SUPPORT THIS CONSERVATIVE VOICE

SUPPORT THIS CONSERVATIVE VOICE

Friday, December 19, 2014

Bush And Palin 2016 A Historic Compromise? (And Three Questions For Jeb)



I wrote the article "Bush-Palin 2016 The GOP's Only Chance? which appeared,with much controversy, at American Thinker" in June 2013. With Jeb Bush all but certain to be a candidate. With his announcement of "actively" exploring a 2016 run the article becomes not only prescient, but the questions raised are of some major import in my opinion.

Nothing has changed in respect of the, to use the most moderate word I can, "caution" among conservatives about Bush and other Establishment figures e.g Christie and Romney. One thing has also not changed, if Governor Palin took an antipathetic attitude to Jeb to the point of advising her millions of followers not to vote for him (by name) or, even worse for his prospects went 3rd party, his chances would be diminished to say the least. 

On the other hand, if Palin did not run there is nothing Bush could do to affect her or her following so she holds a significant hand in the matter.

With that in mind there are three significant questions that could be raised with Governor Bush;

1."If Governor Palin does not run for president would you invite her to be a major guest speaker at the 2016 GOP convention?

    2.Would you see a major role-perhaps Energy Secretary- role for Governor Palin in your cabinet if elected?

    3. Would you put Governor Palin high on your list of possible running mates If she is not a candidate for president?

    Of course, if Governor Palin does mount a presidential campaign these questions would go on the back burner, but if Jeb won the nomination, then there is no escaping them, unless he wishes not to have her endorsement and her followers votes (and how did that work out for Romney?) 

    As a well known Palin supporter right from the start I stand by my call for a historic compromise. 
    But if Governor Palin is not on the ticket, and it is not iron clad certain that points 1/2/3 would be implemented, or she doesn't endorse the nominee early (unlike her late Romney “endorsement” of “anyone but Obama") I will sit out 2016 and am certain I would not be alone.

    On the other hand if  the 2016 ticket is any combination of Bush/Palin, or  Governor Bush answers questions 1-3 positively and Governor Palin doesn't run endorses him wholeheartedly, then I will vote for Bush (or whomever she may alternatively endorse) unhesitatingly.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

To Win Electoral College GOP Must Have A Hispanic On 2016 Ticket (My "American Thinker" Article)

At American Thinker LINK

A Hispanic candidate is potentially a major plus, perhaps the deciding factor, to any GOP lineup as the 2016 vice-presidential candidate,and Electoral College ramifications seemingly dictate  that Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval is a superior plus to both New Mexico's Governor Susana Martinez and Florida's Senator Marco Rubio in that role.


In Senator Rubio's case there might seem to be a contradiction. It is an absolute that if the exit polls show (correctly unlike 2004) that Florida will be won by the Democratic party presidential candidate by about 9 p.m. on election night Republicans could turn off  their TV's as the night will not turn out well for them-at least on the presidential level. Thus logic would seem to dictate that Senator Rubio would be the GOP's best hope to keep the ticket alive further into the evening.

That would appear to be the case in point of fact, Mitt Romney lost Florida by the narrowest of margins, the closest in the country, just 0.88% (down from 2.82 in 2008). It would take just a small swing to flip it to the GOP in 2016 and an Hispanic VP candidate, particularly of Cuban descent could well provide the required margin.

Given the close battle in Florida and President Obama's ability to increase the support in vital Ohio by 4% from Blacks that he received in 2008 it was perhaps surprising that this support among Black voters in Florida dropped a point from 96% to 95%.

 What appears to have won the state for President Obama was the,again perhaps even more surprising, shift of Hispanic voters from 57% in 2008 to 60% for Obama in 2012. As can be clearly seen winning back those voters to the GOP is vital, and clearly an Hispanic of Cuban descent would surely have an advantage in encompassing that challenge.

The problem for the GOP is that winning Florida is only the start of a path to the required 270 Electoral College votes, and the path is long, tortuous and extremely narrow. Presuming North Carolina has returned to the GOP's fold, and the narrow 2012 loss in Ohio is overcome the major stumbling block is the vital 13 votes of Virginia. 

Once considered safe in the bosom of  the "solid south" Virginia has seen an influx of Democratic voters into the northern region of the state,
So substantial has this influx been that Virginia has been solid blue for the last two elections.

