I'm back!!!

So much to talk about! Of course, this happens when days and weeks pass by with events the world over happening . . .and nary a comment posted to the blogosphere! Well, that ends now, and it ends in the most important fashion imaginable: posting about the Denver Broncos! But that will happen later, not immediately. No, for starters we'll go to something truly astonishing: I'm going to claim that John Kerry actually had a good idea during the campaign for the Presidency!

And now that you've recovered from the shock, allow me to explain the earth-shattering revelation I just laid on your doorstep. Remember back to July when John Kerry stated in one of his public appearances that it was he, not George Bush, that better represented "conservative values"? Of course the statement sounded buffoonish at the time--maybe there are Democrats that could have pulled off that line, but Kerry is not one of them. But the genesis of those remarkable words probably shows the Kerry camp as having more insight than I, for one, have ever given them. The Kerryists might have finally began to understand that "conservative values" (whatever that means in the various pockets of America) were the values that were held by a majority of the population, both in number and in "geography". And they tried to make a play to the folks that held those values, knowing that their quest for the Oval Office could not weather the storm that would follow a surrendering of the "values debate." As it turned out, the Dems' play failed, and in the aftermath of the election we have heard a lot about the politics of "values"--surely, "values" define the changing face of the American voter at the start of the 21st century. That is a lesson that must be taken from the results of this election, right?. . .

With this as a backdrop, I find the recent posturing of the left to be totally mind-boggling. While some voices of reason creep through from time to time (calling for a re-alignment of Democratic values with those of the population en masse), most of the leftist stuff I read (and I get the Washington Post on the weekend!) is still very acidic and arrogant. Here's the reality of the situation: folks with truly "conservative values" do NOT enjoy being called morons; they do not like whining from those who have been dealt a defeat; and they do not like being told what they "should" think. If the left hopes to make inroads with conservative value-minded voters, they first need to learn how to address their target audience. Maybe this hasn't happened yet for a number of reasons (the election is still not even a month old, for crying out loud), but the truth of the matter is that for the Dems to re-establish themselves as a serious player on the national stage, they must eventually play to the growing (as evidenced in the results of the election) "middle"--and even to the right--of the political spectrum. Kerry, in an isolated case of understanding the electorate, digested this fact. If the rest of Kerry's party does not follow that lead, it may be a long time again until the GOP has a serious challenge to it's national authority.

Item #2 today: last night, on Desperate Housewives (yes, I watch it, and I'm not ashamed to admit it!), I think prime-time TV set a new low. At the end of the show, they actually SHOWED a murder--as in "the act", in it's entirety, right there on your screen. No symbology, no "left to your imagination"--it was spelled out, in big bold letters that even the youngest or oldest of viewers could understand. And as it was a strangulation, it was not the "cleanest" of murders--it was personal, emotional, and yes, very disturbing. Now most of the shows I watch (and I thought DW was one of them) are not violent at all. Heck, they're not even dramatic--I don't have the attention span for it. And while the premise of the entire show is fairly dark (the suicide of a beloved mother and wife on Wisteria Lane drives the neighborhood to introspection and curiousity), AND they broadcast last night as the final episode for one of the cast members, in a million years I didn't believe that they would actually SHOW the act that took away little Miss Not-gonna-work-here-anymore (props to Office Space). I don't care if the show advises of "Adult Content" as a little warning at the top of the show (and I'm not sure that they do--I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that at least somebody there at ABC had the good sense to put some sort of warning on the program)--that scene last night was overboard. It would have been worthy of an R rating in a movie, but last night it was brought to my living room at the not-unreasonably-late hour of 9:55 EST.

