Should I vote for.....

[franksolich]

Tomorrow, May 13, the day after Fitzmas, is primary day here in Nebraska.

There's not much going on, hardly any excitement.  In fact, about the only excitement is the razor-thin race for the Democrat nomination for the U.S. Senate to replace the retiring Charles Hagel; it's between a Republican businessman and another fellow alum of my fellow alum Skins.

But that's all moot anyway, because the Republican candidate is expected to win in November.

Anyway.

Due to the attrition among Republican presidential candidates, the choices are two--and one's Republican vote DOES count in this primary (but the Democrat votes in this primary, for president, don't count), for delegates to the national convention.

John McCain and that guy from down there in Texas.

Okay, as we all know, franksolich is a professional Republican, and is fine with John McCain, even though John McCain originally was nowhere near the top five in franksolich's personal choices earlier this year.

However, a great many Republicans are not as confident about John McCain as is franksolich.

John McCain really needs to address that issue, to make those who only mildly like him or mildly dislike him, more comfortable with him.  Thus far, he hasn't. 

And franksolich, as always concerned for the future of the Republican party, thinks very strongly that John McCain MUST address those concerns.

Would it do any good if I voted for the guy from Texas tomorrow, in sending that message to John McCain; the message that, hey, you'd better be paying attention to the base, or you're going to blow it, losing against the weakest possible candidate the Democrats can field?

[Chris_]

Vote for mrs. clinton.  Operation Chaos needs a boost -- things are a little too smooth for huissein for my tastes.

[Lacarnut]

Vote for mrs. clinton.  Operation Chaos needs a boost -- things are a little too smooth for huissein for my tastes.

Sounds like a plan to me. McCain is not making it any easier for me to vote for him in Nov. by endorsing the Kyoto treaty and lambasting the Prez.

[Wretched Excess]

Vote for mrs. clinton.  Operation Chaos needs a boost -- things are a little too smooth for huissein for my tastes.

Sounds like a plan to me. McCain is not making it any easier for me to vote for him in Nov. by endorsing the Kyoto treaty and lambasting the Prez.

his comments on kyoto are already blowing back on him big time with the base.  I'm seeing anger on conservative blogs all over the internets.

[franksolich]

Vote for mrs. clinton.  Operation Chaos needs a boost -- things are a little too smooth for huissein for my tastes.

Can't do that in Nebraska, sir.

The voting conditions are somewhat more rigid here than in most other places.

Identification showing proof of citizenship, no last-minute voter registration changes, those sorts of things.

We're a clean state; the last case of election fraud occurred nearly 100 years ago, in Omaha, when Omaha was run by a corrupt big city political machine.  You can of course guess the party.

[rich_t]

Tomorrow, May 13, the day after Fitzmas, is primary day here in Nebraska.

There's not much going on, hardly any excitement.  In fact, about the only excitement is the razor-thin race for the Democrat nomination for the U.S. Senate to replace the retiring Charles Hagel; it's between a Republican businessman and another fellow alum of my fellow alum Skins.

But that's all moot anyway, because the Republican candidate is expected to win in November.

Anyway.

Due to the attrition among Republican presidential candidates, the choices are two--and one's Republican vote DOES count in this primary (but the Democrat votes in this primary, for president, don't count), for delegates to the national convention.

John McCain and that guy from down there in Texas.

Okay, as we all know, franksolich is a professional Republican, and is fine with John McCain, even though John McCain originally was nowhere near the top five in franksolich's personal choices earlier this year.

However, a great many Republicans are not as confident about John McCain as is franksolich.

John McCain really needs to address that issue, to make those who only mildly like him or mildly dislike him, more comfortable with him.  Thus far, he hasn't. 

And franksolich, as always concerned for the future of the Republican party, thinks very strongly that John McCain MUST address those concerns.

Would it do any good if I voted for the guy from Texas tomorrow, in sending that message to John McCain; the message that, hey, you'd better be paying attention to the base, or you're going to blow it, losing against the weakest possible candidate the Democrats can field?

IMO McCain has proven time and again that he doesn't give a damn about the base.  From my perspective the country is screwed for the 4 years beginning on 1/22/09....  It is merely a matter of how badly at this point.

Again, just my opinion.

[rich_t]

Vote for mrs. clinton.  Operation Chaos needs a boost -- things are a little too smooth for huissein for my tastes.

Sounds like a plan to me. McCain is not making it any easier for me to vote for him in Nov. by endorsing the Kyoto treaty and lambasting the Prez.

his comments on kyoto are already blowing back on him big time with the base.  I'm seeing anger on conservative blogs all over the internets.

I've heard it said that in any given presidential election, the voters break down as:

40% Republican
40% Democrat
20% Independent

The successful candidate will be the one that sways the larger portion of that 20% to vote for them.

