We are all aware of the laws that prevent the media from releasing voting results before the polls close. The reason is the fear that voters will remain home if they learn that their candidate is losing by a large margin; or they might stay home if their candidate has a large lead. “Why should I take a long lunch / go out in this rain / leave the comfort of home to stand in line if my candidate is winning/losing by so much already?”
I think this is a great law. It keeps the press out of our hair for a short (albeit sweet) amount of time. It lets voters vote without worry. Exit polls may provide some influence, but in my experience most people don’t value exit poll results.
Why can’t we expand this concept across a much larger timeframe? I’m talking about during the primary process. But not just one day’s worth or one state’s worth. I’m talking about the entire primary process. Here’s my idea:
Let’s not release the results until the actual party conventions.
Why is this a good idea?
- Each party member in each state will be allowed to vote for the candidate they want as opposed to having to choose from only the remaining candidates as dictated by previous primaries. In other words you will be able to vote for the person that best represents your values, not just for the one that pisses you off the least. For example: I’m in Texas and I’m a Mitt Romney supporter. Thanks to the current system by the time I got the chance to vote my candidate wasn’t even on the ballot. I don’t think that’s fair.
- By not knowing who is leading the delegate count each candidate will be forced to campaign continuously and spend their money wisely if they want it to last. Hmm… that sounds like something most Americans have to do every month.
- The financial difficulty of entering a long and expensive race will certainly deter and potentially weed out candidates that currently join the races for ego and/or local popularity reasons. Politicians will think twice about entering the campaign if its going to cost them so much. A pleasant side effect of this would be the much celebrated death of the ten candidate primary ‘debate’ circus that we all had to endure.
- The national party conventions will actually mean something.
- The media will be forced to cover other issues because they won’t know who is actually winning and won’t have a singular candidate to prop up and promote.
Of course, the easier thing to do would be to move to a single national primary day and stop all of this ridiculous state posturing and jockeying for position. I think it is incredibly unfair that states far away from where I live have predetermined who I can vote for, especially given the differences between the issues I face in Texas on a day to day basis versus whatever is going on in Iowa, Ohio or New Hampshire.
A national primary day just makes sense.
Unless we learn that Barack Obama is funding terrorists or that he’s got a secret lover somewhere, I think we will see him as the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile John McCain is the mathematical Republican nominee at this point. So, in a race between these two men I see Barack winning in a landslide. Political records aside, the two candidates are very, very different. Given that elections in America allow all adults to vote regardless of their intelligence or understanding of the issues, I think we (conservatives) are doomed. Given the size of our voting population and the things that make people pull the lever, all I can say is this: Beware the power of stupid people in large groups.
Age: People said that Reagan was old when he took office at the age of 70. McCain turns 72 this summer; Barack Obama is 46. Why does this matter? Because at some point during the campaign someone will bring up the fact that the presidency ages a person, and the effect is compounded when that person is already aged. Barack is a vibrant, relatively young and very energetic person. 
Charisma: Obama has it. McCain doesn’t. Obama leads a crowd like a preacher, while McCain relies on often failing humor and the constant reminder that he was once a prisoner of war.
Hollywood: Obama has Oprah and most of Hollywood behind him. View any news site and you will see the pages littered with stories about Britney, Paris, Nicole or the train wreck tart of the week. View the list of most viewed stories at any news site and the topics are sex, murder, death and the bizarre. Most people just don’t care about the issues we face today. They vote based on pictures, sound bites and endorsements from people they are familiar with. McCain has the love of the Beltway boys and even many liberal institutions, but he lacks any sort of popular support from people that the mindless masses will recognize. 
Ambiguity: McCain has been fairly specific in what he will do if elected. And, for better or worse, he has a lengthy legislative record. Obama hasn’t been in Congress long enough to accomplish much of anything, but he makes up for that by using words like “hope” and “change” to make his point. People love emotional speeches… who cares if they lack substance? C’mon… vote for Barack! He’s a great orator!
So, the bell curve distribution of intelligence will prevail and Obama will be elected despite having absolutely no subtance whatsoever other than being the most liberal senator in Congress. What can we expect under an Obama presidency?
