Predicting Hillary's Big PA Win

Eric Dondero, who hosts a popular blog (http://mainstreamlibetarian..blogspot.com/) and Blog Talk Radio program, sent out the follow message today:

You all, please take a moment to visit the Blog this morning. I've got an article up praising our own Stephen Maloney of PA for getting the PA predication 100% correct.

Can you all believe this? Stephen bucked the conventional wisdom. Told us last week that Hillary would win by 55% to 45% contrary to all the Pro-Obama propoganda the MSM was pushing at the time, about a "late Obama Surge."

Stephen gave us the view from the ground.

Stephen: You are now officially nicknamed "Nostradamus." Good job my man! Good job!!
Libertarian Republicans

Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant & Pro-Defense!

For the latest libertarian political news http://mainstreamlibertarian.com/

Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX. He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.

Why the Polls Were Wrong in Pennsylvania . . .

Why the Polls Were Wrong in PA . . .A week ago, I told Terry Madonna, who heads the Franklin & Marshall College poll (a good one) that I was right and his poll and (most) others were wrong. I said so because people (especially African-Americans) who are voting for Hillary sometimes say they're voting for Obama. It has happened before (Ohio) but the pollsters keep getting it wrong. Michael Barone on FOX said the same thing early last night, even before there were any real numbers out. The exit polls of voters said that Hillary would win by 52-48.

The point is that it's not fashionable in some areas for people to say they're support Hillary. However, when they go in the voting booth, they do just that. Thanks to everyone who honors me by visiting this site.

Pennsylvanians: Reject Obama, The Elitist

Thanks to everyone who honors me by coming to this site.

Today in Pennsylvania, there's a lot of excitement about the primary. This afternoon, I'll be writing about a devastating article in The (London) Economist. It discusses Barack Obama and his now-famous comments about average Americans who "cling" to religion, guns, racism, and anti-immigrant feelings.Right now, on TV an Obama commercial is running that says, "Barack Obama doesn't take money from 'Big Oil' or lobbyists." That's of course not true, as a recent USA Today expose pointed out. Obama has many lobbyists raising funds for him, and he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil industry executives. Go figure!

You’ve already heard a lot about Barack Obama’s so-called “bitter” comments. As columnist Jack Kelly said Sunday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the national media – strongly pro-Obama -- emphasizes the word “bitter” because it’s the least objectionable part of the candidate’s statement. The most objectionable part is where the candidate says that typical Americans cling to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia (hatred of foreigners).

The best analysis I’ve seen of Senator Obama’s statement is in The Economist (April 19-25 , 2008, p. 44 ). Here are some excerpts:

“Barack Obama has a magic way with word, but when the magic deserts him, it deserts him big time. April 6th saw Mr. Obama making the worst verbal gaffe of this seemingly endless campaign. He told a group of fat cats in San Francisco that the reason why he is finding it hard to appeal to blue collar voters in Pennsylvania is because they are ‘bitter.’ They have suffered from so many broken promises that they prefer to ‘cling’ to God, guns, and xenophobia rather than reaching out for a helping hand from the government.

“ . . . Conservative radio talk show hosts have been bellowing 24/7 that Mr. Snooty knows nothing about the real America.

“And no wonder! Mr. Obama has always been in danger of coming across as an elitist. He was educated at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He not only reads books but writes them [Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope]. He once urged a group of Iowa farmers to check out the price of arugula in Whole Foods – an upmarket store that has no branch in the entire state. His Ivy League educated wife [Michelle] – who is paid nearly $300,000 a year for promoting ‘community outreach’ – is in the habit of telling audiences how difficult it is to afford ballet classes for their daughters.”

Those of us in America might ask: Why do we have to rely on a British journalist to provide such insights? Why is our own national media seemingly mesmerized by such a flawed candidate as Barack Obama? Perhaps because they’re easily mesmerized?

In Pittsburgh, about 15 miles from where I live, the Post-Gazette recently endorsed Obama on the grounds that he would take America “beyond partisanship.” Oh really? The (non-partisan) National Journal recently assessed Obama as the most liberal – and thus among the most partisan – member of the U.S. Senate. The Post-Gazette editorial board (alas, Jack Kelly is not a member) knows Obama’s record, but they chose to misrepresent him to their readers.

In Dreams From My Father, Obama describes his remarkable grandmother, whom he’s now using in ads, as “a typical white person.” What if John McCain, or any other Caucasian, had described ANYONE as a “typical Black person?” That white American would no longer be seen as a serious candidate for the presidency.

Media outlets like the Post-Gazette are engaging in a journalistic form of Affirmative Action. They’re holding Obama to much lower standards than they are Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

In fact, the media’s failure to live up to its obligations is a major reason people are turning to the new media for information. In fact, it’s one reason you’re here rather than relying on a manipulative news organ like the Post-Gazette.