President G.W. Bush won Virginia by an 8.2 margin in 2004, in a massive reversal then Senator Obama won it by a 6.3 margin-52.63 to 46.33 in 2008 and held it comfortably by a 3.88 margin in 2012.It would be difficult to see how an Hispanic vice-presidential candidate for the GOP could have any material influence on the apparently substantial shifting demographics of Virginia or Iowa, another vital state for the GOP.

It is in the Rockies and Southwest that having a Hispanic candidate on the ticket becomes the vital factor if the key Eastern states and Iowa fall to the GOP (Iowa is not absolutely vital but losing it makes winning "pulling an inside straight" as James Carville stated was what John Kerry needed in almost exactly the same situation in 2004)

A study of the Electoral College map shows that to get at or above the required 270 votes some combination of any two of Colorado/New Mexico/Nevada must be won. The question then becomes who would be the best VP choice from Sandoval,Martinez or Rubio to encompass this? 

Both Sandoval and Martinez won their 2014 reelection to their respective governorship's handily. Martinez by a substantial  margin and Governor Sandoval by a massive margin (with 70% of the vote) so the are both obviously very popular in their home states.The fact of being successful Governors at a time when the public is perhaps looking for just that experience instead of senators who have had no executive management record can be a plus above and beyond their Hispanic heritage as well.

However it is the challenge in their home states to overcome the Democrat's presidential voting history that appears to give the nod to Governor Sandoval over Governor Martinez and to relegate Senator Rubio to third in consideration.
New Mexico is particularly challenging. In 2008 the state went for Obama over McCain by a massive 15.12 points and even with the swing back to the GOP nationwide in 2012 the margin over Romney was still in double digits at 10.15
Nevada was not so extreme giving Obama a 12.15 margin in 2008 and a 2012 margin of 6.68 which brings the state into the toss-up category.

The logic of the situation then is quite simple. yes Rubio might bring in more Hispanic votes in his own state of Florida but the amount required of Sandoval is relatively small. On the other hand Sandoval, with his immense popularity in Nevada would surely be a better bet to win Nevada (and bring in Colorado) than Rubio or Martinez.

Again, without Florida the GOP is doomed in 2016-with Florida but without either Nevada or New Mexico it is also doomed. All things being equal having a Hispanic on the GOP ticket appears to be the GOP's best hope, and Governor Sandoval (who has the backing of the Adelson/Romney and Nevada state forces) appears to be the best Hispanic choice. At the very least, with Whites expected to become a minority in the not to distant future with the Hispanic population doublingthat of Blacks it is good politics.


Monday, December 15, 2014

" GOP Establishment’s Unarguable Choice For President/VP Romney/Sandoval (From The Camp Of The Saints)




The GOP Establishment's Unarguable Choice For President/VP Romney/Sandoval 

M.Joseph Sheppard

Lost in the whirlwind that was the Republican party's November tsunami was this obscure bulletin at"Ralston Reports"

"When I first wrote about Engage Nevada, I thought it would be a noble but probably futile effort by one of the state's premier operatives, Chris Carr.But after the smoke cleared Nov. 4, Carr's efforts had paid off in the most dramatic Republican sweep the state has seen.And the last filing of the year by the federal PAC for the "nonpartisan" 501c4 he set up shows who Carr encouraged to give money in the last month to ensure registration numbers were turned into voters. In late October, the PAC took in $200,000, with Gov. Brian Sandoval, Gondolier Numero Uno Sheldon Adelson and presidential hopeful past and maybe future Mitt Romney essentially giving all the money.

►Sandoval for Governor, $65,000 on 10/24 ($125,000 for the year)► Adelson, $75,000 on 10/23 (his only donation)► Restore Our Future (Romney's PAC), $50,000 on 10/21 (only one)►NV Jobs PAC, controlled by Sandoval aides, $10,000 on 10/30 (only one) A couple hundred grand in 10 days. Not bad."

Yes,certainly impressive funding but was this huge input of funds necessary to save Governor Sandoval from near defeat? Hardly. Here are the polls from Real Clear Politics for the Nevada governorship in the latter months of the campaign.








Clearly there was never a moment when Governor Sandoval was in any danger of losing whatsoever,never being ahead by less that 22 points and winning by an astonishing 46.7 points-so what was behind this scramble for such substantial sums for his campaign?