McCain seems to be courting that 20% very hard. 

McCain seems to be taking the Repub vote for granted and appears to be ignoring the conservative base. Ordinarily that might not be overly harmful since historically speaking, most  Repubs will typically vote for the Repub candidate. 

I'm not sure that this a good strategy for him to follow for this election.  I can't think of any election in recent decades where the base was so luke warm or even someone cool toward their presidential candidate.

McCain may just end up losing due to a ground swell of stay at homeism among a certain segment of conservative voters.

[franksolich]

That's right, rich, and it would be humiliating for McCain to lose to the weakest candidate the Democrats have fielded since Walter Mundane.

And I don't want that to happen.

As I said, I'm mostly okay with him, but many aren't--and so it's vitally important that McCain listen to those who aren't.

[rich_t]

That's right, rich, and it would be humiliating for McCain to lose to the weakest candidate the Democrats have fielded since Walter Mundane.

And I don't want that to happen.

As I said, I'm mostly okay with him, but many aren't--and so it's vitally important that McCain listen to those who aren't.

Are you one of them thar "broken glass republicans"?

 

[franksolich]

Are you one of them thar "broken glass republicans"?

I've always been a broken glass Republican, sir.

That bird-brained columnist from Rhode Island, Froma Harrop, really dislikes people like me.

The quality of a man is measured by those who Hate him.

[rich_t]

Are you one of them thar "broken glass republicans"?

I've always been a broken glass Republican, sir.

That bird-brained columnist from Rhode Island, Froma Harrop, really dislikes people like me.

The quality of a man is measured by those who Hate him.

I don't hate ya, hell I don't even dislike ya...  I just don't "get" that whole broken glass mentality about politics.

[Baruch Menachem]

When it comes between a choice between Ron Paul and John McCain, I held my nose and voted McCain.

I would have been so happy to have had a third choice.

McCain is a Bourbon, he learns nothing and forgets nothing.  You can't send him a message.   Listening is not his strong suit.

[franksolich]

I don't hate ya, hell I don't even dislike ya...  I just don't "get" that whole broken glass mentality about politics.

I know you don't; you're a nice guy.

But let me explain.

In real life, one is never going to get the whole loaf.

In this case, meaning someone who is conservative and Republican is never going to get all that he wants.

However, when one looks at the big picture, one can figure out how to get as much of the loaf as possible (although in reality, one is fortunate indeed if he gets even 10% of the loaf; something the primitives on Skins's island don't understand).

If, for example, there's an ultra-liberal left-wing running for the Republican nomination for president, such as, say, George Pataki, and a strong solid conservative running for the same office.....

.....but, but, but, if the left-wing Republican is likely to bring in with him a whole stable of conservative senators and congressmen, while the conservative Republican appears to have no coat-tails at all, even if one is conservative, one should vote for the wacko one.

The orientation of the Republican party is, essentially, conservative.

And if one is a conservative, he should support the Republican candidate no matter what.

Many conservatives were disenchanted with Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee and all that, but they never bothered me.  As long as they had the (R) at the end of their names, the Republicans controlled Congress, and since the orientation of the Republicans in Congress is essentially conservative, these liberal senators gave conservatives the means to be in power.

One has to give, in order to take, and I'm sure conservatives had to give something to these guys.

But conservatives ended up getting more than they gave; even conservatives have to admit that the liberal left-wing Arlen Specter paved the way for more-moderate Supreme Court justices.

It's horse-trading, and horse-trading works.

[rich_t]

I don't hate ya, hell I don't even dislike ya...  I just don't "get" that whole broken glass mentality about politics.

I know you don't; you're a nice guy.

But let me explain.

In real life, one is never going to get the whole loaf.

In this case, meaning someone who is conservative and Republican is never going to get all that he wants.

However, when one looks at the big picture, one can figure out how to get as much of the loaf as possible (although in reality, one is fortunate indeed if he gets even 10% of the loaf; something the primitives on Skins's island don't understand).

If, for example, there's an ultra-liberal left-wing running for the Republican nomination for president, such as, say, George Pataki, and a strong solid conservative running for the same office.....

.....but, but, but, if the left-wing Republican is likely to bring in with him a whole stable of conservative senators and congressmen, while the conservative Republican appears to have no coat-tails at all, even if one is conservative, one should vote for the wacko one.

The orientation of the Republican party is, essentially, conservative.

And if one is a conservative, he should support the Republican candidate no matter what.

Many conservatives were disenchanted with Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee and all that, but they never bothered me.  As long as they had the (R) at the end of their names, the Republicans controlled Congress, and since the orientation of the Republicans in Congress is essentially conservative, these liberal senators gave conservatives the means to be in power.