And yes, I do find it noteworthy that the murder scene was being "spliced" with a "sex" scene that did not raise my ire--but there was a huge difference. A) the not-offensive-to-me "sex" scene featured Teri Hatcher ; B) the "sex" scene did not show the "act" in it's entirety--in fact, it "showed" nothing more than a slightly more-physical-than-average (whatever that is) make-out session (I call it a "sex" scene simply because I have a feeling that that is the direction that the encounter was heading); and 3) there was a different, "softer" tone to the scene. The violent scene was a tone of anger and revenge; the sex scene was more stress-release and wanting. Oh, and 4) I was kidding about difference A), just for the record. Have I become desensitized to sexual exploits on network TV? Possibly. . .but here's the great truth: sex happens. Sex ,in fact, NEEDS to happen for the continuation OF everyday life! Murder, however, is something that societies go to great lengths in order to PREVENT it from being a part of everyday life. That portrayal last night. . .well, it showed poor taste.

Item #3: the other horrible sight I saw on TV last night, that being my beloved Broncos. You know, that game had all the classic signs of a B-man letdown: primetime (remember Cincy this year), a game that they should win against a physically stronger foe (remember Chicago last year), less-than-ideal weather (remember Indianapolis two years ago?)--but I still felt that THIS YEAR WILL BE DIFFERENT!!! Sadly, I was wrong. But I won't bore you with strictly Bronco-related ranting, I will simply share with you the following: I do not believe that there is such a thing as a "shut down" corner. And this is not a new revelation to me, born from the frustration of watching the presumptive "premier" corner in the game get burned on national TV for the second time this season; no, this is something that I have believed for a long time. You see, the perfect pattern, coupled with the perfect pass, will work against man-to-man coverage EVERY TIME! It may take a 1- in- a- million throw, but it will work. And these guys are pros, and they get paid to make the perfect pass coupled with the perfect pattern. And especially given the physical talents of the people running the patterns these days, combined with the rules taking physical contact options away from the defenders (by the way, I like it that way!)-- sometimes, it actually looks easy!. Champ Bailey may be a great physical talent who, either through positioning or amazing recovery skills, can be around the ball every time it arrives at it's target--but for all his talent, he is powerless to stop a connection that is totally in-sync. Now if the pass is off a bit, or if the pattern isn't run right, or whatever, then Bailey's amazing physical talents will help him make the play. And I'd much rather have the "idea" of a shutdown corner on one side of the ball than have to deal with the inconsistency of Deltha O'Neal, but there are limits to the success that one can have on "the corner." No one laughs more heartily than I when the talking heads on TV radiate about the value of a "shutdown" corner--of course, no one cries more painfully when said corner proves that I am right.

Enough is enough!

Putting away politics for this post. . .

I'm a huge sports fan. I have tried my hand at just about every sport that is somewhat popular here in America, and to this day I won't pass up on the opportunity to play a game of hoops or run around a diamond or whatever--I just love sports. And I've got a son who's at the age that is perfect to introduce him to sports--I remember playing my first games of basketball with my brothers at the same age that my son is today. I would like nothing better than to be able to play sports with him in the afternoon, working on some skills and what not, and then be able to watch some games on TV that night, just to kind of reinforce whatever we had worked on that afternoon. . .

. . .and therein lies the problem. I am apalled by what is going on in the sports world with regards to sportsmanship to such a degree that I can not, in good conscience, spend family time with my boy "watching" sports. Whether it be the fairly-innocent (but still unnecessary) celebrating that accompanies just about any play of significance, or the totally disgusting violence that has marred two major sports events this weekend, there is nothing "sporty" about how sports is being played at the highest levels these days.

Listen, I know that little scrapes between players in a physical game (basketball, unfortunately, is one of those) are common and shouldn't be cause for concern--but there's a big difference between a little scrape and a brawl that ends up with genetically-gifted (in the physical sense) men squaring off with Joe Blow from down the street. There's a big difference between a good, hard foul and an act of provocation. There's a big difference between "getting in your opponent's head" and being disrespectful. And there's a big difference between a "rivalry" and a fight. . .or at least there should be. But these days in sports, those lines of distinction are getting crossed a lot, and the aftermath is enough to make a guy like me turn off sports.