Consideration of the Electoral College map, and in particular the challenging road to the required 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, may give a clue. The GOP's 2016 presidential candidate must win Florida-lose that state with its substantial Hispanic population, and it's game over right from the start. Having a vice-presidential candidate of Hispanic heritage, as does Governor Sandoval who is of Mexican descent, would clearly not be an hindrance.

Once the hurdle of Florida has been overcome, which was only lost by less than 1 point in 2012, the much more severe challenge of Virginia and its 13 Electoral College votes comes into view.Virginia has swung to the Democrats twice as the northern part of the state has seen a substantial influx from the DC area. Losing Virginia would make the GOP's task extremely difficult, not only would they have to win the swing state of Ohio, but claw back both Iowa and Colorado which went for President Obama twice-but with those three states there is a path to victory and it is winning Nevada's six electoral votes.

Given that there was no need whatsoever to so substantially pour vast amounts of money into a campaign that was always going to win in a landslide the "long game" clearly indicates it might be money well spent.There is no question that Governor Sandoval has impressive aspects to offer the 2016 ticket. As mentioned, he is of Hispanic decent which could be vital in Florida,Colorado and of course his home state of Nevada-the loss of any one of which could doom the GOP to defeat. In a time when the electorate may have tired of senators with little or no management experience Sandoval can point to his state re-electing him with a massive majority. Further at a time,if current rends continue, the electorate is looking for fresh faces not connected with the current Congress Sandoval appears to carry no such baggage and is young and personable.

With former Governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney currently doing the dance of the seven veils (Politico;"Backers,Romney More Open To 2016 Run" ) as the party (and media of course) turns its immediate attention to 2016, the fact that his PAC dumped such a huge amount of money into a race where it was not needed could indicate that the Romney team see the same scenario as I outline above.

It is a compelling message if framed as "Romney lost by a fraction in Florida and by a small margin in Ohio,given that he was right about President Obama and with Governor Sandoval as his VP running mate winning those two states, plus Sandoval's Nevada, would bring near certain victory in 2016". That Romney, Sheldon Adelson and the powers that be in Nevada appear to have considered this, in my opinion, is perhaps confirmed by the tried and true adage "follow the money."

Whether the primary season sees the rank and file wish to have a conservative as the nominee or former Governor Bush, or Governor Christie runs and splits the Establishment vote remains to be seen, but it would appear that significant Establishment leaders and money men may have made their choices for 2016 in October 2014.

Attachments area
Preview atts






Monday, December 8, 2014

"Have Black Voters Left the Building?" My Article At "American Thinker" And The Saddening Response Showing Terrible State Of Race Relations

I wrote the article below for American Thinker LINK after the results of the mid-terms showed a striking shift in White support to the GOP in the south and an apparent concomitant drop in Black turnout. The article was positive, factual, descriptive and, I trust prescriptive in a positive manner.

I expected a degree of critical analysis but what eventuated in the comment section was striking and disturbing. The amount of overt racism reflects, at least to the degree that the comments are representative of wider feeling, a sad
commentary of the state of race relation s in America today under the Obama administration. That the 90% plus level of support for President Obama and the Democrat's might need examination and soul searching on the part of the Black voting community, as I set out in the article. is reinforced to my mind by this unexpected response.
****************************************************************************************

Have Black Voters Left the Building?


In July, New York Times political writer Nate Cohn wrote a long piece, "Demographic Shift Black Southern Voters, Poised to Play a Historic Role," in which he surveyed the collapse of white support for the Democratic Party (in the November election, Senator Landrieu in Louisiana received only 18 percent of the white vote) and the vital, as he saw it, new role of Southern black voters.

Using Georgia as an example, Cohn found that "demographics" might win the Senate for the Dems:
Today, 57 percent of black Americans live in the South; more than one million black Southerners today were born in the Northeast. Nowhere has the remigration done more to improve Democratic chances than in Georgia, where Democrats have a chance to win an open Senate seat this November. Since 2000, as the black population has risen, the share of registered voters who are white has dropped to 59 percent, from 72 percent.
And with the Senate race:
The state’s growing black population will give her (Dem candidate Michelle Nunn) a chance to win with less than one-third of the white vote. And a major reason for this optimism: "Mr. Obama is part of the reason for higher black turnout, which surpassed white turnout nationally in the 2012 presidential election, according to the census.
As we know now, the Democrats were beyond decimated in the South, losing every seat that was up for grabs, with Michelle Nunn in Georgia (who Cohn advised might also get in with the support of "a handful of the rural, Southern white voters who adored her [former senator] father" being clobbered by nearly 8 points.