One has to give, in order to take, and I'm sure conservatives had to give something to these guys.

But conservatives ended up getting more than they gave; even conservatives have to admit that the liberal left-wing Arlen Specter paved the way for more-moderate Supreme Court justices.

It's horse-trading, and horse-trading works.

That was a rather nice explanation. 

It explains why folks voted to Hitler.

 

[franksolich]

That was a rather nice explanation. 

It explains why folks voted to Hitler.

Now, that is just plain silly; you're not even on the same page here.

Suppose one is a conservative.

Suppose the U.S. Senate has 49 Barry Goldwater conservatives in it, the other 51 being Democrats.

Well, that's all fine and good that the 49 are ideologically pure, purely conservative.

But they aren't doing conservatives any good; they're the minority party, and the majority party runs the Senate and pushes the programs and policies.  No matter how good these 49 guys are, all they can do is delay or obstruct or detour; they aren't going to have any luck pushing any conservative agenda.

Suppose there's a chance to elect two more Republicans, making the Republicans the majority.

Suppose those two are Nelson Rockefeller Republicans, ultra-liberals, but that once elected, they can be trusted to keep that (R) after their names, ensuring the Republicans control the Senate.

That is a damned good reason for a conservative to vote for a liberal Republican, as I argued with my bull-headed cousins in Pennsylvania during the Arlen Specter-Pat Toomey primary battle.  Specter was a sure hold on that Senate seat, but if Toomey instead were the Republican candidate, whoever the Democrat was, was in, thus the Republicans losing that Senate seat.

Well, they didn't like Specter, way too far to the left, just one person removed from Vast Teddy.

So they'd rather vote for an ideologically pure candidate sure to lose, than vote for a candidate sure to win, but who wasn't ideologically pure.  But he was (is) an (R}, and would help the (R)s remain in control of the Senate, and since 49 out of 51 (in this theoretical case) were rock-hard conservatives, conservative ideas, policies, and programs would advance.

This was proven during those two Supreme Court nominations; Specter paid any dues he owed conservatives, getting those through with a minimum of fuss and disorder. 

If Toomey had gotten the Republican nomination and inevitably lost, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats, do you for a minute think a Democrat heading the Senate Judiciary Committee would have pushed those through?

[DumbAss Tanker]

I think the die has been cast and McCain will ignore the base no matter what, regarding the battle as one for the middle voters who have been fed a steady stream of global warming BS by the MSM for the past 15 years.  If by "Fellow down in Texas" you mean Doktor Nutzo, I think I'd leave the 'President' line blank on that ballot if I were you.

[franksolich]

I think I'd leave the 'President' line blank on that ballot if I were you.

I think that's probably the way it's going to be, but damn, I hate to leave a line blank.

I've never not selected a preference, but there's a first time in everyone's life, I guess.

It's primary day here; all of Nebraska is grey and overcast with thick dark clouds.

There shouldn't be any surprises coming out of Nebraska tonight, other than one little detail.

Barry "Goldwater" Obama won 68% of the Nebraska Democrat caucuses in February, but he and Messalina Agrippina are still on the Democrat presidential ballot here.  Even though the vote's meaningless, if it differs greatly from that 68-32% margin in the caucuses, it'll be further proof that caucuses represent only the pushers, the shovers, the "activists," and not the people.

The Republican presidential ballot is actually for delegates.

[Miss Mia]

Frank, I say go ahead and vote Ron Paul.  You know it won't change the outcome of who the nominee is, but if Paul gets enough votes it will make McCain give the truly conservative Republicans more respect. 

BTW, I did hear an interesting tidbit on the radio today.  I can't remember who I was listening to this morning, but basically he said that McCain better show some respect to Paul (especially during the convention, with prime time speech time for Paul) otherwise the truly conservative wing of the party will just blister McCain more.

[rich_t]

That was a rather nice explanation. 

It explains why folks voted to Hitler.

Now, that is just plain silly; you're not even on the same page here.

Suppose one is a conservative.

Suppose the U.S. Senate has 49 Barry Goldwater conservatives in it, the other 51 being Democrats.

Well, that's all fine and good that the 49 are ideologically pure, purely conservative.

But they aren't doing conservatives any good; they're the minority party, and the majority party runs the Senate and pushes the programs and policies.  No matter how good these 49 guys are, all they can do is delay or obstruct or detour; they aren't going to have any luck pushing any conservative agenda.

Suppose there's a chance to elect two more Republicans, making the Republicans the majority.

Suppose those two are Nelson Rockefeller Republicans, ultra-liberals, but that once elected, they can be trusted to keep that (R) after their names, ensuring the Republicans control the Senate.