How would I deal with this problem? Simple: get the law involved. Everybody involved in the Pacers/Pistons and South Carolina/Clemson debacles were adults in the eyes of the law--prosecute them as such. In the case of the NBA game, that means that every player that went into the stands and ended up actually engaging the crowd goes to trial for assault--and given their physical stature, I might even try to get assault with a deadly weapon. (Hey, a single forceful punch from a guy with muscular arms and a greater reach than most heavyweight boxers should be considered deadly--all that torque translates to an awful lot of power!). That also means that whatever clown threw the cup full of liquid at Ron Artest as he was sitting at the scorer's table should be tried for assault, too, as well as a handful of other "fans" that were doing their best European soccer match impersonations on Friday night. And of course, the Pistons organization has got to see recriminations for not providing visiting players a safe arena in which to display their skills. Some might think that holding the Pistons accountable to some degree is a little overboard (considering that Artest's entrance into the crowd served as the instigation for the altercations that ensued), but this incident deserves some legally unprecedented treatment. Every party that had a hand in the happenings of that night should be held accountable to some degree, and clearly the security at the Palace was lacking.

As for the USC/Clemson game, that melee went from a little after-play "push and shove" to a massive, bench-clearing, field-covering brawl. The "push and shove" will happen in football, and fortunately it doesn't normally get too much beyond that. But yesterday it did--and all those players are over 18. The "major fighters" should not get "protection" simply because they were in uniform--what they did was out of bounds even in terms of a physically violent game like football. They should be kicked off the team (and have their scholarships not just pulled, but rescinded effective the date of entrance into the school) for bringing embarassment to the institution OF HIGHER LEARNING that they represent, and they should be tried by the law. And I can't be sure, because the coverage has been so skittish, but I think I saw one player swinging around his helmet--how about an attempted murder charge on that one?

Seriously, folks, the over-riding rules of society have got to apply even in athletic arenas--otherwise you'll have this group (again, I must stress how physically gifted these players are) of individuals who believe they can get away with anything. Think that's a stretch? Tell me there isn't a personal defense lawyer out there who wouldn't try to use the intensely physical nature (and now apparent blurring of the lines between civil and barbaric) of the athletic arena as a defense for an athlete defendant who happened to forget that physical altercations just shouldn't happen in day-to-day "normal" life. You can't do it, because you know that this would appear to be a "no-brainer" defense technique. Now I realize that 99.9% of "super" athletes (for the sake of argument, folks whose livelihood will/does actually "depend" on their ability to play sports) would never end up in a position like the one just hypothesized . . .but we need to put laws and processes in place that grant law-abiding folks protections from (and for) 100% of our citizens. And given that sporting events are major crowd-gathering attactions throughout the land, protecting the people who enter into those crowds (whether as a player or a spectator) should be something that we, as a society, take seriously.

And as an aside: how I would love to see Steve Spurrier take the event on the field yesterday as cause for him to keep on the golf course for the next couple years rather than return to coaching. I think that is one way to ensure those players get what is coming to them. . .but since I haven't agreed with almost anything that Spurrier has done over the years, I am not holding my breath. . .

two items top the agenda today

One, a belated Happy Birthday wish to the United States Marine Corps, which celebrated it's 229th Birthday yesterday (11/10). Some might find it poetic that members of the Corps were spending the day heavily engaged in the struggle that will define the world for years to come. I know that I, personally, am glad to have them out there doing the things that they do, and that they are led by men and women who understand that some of the business that needs to be tended to is not attractive or easy work--just necessary.

Item #2: two amazing world events in the last 10 days give hope to a peaceful future in the Middle East. First, the most powerful country in the world elected for it's top political job a man who understood that the "Middle East Peace Process" had no chance to succeed as envisioned as long as one side of the argument had a terrorist as it's top policymaker; second, that terrorist policymaker has expired. How Mahmoud Abbas plays the hand he has been dealt is anybody's guess right now--but at first glance, he appears to be a step in the right direction from Arafat. And in order to actually begin to heal the rift that exists in that part of the world, the peace process has got to, first and foremost, take some steps in the right direction. . .

There won't be Two Americas in 2008, either

I have read some articles saying that John Edwards is in a good position to compete for his party's nomination in the 2008 Presidential election.