Kentucky went to the GOP a 15.5-point landslide, Arkansas by a massive 17 points.  Even the highly touted Kay Hagan, whom all polls that called the race bar one said was a winner, lost in North Carolina.
With white voters in the South monolithically now supporting the Republicans, does the Cohn-vaunted "demographics" rationale have much meaning?  The statistics on voting patterns seem to show that it doesn't.
From Breitbart:
Nationally, African-American turnout in 2008 was a record 65%, exceeded only by another record turnout of 66% in 2012, better than overall turnout rates of 63.6% and 61.8% respectively. 
In 2010 and 2014, African-American turnout plummeted to 39% and 35% respectively. In 2012, African-Americans comprised 13% of all voters, according to a Brookings Institution analysis of exit polls. In 2014, they were down to 12%.

 
Twelve percent of all voters with declining turnout rates would seem to doom the Democratic Party in the South to irrelevance except in pockets of House representation.  Cohn, with the election behind him, seems to now agree with this: "Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete."

With the devastating defeat of Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Cohn's whole "demographic shift" premise has exploded.  This leads to the question of what the role of black voters might be in the South.  As happened in Mississippi, where the Republicans allow an open Senate primary, blacks voted in enough numbers to give the sitting Senator Thad Cochran a narrow victory over the Tea Party-supported candidate. 


With "jungle" primary opportunities in Georgia and Louisiana, there too blacks could play a significant role in what sort of Republican is elected, which will ensure that the voice of black voters is noticed and their needs appealed to.

Republican dominance might also encourage conservative black Democrats to consider a political future as a centrist voice in the Southern GOP.  The landslide election of Tim Scott in South Carolina shows that there are no electoral blockages to blacks at the highest level of political office.
With declining black turnout figures in the midterms – regardless of whether a particular state showed a steady rate, since that had no effect on the outcomes – the question of whether the GOP puts major effort, such as Rand Paul has commenced doing, into black voter outreach comes into consideration.

If blacks perceive that the political framework of their monolithic 93% support for the Democrats has left them bereft jobs-wise, in a worse position as far as their perceptions of social injustices are concerned, and with near inconsequential voting power in the South, might they simply decide not to turn out?  Once President Obama leaves office, and if these trends are still in place, might the incentive of support for a black president having gone further dampen voting enthusiasm? 

Massive black turnout affects the GOP's presidential chances only in Virginia, Ohio, and Florida (with the Hispanic vote a counter-balance), and even there we will see, post-Obama, how permanent that is only from 2016 on; certainly it had no effect in the 2014 midterms.  Why then should the GOP look to black support as a group rather than appeal to all groups on economics?

Blacks moved en masse from the Republicans to the Democrats because of Roosevelt's economic policies.  If the GOP can demonstrate that that is the path forward for all Americans and can point to the growing number of black conservatives as elected representatives, successful business people, professionals, and in the media, there can be an end to dogma and fear, and a move to a genuine multiculturalism based on mutual respect and mutuality of interest, with prosperity the cure for the ills of society.  The laying to rest of "demographics" may also be the best thing for the Democrats as they seek to recover from the dead end that path has made for them.


 

Sunday, December 7, 2014

The Polls Had 100% Record-56 Predictions Of Final Results-Every One Was Wrong

Updated to include the Louisiana polling (and yes, it's as bad as all the rest) Four polls predicted the winner (which even blind Bob could have done) not one got near the actual winners result with one 14 points off!)
******************************************************************

My new article at "American Thinker:"




The polls got the mid-terms (mostly) right



The polling companies have had a dreadful post midterms press, rightly so if viewed by the, on the whole and in many cases admitted, dreadful results.