Note: I have an innovative new site designed to generate a dialogue with Hillary Clinton supporters who will consider voting for John McCain in the General Election. You can find it at: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/. I hope you'll visit!

I received the following important message today from Craig Bardo, a Black conservative, radio talk show host, and pro-life activist. I hope you'll read Craig's message and support his efforts.

So often, we who oppose the practice of contraceptive abortion are accused of not caring for those that survive the abortion decision. For many black folk, the right to life movement is seen as a largely white effort and one that we may intellectually support but haven't found a way to contribute our time or limited financial resources.

I've had occasion to visit Grace Pregnancy Resource Center here in Nashville, which supports 200 young women who have made the decision to bring their children to term rather than abort them. This center is 3 buildings down from the second largest abortion clinic in the city. 47 of the women in the program were deterred from having an abortion by the staff at the Center. One young woman visited this morning, thinking that she was entering the abortion clinic, the counselor had an opportunity to visit with her,but she went up the street anyway, I don't know what she decided to do. 39% of these young women are black 22% are Hispanic.

I host a radio program here in the city and tomorrow, I'm kicking off a fund raiser for the Center that will go through next Wednesday. We're on the air from 6-8 am CST, M-F, Brian Harris the president of Tennessee Right to Life along with their spokeswoman Carolyn Smith, who happens to be Emmett Till's cousin. They'll be in the studio at 7:00 am to talk about the good work they're doing.

These girls need your help.You can listen in on the program via live streaming audio @ WVOL1470.com or WVOL1470.net. You can call in with your pledge of support to (615) 737-9865 or (615)227-1470.

Make your checks payable to Tennessee Right to Life (Grace Pregnancy Resource Center). If you want to donate on line, go to their website, http://www.tnrtl.org/ and make sure to put The Craig Bardo Show in the memo box so they can track your contribution.

Thanks for your support and please pray for this effort, these young women are counting on it!

Hillary Winning in PA, Nationwide

On Sunday, April 20, the results of the latest Gallup "Tracking Poll" were released. They showed Hillary Clinton leading nationally among Democrats by one percentage point. A week ago, Obama's lead in the Gallup Poll was about 11 points, so there's been a dramatic drop in his national support.

In Pennsylvania, the average of polls shows Mrs. Clinton's lead at about five points.

Some analysts, including this one, believe it's entirely possible that Clinton will win in the Keystone State by approximately 10 percentage points. I've guessed it will be approximately 55% to 45%, although it could conceivably be by as much as 57% to 43%. Clinton is stronger in Pennsylvania than you might have been hearing on TV. Right now, she's tied or leading in every demographic except Blacks and the wealthiest of Democrats.

If Mrs. Clinton has a double-digit win in Pennsylvania, look for to call on Super Delegates to support her. Presumably, she will point directly to the Gallup Poll as illustrating that she's the most electable candidate. She would have a powerful argument in her favor.

Clearly, Obama has been hurt by two factors: (1) his "bitter" comments about small town America; (2) his poor performance in the recent debate. The national media, many of whom obviously support Obama, have been slow to report on the dramatic changes taking place in the Democratic race.

Keep a close eye on those Gallup Tracking Polls. If Senator Clinton extends her lead, the Democratic race may become more chaotic than it already is. My own guess? That the battle will go right to the convention floor in Denver, an eventuality that will help John McCain.

Jerry Bowyer: Pennsylvania Seriously Divided

This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796023090409503.html


Pennsylvania Divided

By Jerry Bowyer

As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.
One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.

As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.

Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.

And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.

I find all of this disheartening because allowing the narrow interests of political factions to force decisions and policies onto the whole is something that James Madison warned us against. In a pro-Constitution editorial (which history has come to know as Federalist 9), he described in prescient terms precisely why political factions are dangerous.

When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.

If that sounds a little like the Democratic Party today, it may be because the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has come to be dominated by factions. In the Keystone State, those factions include African-Americans who dominate the inner-cities, upper-class white voters in the suburbs, working-class voters in the middle regions of the state, and Latinos, seniors and college students who are dispersed in geographic pockets. And of course, ubiquitous unions.

Voters head to the polls in Pennsylvania on April 22 in a process that is supposed to lead eventually to a Democratic presidential nominee. But in watching Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama traverse the state, it's hard to see how one candidate will emerge from the many Democratic factions slugging it out.

Mr. Obama is hoping to overcome Mrs. Clinton by energizing college students. And anecdotal evidence suggests that a surge of support among college-age voters may be helping him. Recent statewide polls show the race tightening. My mother, who is volunteering to help the Northampton County Department of Elections process new voter registrants, is watching the Obama surge first hand. Among the new registrants she sees, the vast majority are Democratic college students, most of whom, we can presume, will vote for Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton is trying to turn out her own supporters, who include traditional working-class Democrats, middle-class suburbanites and, of course, women and seniors.