I couldn't disagree more.

First of all, Edwards proved to be an amateur in every facet of national politicking. His inability to tone down his court-room demeanor made him come across as smug and elitist (notice to politicians: "average" people don't like lawyers who act. . .like lawyers); his "message" (the populist "Two Americas" blarney) went AWOL after the DNC; and he never effectively participated in the "attacks" that are expected to be part of a VP-candidate's repetoire. It is arguable if he added ANYTHING to the Dem ticket this year. This is not a textbook example of "taking advantage" of your first exposure to the national stage.

Secondly, his major weakness--that being his political inexperience--is not going to be strengthened anytime soon. He is a one-term Senator who spent the last two years of his only term campaigning nationally rather than doing his job in DC. The "Senator Gone" monicker that Vice President Cheney strung around his neck during the VP debate is not going to go away in the next 4 years. While I have no doubt that he will find gainful employment as a political operative until the next election, I do not think that he will find anything that will help wipe out the gaping holes in his political resume.

And lastly: VP candidates from unsuccessful campaigns don't normally have a large political future on the national stage. Look at the list: since 1960, Joseph Lieberman (who unfortunately never stood a chance within his own party this year), Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, Lloyd Benson, Geraldine Ferraro, Thomas Eagleton, Edmund Muskie, William E. Miller, and Henry Cabot Lodge were the #2 people on the losing ticket--and none had a successful (or even MILDLY successful) future in national politics. Only Bob Dole and Walter Mondale were unsuccessful VP candidates who went on to garner their party's Presidential nomination in the future--and only Mondale got that nomination the race after his unsuccesful VP bid (and THAT came after a four-year stint as the country's VP under Carter).

I am not discounting Edwards' political future on the national stage--he's young, he has good rhetorical skills, he is bright and now he is a known quantity (or at least "known"). But I do not believe that 2008 will be his year.

More on the election numbers

I'm a numbers geek, so this kind of stuff is right up my alley. Just ask the guys in my Fantasy Football League how incredibly creative (or overboard, as the case may be) I can get when it comes to number-crunching.

For starters, let's call a spade a spade: Bush will get the electorals from Iowa (with 100% of the precincts reporting, he has a 13,000 vote lead on Kerry), giving him 286. Which means that Ohio really was the entire ball of wax for him. As I posted earlier, I'm disappointed that he couldn't get another 4 votes somewhere else (New Hampshire? Hawaii? Or even more through one of the other midwestern states)--but the W is still good enough for me.

Item #2: About that Ohio vote. Who'd have ever thought that the closest state to be brought into a possible challenge this year would have had almost 122,000 votes separating the major party candidates? Thank goodness--it helped make this election season a more appropriate length. And if that 122K sounds funny to you, it should. Because that is NOT the margin between Kerry and Bush in Ohio--122,000 is the margin between Kerry and Bush in PENNSYLVANIA! Remember PA? It was called by all the major networks within 2 hours after the polls closed there, and indeed the early numbers made it look like Kerry was en route to a huge victory. Funny how the contest for this major state ended up closer than Ohio (by about 15,000 votes) without ever re-emerging onto the radar of the major news outlets. And I just have to wonder how PA would have turned out if it wasn't called so early (I'm sure there were still voters in line when it was called) and if the Democrat governor hadn't been so partisan with regards to the treatment of the absentee ballots. But I guess we'll never know.

Item #3: total voters. The traditional wisdom went that if the popular vote ended up below 115 million people, that would favor Bush; if it pushed up towards--or even past--120 million, that would be beneficial to Kerry. Final total: about 115 million (about a 10% increase over the 2000 Presidential election). a) Those are some darn wise traditionalists!; and b) Bush collected over 9 million more votes this year than he did in 2000, as compared to Kerry getting less than 5 million more votes than Gore did that year. Either the new voters (supposedly 1 in 7 voters was a first-timer) DIDN'T break for Kerry as forecast OR Bush pulled an EXTRAORDINARY amount of voters away from the Democratic candidate (somewhere on the order of 8 million net votes). I don't think that Kerry could hemorrhage Gore supporters to that degree--so I just can't buy into the theory that new voters overwhelmingly supported the Dem ticket.

