I just cast my ballot in Birmingham, Alabama for Mitt Romney. Come one Alabama, let's win this state for Mitt. Remember, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. If you are conservative and McCain is not in your top two, you simply can't vote for Huckabee. I know ideally you should vote for who you think is the best candidate, but let's be realistic, Huckabee has no shot at all. None. You are not only throwing your vote away, you are helping John McCain win the nomination. Huckabee is single handedly ruining the conservative movement by staying in the race to gain favor with McCain for VP or some other position. How can you vote for someone who puts his personal ambition above the good of the party and the country?

Go Mitt!

Labels: election, mitt romney

"Never give in -- never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

-- Winston Churchill, 29 October 1941

As I was searching through the blogosphere today, in hopes of finding some inspiration and comfort in this troubling time for conservatives, I found the following comment in response to an article in Human Events. You can read the entire article here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24799

I will post the comment in its entirety because it so perfectly mirrored the feelings I have had in the last week or two. This comment is by Bill from California and was posted on Feb 01, 2008 @ 03:52 PM.

"I will not vote for John McCain who will permanently destroy the Republican party. He has spent the last 8 year betraying and undermining the Republican party while pandering to the liberal left. I would rather have a Democrat win and finally take the blame for this mess that we're sinking into. After 4 years, when the economy has tanked, when the dollar is worth nothing, when socialism has completely overtaken our economy and ground it to a halt, when social security has gone completely bankrupt, when the economic strain has undermined our military to the point where we are weak, when liberals have eroded the conservative values to the point of complete moral decay, only then will we realize the socialistic danger that we have been slipping into. At that point, we will go crawling on our hands and knees to Mitt Romney. And we will beg him to save us from disaster (the way that he saved the Olympics). Only then (when we are desperate for change) will we be willing to "get past" the "religion issue" (honestly, isn't this the REAL issue that has been holding some people back) and accept this intelligent, principled, patriotic, great man. It took Jimmy Carter and the disaster that he brought in order for us to see and accept the greatness of Ronald Reagan. It will probably take a Hillary Clinton or John McCain in office to open the door for recovery (by tearing down this country to the point where people are willing to truly stand behind the values that have made this nation great). But if John McCain destroys our country, Republicans will be blamed.

Romney is correct. Washington is broken. Spending is out of control, liberal judges are writing law, our laws (immigration) are broken without consequence, the deficit is growing while the dollar is falling, gas prices are rising while we become more dependent on foreign oil (even though we have reserves available that we don't tap because of the environmental lobby), etc. The longer we delay fixing these problems, the worse they become. How much pain will it take before we wake up?

Romney will eventually turn the country around at that point. But it will be even harder then than it is now. But this is a man who has accepted and conquered these types of challenges in the past. And he will do it (as he did in Massachusetts) without taking a salary. He'll do it (as he did for the Olympics) because of his personal commitment to public service, and his patriotic zeal for America. And he will do it (as he did in his courageous stand in defending traditional marriage in Massachusetts) while defending the important foundation of the family, and the religious Christian values that founded this great nation, which is the foundation and soul of our society. He will do it because he is a compassionate and patriotic man, and because he is one of the smartest people this world has known."

Fellow conservatives and Romney supporters, we still have time to battle the enemy (the liberal MSM and liberal politicians) who are trying to decide FOR us who are nominee is going to be.

Get on your phones and "Call From Home" for Mitt, talk to everyone you know who is going to be voting on Tuesday and pray!

I'm going to start calling here in California as soon as I post this. Remember, if you are on the East Coast or live in the Midwest, we are three hours behind you so there's till time - it's 4:30 p.m. here.

There is still PLENTY of hope for a Mitt Romney nomination and victory for Conservative Republicans everywhere!

Never give in!

Never!

Labels: david brody mitt romney, election

Rasmussen Reports came out this week with an interesting pre-holiday poll asking the question: "During your Holiday Family Gatherings, will you and your family discuss politics with a passion, avoid political discussins like the plague, or occasionally talk about the political news of the day?"

The results?

"Discuss politics with a passion": 15%
"Avoid political discussion": 25%
"Occasionally talk about politics": 58%
"Not sure": 2%

Couple of bullet points from the crosstabs:

• There was no difference in the sexes. Men and women alike lined up with the numbers above.
  
  
• However, women under 40 were almost twice as likely to "discuss politics with a passion" than their counterpart males (20% vs. 11%). In fact, 30% of men under 40 indicated that they tried to "avoid political discussion"
  
  
• Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to discuss politics with a passion (22% vs. 13%)
  
  
• People who are investors were more likely to avoid political discussion but its pretty negligible.
  
  
• Interestingly, while "passionate" discussion was relatively the same among Whites, Blacks and "Others" (16%, 10% and 16%) Blacks were far more likely to discuss politics occasionally (56%, 72%, 54%), and avoidance of political discussion lines up in a like manner (26%, 16%, 27%).
  
