.

I’m not sure that I agree with him, but I would be curious to see everyone’s thoughts on this theory.