(here's the math I used: IF 1 in 7 voters was "new", then approx. 16.5 million votes were cast from this group. IF that group broke 60-40 for Kerry, then Kerry got 10M votes from this group and Bush got 6.5M. Subtract those totals from the popular vote totals of this year, and Bush is left with 52.5M votes from non-new voters; Kerry has 45.5M. In 2000, Bush got 50M votes, the Democrat ticket got 51M. Comparing the 2000 numbers with the non-new 2004 voter numbers, Bush gained 2.5M votes and Kerry (actually, the Dem ticket) lost 5.5M--or a net gain of 8 million in the non-new voter category for Bush.)

Item #4: the youthful vote played to Kerry's favor. I think this is where the "scare" politics and the politics of "promise" pay off for candidates. The young among us are more likely to believe the stories divined to create fear among the masses--especially if those stories are told on medium that are easily absorbed by the age group (like, say, movies). Also, the vacuous promises that were part of Kerry's ill-defined "plans" spoke to the ideals of the youthful without being challenged by the wisdom that for some only comes with age. All told, it wasn't a horrible plan by the Dems to exploit this age group--fortunately, however, it didn't work.

the next-day numbers

Obviously, I am very happy with the results of last night. And while I would have liked to have seen either Wisconsin or Minnesota turn red (thereby making Ohio an afterthought), I'll take 286 electorals and a mandate in the popular vote, the Senate AND the House.

Also, I'm happy with what people are talking about as the deciding factor in the election: personal values. THAT'S how elections should be decided.

I also am happy with how Sen. Kerry handled himself today. After all the effort he put in, he still had the ability to see the writing on the wall. His concession speech was easily his finest performance of this campaign season. He's not a bad man--he's just a little lacking as a national candidate. There are definitely worse things. . .

I'm watching the Bush speech right now. . .he is doing well. I would like to see a thanks to John Kerry for his years of service to the country and to the enthusiasm that he added to the democratic process this year.

Now, to the future: it looks good for us conservatives. I think the SCOTUS--indeed the entire court system--will look differently in four years than it does right now--and I think that will be a good thing. I also think that serious strides can be taken in the Middle East--not just in Iraq, but also in the Middle East peace process.

Today at work, someone mentioned that the U.S. needed to heal the poor relations with Europe now. I take a different take on that: we (the U.S.) WERE NOT WRONG to go into Iraq. France and Germany and Russia were wrong to be against the action--or at least they had many wrong reasons to be against that action. The U.S. is taking on an incredible burden in order to improve the world order. We're willing to let others share that burden--if you want to be part of the world that we are going to shape, you've got to be willing to participate in our actions. Knee-jerk anti-Americanism is not going to make us cower to your demands--it is going to make us steamroll you. This President understands that the world can be shaped by great people with great intentions--and I don't think he will let the endless resources of this country sit idly by while other forces act to influence our environs.

Gosh, what to blog about now?

the 10 PM EST numbers

Again, no surprises on the "calling" of states. MSNBC just projected Arkansas for Bush (14% vote in, only a 3% difference--we'll have to see how that holds), which takes one worry off my undecideds stage. Florida is 77% reported with a greater than 250,000 margin in favor of Bush (I, personally, am calling FL for Bush right now); Ohio has about 25% reported with a greater than 70,000 voter margin in favor of Bush; Missouri is almost 20% reported with a slight lead for Bush; Colorado has a slight lead for Bush; PA will probably be taken off the board in favor of Kerry in the next hour or so (no surprise to me); Missouri and Wisconsin favor Bush with less than 10% of precincts reporting in both states; and New Hampshire is probably going to be called for Kerry in the next hour. NOTE: MO just called for Bush!

