Within the memory of at least a couple of generations, as Nevada goes in the federal elections, so goes the nation. The GOP would be wise, indeed, to keep this as creed.
The way I see it is thusly: Nevada, unlike many, MANY states in our great nation, is not alltogether unlike the human body. We are currently the fastest growing state in the nation, with a large transient population figuring in the overall electoral process; prior to containing a population over six digits Nevada was largely driven by the mining industry with a *gasp* transient population figuring into the electoral process. What Nevada has, and many states do not have in such numbers, is the transient vote. As years progress the transient vote dilutes and concentrates (as do so many of the waters in the Great Basin) , yet it does remain. This translates into something of a "bloodflow" of national sentiment running through our state. This "bloodflow" is essentially the same as what runs through the nation as a whole, and since that transient part of our population comes from the nation as a whole the national sentiment tends to be reflected.
Require proof? The last time Nevada sent electors for a candidate who didn' t win the Presidency was 1908 when the Nevada majority voted William Jennings Bryan over William Howard Taft. That was one hundred years ago!!!
In perspective: that was the same year that the Cubs won the World Series for the LAST TIME; Arizona and New Mexico were both, as of yet, territories. (As an addendum, Nevada was the ONLY West Coast state to send electors for J.F.K. in 1960.)
In an entire century, including some monumental upsets, Nevada has voted with the winner each and every time since 1908, as well as in 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, and 1888.
In other words: since statehood in 1864, Nevada has voted in opposition to the victor in 1880, 1884, 1892, 1896, 1900, and 1904***.
So, in one hundred and forty four years and 37 Presidential elections, Nevada has NOT voted for the winner six times.
31-6. I'd say that's a pretty fair handicap.
I won't even keep that a secret for the GOP; this is history at its finest. Watch Nevada! Here is history, precident, and future all wraped into one neat little package!!!
WATCH NEVADA!!!
***In fact, in 1892 Nevada voted with the "populist" candidate (Weaver) with Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, and parts of North Dakota and Oregon!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Jill Derby...in the Interest of the Fairness Doctrine
I'll keep this one short.
I don't like her. Not one iota. In fact, my dislike for her quite possibly transcends my dislike for Obama. She's another greasy change band-waggoner and, frankly, I find her "aw shucks" presentation of herself to be patronizing.
Despite the aggressive campaigning from both sides, Dean Heller has been a fine representative for the Second Nevada Congressional District. Indeed, I would be fairly upset to lose his representation.
T'other day I noticed that the DNC felt compelled to advertise for Ms. Derby, I reckon with a feeling that this district was, possibly, winnable for the first time in its nearly thirty year history. The DNC ad does two things which really get under my craw more than just about anything else: one, it quotes only the Las Vegas Sun, and two, it refers to those quotes as being from a "local paper." Um, different city, 450 miles away, completely different district(s). Talk about patronizing, the best that can be argued is the opinion of an editorial staff in the "second" paper of a city eight hours away from 'almost' everybody which exists in a separate, distant congressional district? She is culpable for this nonsense, at least by proxy, and if this is the best that she is able to muster ('I'm not a Republican and it's time for a change and those people waaaaay down there agree') then she obviously does not take Northern Nevada seriously enough to warrant her election.
So let me say this now: if you, Jill Derby, win our representation, I will make it my mission to blog you out! It will become a personal vendetta, and I will relish each and every savory, dillish second.
In the interest of the possible reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine," I offer a Democratic response to the above post:
I don't like her. Not one iota. In fact, my dislike for her quite possibly transcends my dislike for Obama. She's another greasy change band-waggoner and, frankly, I find her "aw shucks" presentation of herself to be patronizing.
Despite the aggressive campaigning from both sides, Dean Heller has been a fine representative for the Second Nevada Congressional District. Indeed, I would be fairly upset to lose his representation.
T'other day I noticed that the DNC felt compelled to advertise for Ms. Derby, I reckon with a feeling that this district was, possibly, winnable for the first time in its nearly thirty year history. The DNC ad does two things which really get under my craw more than just about anything else: one, it quotes only the Las Vegas Sun, and two, it refers to those quotes as being from a "local paper." Um, different city, 450 miles away, completely different district(s). Talk about patronizing, the best that can be argued is the opinion of an editorial staff in the "second" paper of a city eight hours away from 'almost' everybody which exists in a separate, distant congressional district? She is culpable for this nonsense, at least by proxy, and if this is the best that she is able to muster ('I'm not a Republican and it's time for a change and those people waaaaay down there agree') then she obviously does not take Northern Nevada seriously enough to warrant her election.
So let me say this now: if you, Jill Derby, win our representation, I will make it my mission to blog you out! It will become a personal vendetta, and I will relish each and every savory, dillish second.
In the interest of the possible reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine," I offer a Democratic response to the above post:
"I disagree."Fair enough.
How Bad Can it Be?
In all reality I do not anticipate any drastic horrors from an Obama administration.
First off, he's not a child. He's young, granted, but not so young that he doesn't recognize his limitations. He's also shrewed, and so he'll make sure to surround himself with the best people he can muster; he can't afford to look bad. His inner circle, you can bet, will be very strong and immanently qualified.