But perhaps the mass excoriation is unwarranted if their prognostications as a group are viewed not by how bad they were in detailing how much a particular candidate would win by (at which they were, frankly, terrible as I will show) but simply by what, in the end really matters: who won.
To use a horse race betting analogy, if you put your money down on a horse that the form book suggest would win by three lengths and it wins by a nose, you'd keep referring to the form book as you counted your winnings and looked to your next pick.



So, how did the polling firms do as judged by their ability to pick the winners? If the Real Clear Politics list of the nine Senate races they judged to be in the "toss up" or "leans GOP" category plus the one with a runoff, Louisiana, are examined, the answer is pretty good. 

I have not included the one "leans Dem" race as the Warner race in Virginia was considered to be, in reality, (a false reality as it turned out) to be so safe that polling ceased in mid-October so the movement to the Republican Gillespie was not accounted for. The "Truman/Dewey" factor.

Here are the polling results based only on "did the pollsters pick the winner in their final poll":

Alaska:       5 out of 6 picked Sullivan to win 
Colorado:   6 out of 6 picked Gardner to win
Georgia:     5 out of 5 picked Purdue to win
Iowa           5 out of 6 picked Ernst to win
Kansas       4 out of 5 picked Roberts to win
Arkansas   5 out of 5 picked Cotton to win
Kentucky   5 out of 5 picked McConnell to win
Louisiana  4 out of 4 picked Cassidy to win

That's an impressive 39 correct winners predictions out of 42 picks by the various pollsters.

Not so impressive were the results for New Hampshire and North Carolina whose waters were muddied by a number of firms picking a tied result in both states. In New Hampshire of the six final polls 3 picked the eventual winner Shaheen, 2 picked Brown and one had it a tie -- but still, for those who picked a candidate, more were right than wrong.

North Carolina is where the pollsters came unstuck in every way possible, getting the winner wrong and, in general the predicted margins outside the margin of error. Of the eight pollsters only 1 picked Tillis as the winner, 4 picked Hagan and 3 had it as a tie. The presence of a third candidate who received nearly 4% of the vote may have contributed to this race being so badly evaluated.

But, in the final analysis, the polling companies picked the eventual winner in their last polls in eight out of nine headline Senate races. Perhaps that, rather than the predicted margins of victory, is what polling companies and the public should look to in future. T

he pollsters were charged with weighting the 2012 polls based on the 2010 election, and then lampooned for basing the 2014 elections on the 2012 result, and it appears they are in a bind as to how to work their psephological crystal balls in 2016.

Some firms, PPP Polling for example, have presented a post mid-terms analysis on how well they did in the governors races, and presented a rebuttal to the charge that they 'follow the herd' in their final polls as election day draws near. But so far they have offered no analysis (unlike Quinnipiac who presented an in-depth review) as to why their numbers were so far off in a number of Senate races.

If that were how they approached the 2016 campaign they, the entire polling industry as represented by the RCP final results would be spared this awful, end result:

Fifty-six final poll predictions; Number of polling firms that predicted the winner's margin: zero

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

The Ultimate Rogue Move;"President Obama-Seize The Moment- McCain For Sec. Defense

Also at The Camp of Saints  LINK


President Obama-Seize The Moment- McCain For Sec. Defense



Media reports are stating that  Ashton Carter is president Obama's pick for Defense Secretary to replace Chuck Hagel. "Carter has extensive experience in the national security arena. Before he served as deputy defense secretary from October 2011 to December 2013 he was the Pentagon's technology and weapons-buying chief for more than two years." But how could that thin resume compare to that of Senator John McCain's?

"Defense analyst Anthony Cordesman said that as Obama approaches the end of his presidency, the Cabinet post is "not particularly desirable" for anyone with broader political ambitions.' Why would this not apply more to Senator McCain than someone who is not widely known and might appear as a placeholder and obsequious servant of the admin's dying days?

There is just so much right, transcendent and utterly historical for president Obama to “seize the moment” and nominate Senator john McCain as the next Secretary of Defense.

Considering the most important reason, if, as has been speculated, the administration has not been happy with departing Secretary Hagel’s, perceived as timid, prosecution of the war, which it is, against ISIS then who better to pursue a vigorous, no holds barred, as long and as much as it takes policy than Senator McCain?





