Yes, I was wrong
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What was it that screwed up my calculations? It turns out that the 18% or so undecided largely pulled the lever for Hil-liar when it came to the crunch. And of those voters, the single women were overwhelmingly for Hil-liar.
Which makes me wonder ... why? We know that statistically single women are far more likely to vote Democrat than not. That changes as soon as they have children and actually have to run a house, feed the kids and pay attention to things like schools and what the children will learn. But why Hil-liar? Because she is a woman and they also seek to become empowered, or at least until they have a family? Because they emote a response and don't necessarily think rationally of long term consequences (I know that this sounds sexist, but it has also been found to be largely true -- at least with respect to consumer affairs, and what is an election but branding and hollow promises?).
But in Hil-liar's case, the truth is so close to the surface, easily understandable by anyone who cares to take more than a cursory look: she does not care for families, she does not care for law and order, she wants to redistribute your wealth (that you work hard for) to those who do not work, she wants to tell you what your children should learn -- a political agenda, she does not want health care choices to be available to you, but rather wants to control your access and choices. I could go on an on. And that is just on the issues, let alone her personal conduct and the hypocrisy of her positions on what it is to be a woman. She is big government -- which may make the single woman feel safe, a net below her to protect her -- but will be more impenetrable and out-of-touch than ever before: the Clintonistas don't really care at all, it is about power, pure and simple, an overarching compulsive greed for it.
I can only hope that the scales fall away from the eyes of the electorate before too long. If anyone believed that shameful display of crocodile tears in New Hampshire ... I'd be disgusted. And I am afraid that I need to be disgusted.
AS to the Republicans ... McCain was always strong in New Hampshire and I was thinking wishfully with regards to Rom-bot. Silly me. I should have predicted a close victory for Rom-bot, but got greedy. In the even, it was a solid McCain victory ... something that is entirely in line with a Hil-liar victory: their policies are similar (McCain is a liberal, make no mistake about it because of the inconvenient GOP label), their style is similar and they are both running on the basis of credentials that really don't amount to a hill of beans with regards to running the country. War hero ... so what? Sleeping with the old President (actually, she didn't and it was probably with her staffers she slept) and living in the White House for 8 years ... so what? Neither has a particularly distinguished Senate record, McCain has served at least several terms and Hil-Liar has done nothing at all.
So the two most competent persons are both running second. What did Barnun say?
Which makes me wonder ... why? We know that statistically single women are far more likely to vote Democrat than not. That changes as soon as they have children and actually have to run a house, feed the kids and pay attention to things like schools and what the children will learn. But why Hil-liar? Because she is a woman and they also seek to become empowered, or at least until they have a family? Because they emote a response and don't necessarily think rationally of long term consequences (I know that this sounds sexist, but it has also been found to be largely true -- at least with respect to consumer affairs, and what is an election but branding and hollow promises?).
But in Hil-liar's case, the truth is so close to the surface, easily understandable by anyone who cares to take more than a cursory look: she does not care for families, she does not care for law and order, she wants to redistribute your wealth (that you work hard for) to those who do not work, she wants to tell you what your children should learn -- a political agenda, she does not want health care choices to be available to you, but rather wants to control your access and choices. I could go on an on. And that is just on the issues, let alone her personal conduct and the hypocrisy of her positions on what it is to be a woman. She is big government -- which may make the single woman feel safe, a net below her to protect her -- but will be more impenetrable and out-of-touch than ever before: the Clintonistas don't really care at all, it is about power, pure and simple, an overarching compulsive greed for it.
I can only hope that the scales fall away from the eyes of the electorate before too long. If anyone believed that shameful display of crocodile tears in New Hampshire ... I'd be disgusted. And I am afraid that I need to be disgusted.
AS to the Republicans ... McCain was always strong in New Hampshire and I was thinking wishfully with regards to Rom-bot. Silly me. I should have predicted a close victory for Rom-bot, but got greedy. In the even, it was a solid McCain victory ... something that is entirely in line with a Hil-liar victory: their policies are similar (McCain is a liberal, make no mistake about it because of the inconvenient GOP label), their style is similar and they are both running on the basis of credentials that really don't amount to a hill of beans with regards to running the country. War hero ... so what? Sleeping with the old President (actually, she didn't and it was probably with her staffers she slept) and living in the White House for 8 years ... so what? Neither has a particularly distinguished Senate record, McCain has served at least several terms and Hil-Liar has done nothing at all.
So the two most competent persons are both running second. What did Barnun say?
posted by Zaphod at Wednesday, January 09, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home