Second, chances are he's going to run in 2012 and he's made an awful lot of moderate promises. He has the "gift," the "Jedi mind trick" as Mary Catherine Ham calls it (mmm...ham...): whenever evidence is presented regarding prior statements, prior acquaintances, prior voting records, he merely states that it is "untrue" and, largely, people believe it. If someone produced evidence that he's from a Martian colony about one hundred miles from the Olympus Mons base camp and green, slimy tentacles spurted from beneath his off-white shirt, he'd simply retort: "No, there's no truth to that whatsoever...by the way, McCain has voted with Bush over 90 percent of the time! Now does anyone know where I can find some tungsten?" Through that, he has seemed to cast his more extreme views aside and convinced a majority of the public as to his, well, sanity. With that, coming across as of sound, reasonable mind, feeling people's pain and understanding their plight (i.e. trying to appease at least 50% of the population) he cannot afford to take a strong ultra-left stance on just about anything. Something may get by, and he may even use his "Jedi mind trick" to get away with one or two, but he really can't to much more than that if he wants to have a prayer in 2012. And the one or two that he could get away with cannot be shoot-the-moon, big-ticket items, either. Sneak in strict government oversight of health insurance? sure; re-enact the Revenue Act of 1932? asinine, but possible; repeal the second amendment and force the general populace into communal apartments? not likely.
On top of that, the rest of his party want their chances, too, in 2012 as well as the midterm elections in 2010. If he were to go too crazy I'm pretty sure that enough Democrats would reach across the aisle and, at a minimum, support a censure resolution to temper him just enough to get through a couple more election cycles. Same, really, applies for 2014 if he were re-elected. That leaves two years where he could go crazy, which is scarcely enough time for anything serious to happen. And pretty sure the Party is going to want their cake in 2016, too, so I'm not too worried.
That's not to say that some really drastic changes may not be in the works. It is very plausible that he could try to levy some Hoover-style tax increases, and if he's studied even a tiny bit of Great Depression history, he knows that is a catastrophic mistake. Even so, his wealth distribution is likely a bit more remarkable than Hoover's Revenue Act. In 1932 the tax rate was raised across the table on an ascending scale. Obama's basically puts the burden only on a fraction of the population...unfortunately, it's the portion that largely drives the economy. But, and I'm no real economist here (I can add, and I can figure out a lot of variables if I have at least a modicum of information), I sense his plan turning out more FDR-style than anything: whatever legislation he and a democratic congress pass won't solve the problem, but it won't make it a whole lot worse, either. So there will likely be some shake-up, but in the end nothing much worse than where we are now; things seem to be stabilizing, though there may be fluctuations (either or both directions) for awhile, but nothing too drastic, at least not in the greater scheme of things. Plus his wealth distribution "benefits" the vast majority of Americans, at least on the surface: the electorate, at large, will be pacified.
Then again, I could be horribly, horribly wrong; it has happened before.
Still, I'm not too worried. We, as a nation, have elected socialists in the past and we're still here today to reflect upon it.
Which is another glorious factor to consider. Think, for a moment, about all the propaganda out there, all the signs that exist what tell us that this man may, possibly, try to rule this nation in a Lenin-fashioned elitist style. Some friends went to a local Obama rally and returned with Che-style t-shirts (quite frightening, actually) in olive drab with Obama appearing as Che...well, you get the idea; I can't, for the life of me, find a copy on a Google image search! Anyway, from those shirts to the Soviet-style signs...well, nothing exists in a vacuum, and someone, somewhere (Obama, a campaigner, someone) felt inclined to include those as campaign materiel. It is quite possible that there is a distinct and vapid (at least for me) shock about to take place, and there is evidence to support that theory. If so, in the face of such evidence, then the United States is about to grasp that pendulum and swing wildly, and all within the guise of the established system. In the time that we've been a nation some countries have moved from Monarchy to occupied territory to autonomous, democratic nation, to fascism, to socialism, often with horrible hinge factors at each turn. In this country it has happened before, and it could be happening again; but only twice has blood been seriously spilt; once over an eight year span in order to gain our independence, and again 78 years later in what would become a "doozey" of a brawl. We have not been a country where every generation has been touched by open revolt! And, if some pundit's predictions come to pass in the next 24 hours, we won't here, either.
So take me for what I am...a young(ish) guy, possibly trying to calm himself down with stories of..."hope."
First off, he's not a child. He's young, granted, but not so young that he doesn't recognize his limitations. He's also shrewed, and so he'll make sure to surround himself with the best people he can muster; he can't afford to look bad. His inner circle, you can bet, will be very strong and immanently qualified.