-
Rapid withdrawl from Iraq followed by increased civil unrest and death in the region.
-
Hard left legislation including entitlements for illegal immigrants, increased AIDs funding and restrictions on America’s ability to drill for oil
-
Increased entitlement programs that you and I pay for (Medicare, Medicade, etc.).
-
A weaker border.
-
A foreign policy focused on making other countries like us better instead of respecting us for the leader we are.
-
Continued increases governmental spending for pork barrel projects, special interest groups, et al.
-
Overall: More government in our lives, not less.
In other words, if you are not a benefit receiving governmentally dependent low-income worker, you are screwed. But there is hope. The suffering will only last four years because Mitt Romney will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2011. Seeing McCain lose again will be enough to keep him out of office, nevermind the fact that he will be 76 by then. Unless a new conservative star is discovered I fully expect that Romney will enjoy vast conservative support after several years of priming the Republican pump. America will overcome. I have “hope” that we will experience “change” in the next few years. The pendulum that is currently swinging to the left will swing back hard to the right and in doing so will lop off the head of out of touch liberal mouthpieces like Pelosi and Reid.
Obama will serve a single term. I just hope that the damage and unrest he causes are reversable.
It takes more than an honorable military record to lead a country. Yes, McCain is strong on the war on terror… but that’s all he’s got if you are a conservative. He is weak on the border (no matter what he is saying these days). He admits that he is weak on the economy and taxes. He has legislated against freedom of speech. The man considered switching to the Democratic party and was a serious VP candidate for John Kerry.
“But he has all of these endorsements…” you say. That’s because the media is pushing the most liberal “Republican” out there. If they push McCain they in effect get a Democratic nominee with an “R” next to his name. The New York Times slammed General Petraeus yet endorses John McCain. Figure it out.
Mitt Romney is a better choice if you are conservative. He understands finance and economics. He has been a leader in both the political arena and the real world. McCain has not. And what happens if McCain wins the nomination and then the election? What happens after he takes care of the war in Iraq? Does he have us invade Iran? What does he do for us here in the states? We have the economy to deal with, border security, tax reform, health care, etc. He is not the right man to handle our complex domestic issues.
Think seriously about why you support McCain, and/or why you won’t vote for Romney. Ask yourself if you are voting for legitimate reasons, or if you are making a superficial choice that may actually hurt our country.
Please vote for Mitt Romney.
For six years we have been forced to listen to the embarrassing linguistics and limited intellect of President Bush. While you can’t question his patriotism, passion or faith you must admit that the man is not meant to be listened to. He’s certainly not an orator, nor is he skilled at debate. Mitt Romney is both of these and more.
Romney went on a radio talk show yesterday in Iowa. While the interview started out in a normal fashion it quickly turned into a discussion about Mormonism. A web cam captured the whole thing including the very informative and powerful off-air discussions. I haven’t read any blogs about this yet so the following comments are my own.
First, check out the video starting around the ten minute mark: http://www.youtube.com/v/-G9hydflwEQ
In my humble opinion Romney handled himself fantastically. He made it very clear that he is able to separate church and state. He backed up his opinions consistently and articulately. He held his ground despite multiple attempts by the host to cut his answers short (a pet peeve of mine… if you ask someone a question you should let them complete their answer without interrupting them and changing the topic).
I’ve supported Romney for several months already, but I was beginning to lose interest while waiting to hear more from Fred Thompson. However, this video clip has given new life to my support for Romney and I look forward to shredding the emotional rantings that will surely be posted by lefty bloggers. Here are my predictions:
- Lefty bloggers will criticize Romney as being too slick, too clean, too George Hamilton. Is this bad? Bill Clinton was stunningly effective during the town hall debates and he earned the name Slick Willy. I don’t think “slick” is a bad term.
- The left will continue to freak out over the concept of a Mormon in the White House. While making it very clear that he can separate church doctrine from legislation and law, Romney will continue to feel the wrath of the anti-religious left that can’t stand anything having to do with the church.
- Romney opponents will try to apply the terms “waffle” or “flip-flop” despite the fact that Romney’s voting record is clear and consistent.
Way to go Mr. Romney.