On a political level, neither president Obama nor Senator McCain has anything to lose or to gain. The president will leave office and Senator McCain may or may not run again (and if he runs there are massive rumblings of 
a challenge from conservatives) and, on consideration finishing his career having defeated a militant enemy would be a grand highlight. It most certainly would be a better end than possibly going down to ignominious defeat in a primary campaign and would be his ultimate "rogue" move.



For president Obama a McCain nomination would see smooth sailing through the confirmation process. It would be unlikely, and frankly unseemly for McCain’s senate colleagues to block his nomination and, as with John Kerry such a long-serving high ranking senator would surely be quickly confirmed. 

Appointing a Republican would hardly be precedent shaking as McCain’s immediate predecessor is a Republican and many administrations appoint members of the opposing camp to secretary positions.



For President Obama with his eyes turning towards his “legacy moments” reaching across the aisle to an unheard of historic degree of appointing his opponent to such a major role would be one for the ages. 

If McCain succeeded, a substantial part of the credit would go to the person who put him in the role. If he failed, then the opprobrium for Obama, if there were any, would not be on any comparable level to the failure of a Democrat.



For the Republicans there is no political cost. If McCain were appointed and did not succeed no blame would attach itself to the GOP. If he succeeded then the GOP’s historic image of strong foreign policy managers would be reinforced-a no lose situation. 

That President Obama would be in receipt of kudos would be of little import as he is not running for re-election and his accomplishments would not necessarily attach themselves the 2016 Democratic nominee.



The GOP would have no worries about losing a senate vote as they have a majority without McCain’s vote. The Republican Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer would of course be expected to nominate a replacement for McCain under these circumstances and for her to, this might be an historic, legacy moment. 

In this scenario what better person for her to replace Senator McCain with than the long-term resident of Arizona, Sarah Palin? Palin’s appointment could, under the circumstances, be signaled as a replacement appointment until the seat is up for re-election in 2016 which would assuage the feelings of any Republican who had his or her eye on the seat at that time. 

For Governor Palin it would give an outstanding platform for a 2016 presidential run unencumbered by having to make a commitment to serving a 6 year term.



Never has an appointment to such a major role had the capacity to give so many an historic legacy. For Obama, McCain, Brewer, and Palin the positives are phenomenal.

 For the American people and the free world as a positive, for America’s radical enemies as a terrible negative. Opportunities such as this come, perhaps, only once in an administration’s and a presidents lifetime-will President Obama reach out for the brass ring?

Monday, December 1, 2014

"The Polls Got The Mid-terms (mostly) Right- And Terribly Wrong"

My new article at "American Thinker:"




The polls got the mid-terms (mostly) right



The polling companies have had a dreadful post midterms press, rightly so if viewed by the, on the whole and in many cases admitted, dreadful results.

But perhaps the mass excoriation is unwarranted if their prognostications as a group are viewed not by how bad they were in detailing how much a particular candidate would win by (at which they were, frankly, terrible as I will show) but simply by what, in the end really matters: who won.
To use a horse race betting analogy, if you put your money down on a horse that the form book suggest would win by three lengths and it wins by a nose, you'd keep referring to the form book as you counted your winnings and looked to your next pick.

So, how did the polling firms do as judged by their ability to pick the winners? If the Real Clear Politics list of the nine Senate races they judged to be in the "toss up" or "leans GOP" category are examined, the answer is pretty good. 

I have not included the one "leans Dem" race as the Warner race in Virginia was considered to be, in reality, (a false reality as it turned out) to be so safe that polling ceased in mid-October so the movement to the Republican Gillespie was not accounted for. The "Truman/Dewey" factor.

Here are the polling results based only on "did the pollsters pick the winner in their final poll":

Alaska:       5 out of 6 picked Sullivan to win 
Colorado:   6 out of 6 picked Gardner to win
Georgia:     5 out of 5 picked Purdue to win
Iowa           5 out of 6 picked Ernst to win
Kansas       4 out of 5 picked Roberts to win
Arkansas   5 out of 5 picked Cotton to win
Kentucky   5 out of 5 picked McConnell to win

That's an impressive 35 correct winners predictions out of 38 picks by the various pollsters.

Not so impressive were the results for New Hampshire and North Carolina whose waters were muddied by a number of firms picking a tied result in both states. In New Hampshire of the six final polls 3 picked the eventual winner Shaheen, 2 picked Brown and one had it a tie -- but still, for those who picked a candidate, more were right than wrong.