Second, chances are he's going to run in 2012 and he's made an awful lot of moderate promises. He has the "gift," the "Jedi mind trick" as Mary Catherine Ham calls it (mmm...ham...): whenever evidence is presented regarding prior statements, prior acquaintances, prior voting records, he merely states that it is "untrue" and, largely, people believe it. If someone produced evidence that he's from a Martian colony about one hundred miles from the Olympus Mons base camp and green, slimy tentacles spurted from beneath his off-white shirt, he'd simply retort: "No, there's no truth to that whatsoever...by the way, McCain has voted with Bush over 90 percent of the time! Now does anyone know where I can find some tungsten?" Through that, he has seemed to cast his more extreme views aside and convinced a majority of the public as to his, well, sanity. With that, coming across as of sound, reasonable mind, feeling people's pain and understanding their plight (i.e. trying to appease at least 50% of the population) he cannot afford to take a strong ultra-left stance on just about anything. Something may get by, and he may even use his "Jedi mind trick" to get away with one or two, but he really can't to much more than that if he wants to have a prayer in 2012. And the one or two that he could get away with cannot be shoot-the-moon, big-ticket items, either. Sneak in strict government oversight of health insurance? sure; re-enact the Revenue Act of 1932? asinine, but possible; repeal the second amendment and force the general populace into communal apartments? not likely.
On top of that, the rest of his party want their chances, too, in 2012 as well as the midterm elections in 2010. If he were to go too crazy I'm pretty sure that enough Democrats would reach across the aisle and, at a minimum, support a censure resolution to temper him just enough to get through a couple more election cycles. Same, really, applies for 2014 if he were re-elected. That leaves two years where he could go crazy, which is scarcely enough time for anything serious to happen. And pretty sure the Party is going to want their cake in 2016, too, so I'm not too worried.
That's not to say that some really drastic changes may not be in the works. It is very plausible that he could try to levy some Hoover-style tax increases, and if he's studied even a tiny bit of Great Depression history, he knows that is a catastrophic mistake. Even so, his wealth distribution is likely a bit more remarkable than Hoover's Revenue Act. In 1932 the tax rate was raised across the table on an ascending scale. Obama's basically puts the burden only on a fraction of the population...unfortunately, it's the portion that largely drives the economy. But, and I'm no real economist here (I can add, and I can figure out a lot of variables if I have at least a modicum of information), I sense his plan turning out more FDR-style than anything: whatever legislation he and a democratic congress pass won't solve the problem, but it won't make it a whole lot worse, either. So there will likely be some shake-up, but in the end nothing much worse than where we are now; things seem to be stabilizing, though there may be fluctuations (either or both directions) for awhile, but nothing too drastic, at least not in the greater scheme of things. Plus his wealth distribution "benefits" the vast majority of Americans, at least on the surface: the electorate, at large, will be pacified.
Then again, I could be horribly, horribly wrong; it has happened before.Still, I'm not too worried. We, as a nation, have elected socialists in the past and we're still here today to reflect upon it.
Which is another glorious factor to consider. Think, for a moment, about all the propaganda out there, all the signs that exist what tell us that this man may, possibly, try to rule this nation in a Lenin-fashioned elitist style. Some friends went to a local Obama rally and returned with Che-style t-shirts (quite frightening, actually) in olive drab with Obama appearing as Che...well, you get the idea; I can't, for the life of me, find a copy on a Google image search! Anyway, from those shirts to the Soviet-style signs...well, nothing exists in a vacuum, and someone, somewhere (Obama, a campaigner, someone) felt inclined to include those as campaign materiel. It is quite possible that there is a distinct and vapid (at least for me) shock about to take place, and there is evidence to support that theory. If so, in the face of such evidence, then the United States is about to grasp that pendulum and swing wildly, and all within the guise of the established system. In the time that we've been a nation some countries have moved from Monarchy to occupied territory to autonomous, democratic nation, to fascism, to socialism, often with horrible hinge factors at each turn. In this country it has happened before, and it could be happening again; but only twice has blood been seriously spilt; once over an eight year span in order to gain our independence, and again 78 years later in what would become a "doozey" of a brawl. We have not been a country where every generation has been touched by open revolt! And, if some pundit's predictions come to pass in the next 24 hours, we won't here, either.
So take me for what I am...a young(ish) guy, possibly trying to calm himself down with stories of..."hope."
Before the Regime Change
Know, ye, who have battled hard in these uncertain times that your fight has not been in vein. Be that as it may, you fight is also far from finished. We know not what will come through this change of regime, what perils may be forthcoming, and we may have to settle into our trenches and prepare for a long battle of attrition.
In these precious hours prior to the general election, do not despair! This great nation has seen extremes between adjacent leaders in the past and has survived, as we, the nation and its citizens, will continue to do. But it will take courage and fortitude to overcome inevitable inequities and the possibilities of internal strife.
The road ahead is, indeed, uncertain, but we have the choice between fearing the possibility of darkness and grasping a lantern to trudge onward with renewed vigor. I chose the latter.
Sleep well tonight, and face the future with you head held high.
In these precious hours prior to the general election, do not despair! This great nation has seen extremes between adjacent leaders in the past and has survived, as we, the nation and its citizens, will continue to do. But it will take courage and fortitude to overcome inevitable inequities and the possibilities of internal strife.
The road ahead is, indeed, uncertain, but we have the choice between fearing the possibility of darkness and grasping a lantern to trudge onward with renewed vigor. I chose the latter.
Sleep well tonight, and face the future with you head held high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