That is a damned good reason for a conservative to vote for a liberal Republican, as I argued with my bull-headed cousins in Pennsylvania during the Arlen Specter-Pat Toomey primary battle.  Specter was a sure hold on that Senate seat, but if Toomey instead were the Republican candidate, whoever the Democrat was, was in, thus the Republicans losing that Senate seat.

Well, they didn't like Specter, way too far to the left, just one person removed from Vast Teddy.

So they'd rather vote for an ideologically pure candidate sure to lose, than vote for a candidate sure to win, but who wasn't ideologically pure.  But he was (is) an (R}, and would help the (R)s remain in control of the Senate, and since 49 out of 51 (in this theoretical case) were rock-hard conservatives, conservative ideas, policies, and programs would advance.

This was proven during those two Supreme Court nominations; Specter paid any dues he owed conservatives, getting those through with a minimum of fuss and disorder. 

If Toomey had gotten the Republican nomination and inevitably lost, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats, do you for a minute think a Democrat heading the Senate Judiciary Committee would have pushed those through?

Frank, I put a smiley on that post for a reason.  It was intended to show humor.

[Wretched Excess]

I think I'd leave the 'President' line blank on that ballot if I were you.

I think that's probably the way it's going to be, but damn, I hate to leave a line blank.

I've never not selected a preference, but there's a first time in everyone's life, I guess.

It's primary day here; all of Nebraska is grey and overcast with thick dark clouds.

There shouldn't be any surprises coming out of Nebraska tonight, other than one little detail.

Barry "Goldwater" Obama won 68% of the Nebraska Democrat caucuses in February, but he and Messalina Agrippina are still on the Democrat presidential ballot here.  Even though the vote's meaningless, if it differs greatly from that 68-32% margin in the caucuses, it'll be further proof that caucuses represent only the pushers, the shovers, the "activists," and not the people.

The Republican presidential ballot is actually for delegates.

the dem primary in nebraska proved that caucuses are not only undemocratic, but anti-democratic.  there is probably some buyer's remorse mixed in there as well, but there is no way you drop from 68% in a caucus to 49% in a primary without completely destroying any shred of confidence in the caucus system that you could be harboring.

 

[franksolich]

the dem primary in nebraska proved that caucuses are not only undemocratic, but anti-democratic.  there is probably some buyer's remorse mixed in there as well, but there is no way you drop from 68% in a caucus to 49% in a primary without completely destroying any shred of confidence in the caucus system that you could be harboring.

 

It might not all be just "buyer's remorse."

It could be that thousands of Nebraska Democrats voted for Obama rather than Clinton simply because they think Obama is inevitable; I mean, that happened with Nebraska Republicans voting for McCain, too.....simply because he's inevitable.

[Wretched Excess]

the dem primary in nebraska proved that caucuses are not only undemocratic, but anti-democratic.  there is probably some buyer's remorse mixed in there as well, but there is no way you drop from 68% in a caucus to 49% in a primary without completely destroying any shred of confidence in the caucus system that you could be harboring.

 

It might not all be just "buyer's remorse."

It could be that thousands of Nebraska Democrats voted for Obama rather than Clinton simply because they think Obama is inevitable; I mean, that happened with Nebraska Republicans voting for McCain, too.....simply because he's inevitable.

oh, I don't think so, either.  that doesn't explain the dramatic movement in the numbers.  i think it proves that caucuses are
dominated by one candidate or the other, and they use whatever means necessary to browbeat the caucus goers into voting
whatever way the organizers want. 

if hillary supporters had any brains at all (which they obviously don't, since, after all, they are hillary supporters ) they would
be all over this.  it's at least as valid as any of the other strained arguments they are using against the Obama nomination.

and if inevitability was at work last night, it only served to inflate his numbers.  that actually supports our theory.

[john c calhoun]

the dem primary in nebraska proved that caucuses are not only undemocratic, but anti-democratic.  there is probably some buyer's remorse mixed in there as well, but there is no way you drop from 68% in a caucus to 49% in a primary without completely destroying any shred of confidence in the caucus system that you could be harboring.

 

It might not all be just "buyer's remorse."

It could be that thousands of Nebraska Democrats voted for Obama rather than Clinton simply because they think Obama is inevitable; I mean, that happened with Nebraska Republicans voting for McCain, too.....simply because he's inevitable.

oh, I don't think so, either.  that doesn't explain the dramatic movement in the numbers.  i think it proves that caucuses are
dominated by one candidate or the other, and they use whatever means necessary to browbeat the caucus goers into voting
whatever way the organizers want. 

if hillary supporters had any brains at all (which they obviously don't, since, after all, they are hillary supporters ) they would
be all over this.  it's at least as valid as any of the other strained arguments they are using against the Obama'nation.

and if inevitability was at work last night, it only served to inflate his numbers.  that actually supports our theory.

fixed