North Carolina is where the pollsters came unstuck in every way possible, getting the winner wrong and, in general the predicted margins outside the margin of error. Of the eight pollsters only 1 picked Tillis as the winner, 4 picked Hagan and 3 had it as a tie. The presence of a third candidate who received nearly 4% of the vote may have contributed to this race being so badly evaluated.

But, in the final analysis, the polling companies picked the eventual winner in their last polls in eight out of nine headline Senate races. Perhaps that, rather than the predicted margins of victory, is what polling companies and the public should look to in future. T

he pollsters were charged with weighting the 2012 polls based on the 2010 election, and then lampooned for basing the 2014 elections on the 2012 result, and it appears they are in a bind as to how to work their psephological crystal balls in 2016.

Some firms, PPP Polling for example, have presented a post mid-terms analysis on how well they did in the governors races, and presented a rebuttal to the charge that they 'follow the herd' in their final polls as election day draws near. But so far they have offered no analysis (unlike Quinnipiac who presented an in-depth review) as to why their numbers were so far off in a number of Senate races.

If that were how they approached the 2016 campaign they, the entire polling industry as represented by the RCP final results would be spared this awful, end result:

Fifty-two final poll predictions; Number of polling firms that predicted the winner's margin: zero

Monday, November 17, 2014

Michigan Legislature May Hand the 2016 Presidential Election To The GOP

UPDATE:Proposed legislation is still a possibility:
"ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Lund’s proposal to divide Michigan’s electoral college votes in presidential elections appears to be stuck in committee, where it has faced significant opposition during public testimony.
Lund and Committee Chair Lisa Lyons, R-Alto, have both downplayed the negative response and sidestepped questions over whether the bill has died for the year.
“It’s lame-duck,” Lyons said Tuesday, suggesting anything could still happen. “I haven’t decided whether we’ll vote or not.” LINK



This article is also at AMERICAN THINKER under the title "Michigan Demonstrates Why Elections Matter"


**************************************************
Michigan Legislature May Hand the GOP The 2016 Presidential Election Next Week



A GOP legislator, State Rep. Pete Lund, is introducing a bill to move Michigan's 16 Electoral College votes to a proportional basis instead of the current winner take all (Lansing State Journal)


This has, rightly from their point of view, set off alarm bell at the likes of "progressive" site Daily Kos who see the possibility of the 2016 presidential election slipping away-although "rigged"  is how they describe it. On the other hand it was that site which advised that the Black Dem's crossover vote in Mississippi's GOP runoff to defeat the conservative Republican McDaniel (who came first in the primary) was "democracy."
 They selectively rail re; the
(Constitutional Article 2 Section 1) Michigan move to proportional EC vote  as "undemocratic" now.  The United States Constitution allows each state to determine how electoral votes are proportioned-Maine and Nebraska do it by congressional district won for example.


The Democratic party has won Michigan  by an average of 53% over the last five elections . Under the proposed change however, instead of giving the Dem's all 16 Electoral College votes, the split would be 11 to the Democrats and  5 to the Republicans under the new law.


If the law passes, and Michigan's vote in 2016 stays within historic bounds, it gives the GOP the equivalent of another Nebraska which has 5 EC votes which could be vital in a close race.As set out in an
 Electoral College analysis  based on the GOP's mid-term's senate victories, the Republicans are very much in the hunt for 2016. 


However, even with this best case scenario if the Dem's win Virginia for the third consecutive time they would win the White House, just, by one vote. If the proposed Michigan revamp passes the GOP would still have enough electoral College votes to win. In fact they would only need one more EC vote to take them to 269, a tie, at which point the Republican House would choose the president and the senate the vice-president

This possibility underscores the, perhaps, far more vital Republican  mid-term wins in key governorship like Florida and Michigan.

All pundits eyes should be on the Michigan legislature whose voting reforms may determine the presidential race for the entire USA. If the bill passes it may also have bearing on who the GOP's vice-presidential nominee is as the closer the Republican vote is to a 50/50 split the better the GOP's Electoral chances are.
For perhaps the first time a VP nominee doesn't have to deliver their state (which rarely happens anyway) just narrow the loss. Michigan Governor Snyder was re-elected with, from an near ideal result for the GOP 50.9% of the vote.