This will be my last live post. Right now, I feel good--Bush is running well in Ohio and appears to be in a position to possibly take two of the midwest 4 (MI, MN, IO, WI). And to note: all that Bush needs now is to close out Florida and Ohio, have all the projections continue to be accurate (I'm thinking that they are), and we have a W for W. And even without OH, if he takes 2 of the midwest 4 (that's a stretch, but I'm hopeful) and EITHER Nevada or New Mexico, then that's still 271 EVs for Bush (this is not my favorite likelihood--but it could still work). And Bush will win by enough margins in most of the important places that this election will be decided by tomorrow mid-morning. And I think we're headed for 4 more years! YAAAAY!

the 9:00 EST numbers

No surprises released at 9. Still not "claimed" are Ohio (less than 5% reporting slightly in favor of Bush), Florida (40% reporting, over 350,000 in favor of Bush), Missouri (favoring Kerry with less than 5% reporting), Pennsylvania (3% reporting strongly in favor of Kerry), Arkansas (1% slightly in favor of Kerry), and New Hampshire (15% reporting slightly in favor of Kerry).

I haven't seen a lot of the numbers for the New Jersey vote--the last I saw was split 50/50 with less than 2% reported. Apparently the projections are based on exit polling where Kerry was actually favored in the war on terror--which also was the top issue for the voters that were polled.

Virginia was finally taken off the board in favor of the GOP, as was North Carolina (both Carolinas are red).

I'm hoping Florida will go off the board in the next hour, and that the numbers in Missouri and Arkansas start looking more like the pre-election polling was showing. And I also hope that the margin in Ohio gets larger.

Also, in the next hour we should have a better feel for Wisconsin, Colorado and Minnesota. Michigan might not have a clear picture for a couple hours.

the 8:00 PM numbers

all right, a lot of speculation here, so take it with a grain of salt.

Florida: 139,000 vote difference in favor of Bush with 17% reporting. That bodes well--especially since you have to think that the first returns are the electronic returns, and most of those were down in the south of the state which is more closely aligned with the Democrats.

New Jersey declared for Kerry without any numbers supporting it. . .interesting but not surprising. Calling PA too close for a decision. NH has a 2500 vote favor to Kerry with only 3% reporting. In NC, with 2% reporting, Bush is up by a 2-to-1 margin. In VA, Bush is up 77,000 with under 5% reporting.

Good stuff in Florida--expect that to be taken off the undecided board in the next hour. Same with Virginia. And take the declaration of NJ for Kerry very lightly--it's probably just too darn close for a real decision there.

the 7:30 EST numbers

The big news is that Ohio is too close to call (of course--0% reporting will do that to you!), as is North Carolina and Virginia (still--3% reporting almost 3-2 for Bush, but no one declares yet.) I expect VA will go off the board in the next hour.

the 7:00 EST numbers

Gosh, stuck watching MSNBC and CNN. Oy!

All right, the 7 PM (all times EST) numbers don’t look too good. 3 states (no surprises) already declared for Bush, one for Kerry. Not off the map already is Virginia, which is a little of a surprise. Kerry all but gave up on Virginia in the last week, but right now it’s close. I have faith that Bush still gets VA, but it’s closer than I wanted. And little signals like that might have repercussions throughout the land. . .

Side notes: On MSNBC, the general thinking is that a lot of the new voters (supposedly 1 in 7 voters–which would put the popular election up over 120 million voters) will go overwhelmingly for Kerry. I don’t buy it. Kerry MIGHT be able to eke out a little majority with new voters, but if the newbians break much more than 60-40 for the Dems than this won’t be all that close of a vote. Of course, it depends on where the new voters cast their ballot. . .oh, so much fun!