  
• Other age breakdowns. It appears that the fluctuation of "passionate" and "avoidance" goes in cycles. 18 to 29 avoid more; 30-39 more passionate; 40-49 less passionate; 50-64 more passionate; 65+ avoid more.
  
  
• How about incomes? Avoidance seems to be the key variable: Under 20K - 42% avoid; 20K-40K 28% avoid; 40K-60K: 17% avoid; 60K-75K: 18% avoid; 75K-100K 22% avoid; 100K+ 15% avoid. Most "passionate" bracket? The last one, 100K+ at 22%
  

Labels: christmas, election, holidays, politics, poll, polling

In his new book, Super Crunchers, Ian Ayers documents the growing use of serious data analysis to predict everything from success at home plate to prices for airline tickets.

In one example, Ayers discusses Orley Ashenfelter, Princeton professor and wine expert, who devised a model in the 1980s to predict great Bordeaux wines based on rainfall and temperature. In short, Ashenfelter claimed that he could predict the success of a wine with a mathematical formula.

Wine aficionados across the spectrum mocked his approach preferring instead the age-old practice of serious subjective wine expertise to establish the quality of a vintage. Today, Ashenfelter's predictions are surprisingly accurate and are routinely used in econometrics courses across the country as an example of successful number crunching.

Recent discussions in the political arena have brought up the question of activism vs. punditry. In other words, does the methodical (even mathematical) approach to political success trump the articulation of logical and convincing ideas? To wit: can you win an election with anything but cold hard strategic political maneuvering?

"Myclob", who posts here on MMM and on the Elect Romney Blog, recently crafted an entry entitled: "Is Patrick Ruffini Jaded?" He bases his inquiry on a sentence from Patrick's most recent Townhall article: "Appeals to reason increasingly fall on deaf ears. That sounds like a stinging indictment, but it’s not. It’s simple reality. And smart politicians need to adapt to it."

Myclob questions aloud:

Patrick, if we abandon our ideas and our reason, we are not worthy of our heroes, we exchange our role in the “war for truth”, for a “lead role in a cage”. If we abandon logic for a popularity contest, what kind of world will we live in? A cage.

Reason is the only way that Republicans can win the presidency.

Its a nice maxim. Its a pretty thought. But it doesn't win elections.

Myclob calls on Lincoln as evidence of a politician winning by articulation of ideas and reason. Evidently, he hasn't read Goodwin's excellent book Team of Rivals, which walks through the spectacular political mastery of our 16th President to gain his party's nomination and win the Presidency. Every President since then has forged the same path, examining the winds of the day and charting a course accordingly. Today, volumes of data are available to modern candidates. Those who ignore these efforts in favor of "ideas" alone will fail (notice I said alone).

Do ideas and reason help? Yes. But Patrick is correct: they don't win elections.

Voters don't elect ideas, they elect people. This is why 30%+ of the electorate say they have problems voting for a Mormon but a good portion of these folks will vote for Mitt Romney anyway. Why? Because Mitt Romney isn't just a Mormon, he's Mitt Romney.

We've noted before the recent political studies showing that for every margin percentage point, the winner of the New Hampshire primary is 8% more likely to win the nomination. This is the cold, methodical and mathematical calculation that Romney has made to win the nomination. Notice, Romney also wins on ideas, but they don't count for anything if he can't get the votes in.

When Romney won CPAC he was accused of buying votes. I was there on the ground at the time and I can tell you that the people who were there for Mitt were extremely enthusiastic for Romney's campaign, regardless of who paid for their ticket.

When Romney won the Iowa Ames Straw Poll people accused him of having a political machine to get out the votes. Guilty as charged in my book.

When Romney won the Values Voters poll in October by less than 40 votes he also won the press that comes with it (much to Huckabee's chagrin).

What gave Mitt the edge in these cases? Ideas? Perhaps. Reason? Sure.

What pushed him over the edge to actually win these events? Thousands of phone calls, dedicated paid staff, enthusiastic volunteers, calculated risk, detailed strategy, finely-crafted emails, press targeting, strong fundraising prowess, innovation, precinct walking, and competitive positioning. Activism won him this effort. Not Punditry

When we face Hillary Clinton in the general election... "ideas" and "reason" become rallying points for the divided forces of the electorate but the cold decisive execution on a politically proven model will win the day.

"The first responsibility of a statesman is to get elected."

Labels: activism, election, punditry

From The Examiner:

"I don't think Hillary Clinton could get elected president of France with her platform. France is moving toward us," Romney told voters at a senior citizens center.

"I'm convinced that America is going to change course and the question is which way it is going to go: Are we going to take a sharp left turn represented by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards, or are we going to march forth with the American values that have always helped us be the strongest nation on earth. And I believe we'll do the latter," Romney said.

I watched the You Tube debate this week and I just could not believe what I was hearing. Either the Democrats are way out of touch with mainstream America or I am.

Scott Allan

Labels: election, mitt romney