Last month, it appeared that Mr. Obama's campaign was to be split apart on the edge of growing fears among white Democrats over incendiary and, at times racially charged, comments his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered from the pulpit over a 20-year period that Mr. Obama attended his church in Chicago. All the while, Mr. Obama hadn't raised an objection to Rev. Wright's sermons.

To save his campaign he showed up in Philadelphia – the city where Madison and the rest drew up the Constitution in 1787 – and gave what some called "The Speech" on race in America. In doing so, Mr. Obama likely saved his presidential campaign. And he did it, in part, drawing a line all the way back to "that group of men [who had] gathered" across the street in Constitutional Hall in 1787 to write one of the founding documents of the nation. In other words, by reaching beyond the factional politics of the Democratic Party.

Democrats might have once hoped that Pennsylvania would settle their nomination fight. Instead, it has shown how dangerous it is to put voters into factional blocs that can then be exploited along racial lines. To the extent that Democrats suffer this year for not learning that lesson earlier, well, to quote Mr. Obama's pastor (who himself was quoting Malcolm X): "the chickens have come home to roost."
_____________________________
Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.

Pennsylvania the Key in 2008

Note: Within one hour on this blog, I got visitors from Canada, Portugal (two), Japan, and Spain, as well as several from the U.S. I have no idea what brought them, but I hope they return often. My main blog is at: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.

Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, a traditional back-slapping, arm-twisting Philadelphia politician and staunch backer of Senator Hillary Clinton. Rendell is thoroughly corrupt and (of course) a great fundraiser, but on the positive side, he's generally amiable. Who wouldn't be?

"We don't hide from history.... We make history." (John McCain, last night in Dallas)

Pennsylvania seems destined this year to make some history of its own . . .I started writing today's column, and then the power went out (destroying what I'd written) for two-plus hours. Ah, the wonderful (?) weather of western Pennsylvania in winter. At least, it didn't destroy my capacity for alliteration!

Much to the amazement of most of us who live in Pennsylvania, the April 22 primary here this year will really matter, at least for the Democrats. We are the last big state left that hasn't yet held a primary, although people in Florida (a huge state) and Michigan might disagree. Those two states, stripped of their delegates by the authoritarian national Democratic Party, are in political limbo.

(Oops, the power went out again, proving that this probably isn't my day!)The Pennsylvania Primary will be an important one. Knowing what I know now, I expect the person who wins a majority of the votes in PA will be Hillary Rodham Clinton. There's no reason she shouldn't do as well here as she did in Ohio.

I predicted (see below) that she'd win that state by a comfortable margin, which she did. (I also predicted she'd win Texas by a relatively narrow margin, and she carried that state by almost 100,000 votes out of roughly 2.75 million cast.

(There are problems with the Obama Campaign that even the notoriously clueless media are starting to pick up on. Mrs. Clinton has been attacking him on his thin national security credentials and his shaky views -- whatever they are -- on NAFTA. After taking off like a rocket, Obama shows some signs of falling like a rock. He is not a credible candidate for President, although he may end up with the nomination.)S

ince I'm making predictions: I believe the Democratic race will be decided at the convention in Denver. I have a feeling that a significant majority of the Democratic "Super Delegates" are going to discover that Obama is not ready for Prime Time. If that happens, Mrs. Clinton could end up with the nomination. But that's a a long way away . . .

If Pennsylvania will be significant in April, it will be profoundly so in the general election. This is a state that's difficult for Republicans to win -- Gore carried it solidly in 2004 and John Kerry won by a small margin in 2004 -- but it's one that John McCain probably has to win if he's to prevail next November.

Why? Because Ohio, the state that put GWB over the top in 2004, is looking as if it will go for the Democratic candidate (probably Obama). In presidential races that Republicans win, they generally have to carry Ohio. However, that state's generally miserable economy, especially in manufacturing, could put it in the Democratic nominee's column.Pennsylvania is an unusual state in its politics.

Statewide, the Democrats have a big registration edge (about 600,000), but many of the Democrats here -- including those in Beaver County, where I live -- are moderate or even conservative. The state has a huge number of military veterans, many of whom will be attracted to John McCain, who of course is a veteran and a former POW.

The key for Senator Obama will be the Black vote in Philadelphia and, to a lesser extent, in Pittsburgh. The rest of the state -- literally every county other than Allegheny and Philadelphia -- should go for Hillary Clinton.

The Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, an old-time back room, arm-twisting politician, is strongly behind Senator Clinton, and his support will help her.Be aware that Gov. Rendell has a big mouth. He said a few weeks ago that a good segment of Pennsylvania white Democrats wouldn't vote for a Black candidate. He's probably right, much as I hate to admit it.

Look for Rendell, a Super Delegate, to make other colorful statements in the next seven weeks.

He claims he doesn't want the vice-presidential nod, but many of us don't believe that. Ed Rendell's "wants" are boundless.

Much more on Pennsylvania to come.

If you're a real political junkie, buy a copy of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition. Barone knows a whole lot about Pennsylvania and its unusual politics.