I just saw an exit poll (argh!) Sample on CNN that showed that 53% asked thought that the country was safer from terrorism than it was 4 years ago. Good for Bush, right!? That same sample, however, had over 50% say that the economy was poor to very bad. The economy? The same economy that’s supporting a 5.4% unemployment rate and good to great economic growth numbers? The Bush camp can’t be happy about this. I know they chose to make the fighting of the war on terror their central issue, but a major strength such as the economy should not have become a weapon of the opposition. With all the talk of fighting a multi-pronged war, the Bushies forgot that elections also have several prongs that need tending. Call that a missed opportunity!

some election day predictions

from other people, that is. My brother has posted that he thinks W will sweep the Midwest and amass 323 electoral votes today. Jim at Kerry Spot thinks the number will be 295 EVs for the President. Both give a key race (PA) to Kerry, and Mr. Geraghty thinks Michigan and Wisconsin stay blue. But Florida and Ohio are both put in Mr. Bush's corner, as most recent polls (taken with a grain of salt!) are showing.

As for me: I think Florida will go (comfortably, even) for W; I think PA will go to Kerry; I think NH will turn blue (literally and figuratively) in favor of Kerry; Kerry also wins in NJ, OR, MN and Michigan; I think Bush takes CO and NV; and I think that Bush wins Iowa and Wisconsin. That puts Bush at 220 (Kerry at 238) with the following states still undecided by me: Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Mexico and Hawaii (80 EVs). But don't despair--if this is how the map shapes up, I really like Bush's chances.

And also don't despair because of the following: I will be able to live-blog the results! Also, I must point out a must-read guide to following the election coverage tonight. So sit back, and watch the madness of the exit polls (I TOLD YOU!!! Don't listen to them--they are easily manipulated) fall by the wayside as precinct reports start coming in. And let's hope for a comfortable Bush victory--maybe not electorally (even a 270-268 margin would do there), but definitely in each state's popular vote that determines those electorals. Let's put this thing out of hand before the lawyers get all a-revved!

backtracking on an earlier "promise"

Who am I, John Kerry?

Seriously, though, I regret to state that I probably won't be able to live-blog the election results tonight. My viewing plans haven't panned out exactly as they were supposed to, so I've got to put the likelihood of me having an "active" connection tonight at "pretty low". My apologies!

Last-second thoughts on the campaign: one of the most intelligent commentaries I believe I've heard so far this campaign was from a source which I can't recall now (although I'm willing to bet I read it on KerrySpot--see links to the right). Anyhow, his analysis was that Kerry needed to have polls showing that Americans thought his victory was "likely" leading in to the election; so far, no such poll exists. In fact, most of the polls I've read--regardless of whether they favor Bush or Kerry--have shown that the polling sample still "thought" Bush would win. Again, regard this little tidbit with the same caution that all polling results deserve--but at the time I read it, I thought that little thought was pretty good. And thus far, nothing amounting to the momentum of a "likely" Kerry victory has emerged.

Also: I'm not going to put too much faith in exit polling this time around, just because the MSM controls their sample, and I don't believe they will suddenly play non-partisan on election night because they know the stakes. They NEED to generate momentum for Kerry tonight, especially at the vital 7:00 PM EST hour when they can start talking about the East Coast states in the hopes of affecting voter turnout in key Western and midWestern states (like New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Colorado). So EXPECT exit polling in New Jersey, New Hampshire, Florida and even Virginia to look slanted towards Kerry. But HOPEFULLY, as the precinct results start filtering in, the folks on the West Coast will see the actual voting TRENDS to favor Bush in Florida and Virginia, and for the fight to be remarkably close in NH and NJ. If the MSM can't legitimately claim NJ for Kerry by the time the Central states close their booths, I think that the Bush team will be happy. Of course, none of this takes into account MSM outlets initially claiming one state for Kerry and later retracting that claim. That's why you have to LOOK AT THE NUMBERS as they pop up on screen! Funny how factual facts can be.

Anyhow, please be sure to vote! And let's hope that the dirty tricks of the Dems (did you hear the one where they are calling voters in Florida and telling them that Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf has endorsed Kerry? The General called on the DNC today to stop that nonsense, and in so doing made a pretty clear and effective endorsement for the President. Track down the specifics here. Signs of a campaign in desperation--hopefully the American people will send them back to the depths from which their ideas spring forth.

And now that I think about it, is it too late for a Bush ad featuring the letter from Schwarzkopf to run in Florida? I think that would just about seal the deal there. . .