Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Now that the much anticipated Republican resurgence has taken hold in the more sensible parts of the country, it's time to consider just what it would take to unseat the Marxist-in-Chief in light of our newly conservative-leaning electorate.

Let's do some simple math, starting with McCain's low watermark Electoral College results as a baseline (173). Thanks to what's expected to be some favorable migration trends in the 2010 census figures, several Republican states will gain electoral votes, mostly at the expense of Democratic states that are hemorrhaging residents fleeing excessive taxation and regulatory overreach in droves. Factoring in rough estimates of this redistricting effect, McCain's Republican Electoral College total gains 4 votes to 177.

Next, let’s review the 2008 results for states The ObaMarxist won that are most likely to flip back to the Republican column, presuming a particularly lackluster or polarizing candidate isn’t chosen. It’s a short list, but a weighty one in terms of post-redistricting electoral votes: Florida (29), Indiana (11), North Carolina (15), and possibly (hopefully?) Ohio (18). Add these combined 73 votes and we now stand at 250, a short hop from the 270 victory threshold.

It may be a short hop, but it’s a daunting one. Looking again at the 2008 results for possible Republican pickups, we’re left with few easy options. Virginia (13) appears to be the best hope for a flip given its Republican tilt in past Presidential elections. After that, what state would be next? Is Colorado (9) ready to reverse course in spite of its recent embrace of liberal idiocy? Maybe. Iowa (6)? The site of His Holiness’s ascendency? Doubtful. Nevada (6), with Harry Reid’s machine at full steam? Unlikely. New Hampshire (4)? Unpredictable. New Mexico (5)? Probably not. Pennsylvania (20)? That’s a tough road, even with the fresh Republican shift and a stalled economic recovery.

So, that's the situation as of today. Taking back the White House is doable, but let's not kid ourselves. It's likely going to be a long, grinding, bruising fight, focused on a handful of swing states. Ready to party like it's 2004?

Back of the envelope figures below:
---------------------
2008 EC Results:
DEM: 365
REP: 173
---------------------
2010 Census EC Shift:
TX +3 + ->3
FL +2 + ->5
AZ +1 + ->6
CA +1 - ->5
GA +1 + ->6
NV +1 - ->5
UT +1 + ->6
IL -1 + ->7
IA -1 + ->8
LA -1 - ->7
MA -1 + ->8
MO -1 - ->7
PA -1 + ->8
NY -2 + ->10
OH -2 - ->8
EC Net Gain: +8
---------------------
2008 EC + 2010 Shift:
DEM: 365 - 4 = 361
REP: 173 + 4 = 177
---------------------
Likely Changes:
FL 29
IN 11
NC 15
OH 18
Likely Net Gain: +73
---------------------
Possible Changes:
CO 9 (2008 Margin: 9%)
IA 6 (2008 Margin: 9%)
NV 6 (2008 Margin: 12%)
NH 4 (2008 Margin: 9%)
NM 5 (2008 Margin: 15%)
PA 20 (2008 Margin: 11%)
VA 13 (2008 Margin: 7%)

Possible Max Gain: +63
Required Gain: +20
---------------------

Saturday, March 27, 2010

With the stroke of a pen last Tuesday, His Holiness The ObaMessiah dealt a crippling blow to Canadian national identity. For decades, most Canadians have answered the question “What is a Canadian?” with the obtuse reply, “We’re not Americans.” Inevitable prompts for a more substantial and less sophomoric explanation were almost always met with the equally insipid “Um…we have national healthcare”, as if their embrace of socialized medicine was somehow unique in the Western world. Taken literally, the standard by which many Canadians blithely define their national character could be aptly applied to Australians, Danes, or Mexicans. Such has been the existential crux of Canadian identity for a generation: a nation defined first by what it is not, then by the sacred cow of a welfare social program their reviled neighbors have only partially adopted. Now that His Holiness has set the wheels in motion for a gradual implementation of universal healthcare in America, Canadians will be forced to come up with another answer to the age-old question. Sure, “We’re not Americans” is still factually true of Canadians, but neither are they Brazilians, nor Klingons, nor Hobbits. The corollary is the key; if Canadians are to persist on pitting their identity on some socialist handout their cousins do not provide, then they must up the ante and devise a bold new welfare program to tout. How about Universal Housing, or Universal Food Provisions, or a guaranteed living wage for all citizens? Any of these initiatives would quell the looming identity crisis nicely.

With that same historic pen stroke, His Holiness also implicitly recognized the sovereignty of Imaginationland. By enacting sweeping universal healthcare reform legislation to cover 32 million people, reduce deficits, lower costs, and maintain a world class standard of care without the threat of rationing, fantasy has officially become reality. Of course, this obviously settles the case of Cartman v. Broflovski. It also poses a grave new threat to personal security. Sure, passing the Senate healthcare bill means that we as a nation now believe that unicorns and leprechauns are real, but then so are zombies and vampires. I don’t have nearly enough ammo to fight them off. Plus, like many of you, my house is frame-constructed, not brick, so zombies could just claw through the walls if they were so inclined. In short, we’re all fucked.

All hail His Holiness The ObaMessiah. Praise be unto Him.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

George Washington would approve...

Newt laying it bare...a must watch clip, even for the moron swing voters who now regret drinking The ObaMessiah's tainted Kool-Aid last November...

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

If only...


Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Saving the planet, Hopenhagen-style

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Money Quote:
"We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars."
Just f#*king priceless...

Saturday, December 05, 2009

A poignant, rational assessment of the ObamaCare monstrosity lumbering through the Senate...Are you listening, California?...

Thursday, December 03, 2009

My New Toy...

Friday, October 23, 2009

I’m forming a Mock Squad. Who’s with me?

I think it’s due time that we collectively, as a civil society, revisit the concept of shame and to whom shame-inducing humililation should be directed. I have come to this conclusion after having been dragged yet again to a U2 concert by my wife. No, I’m not suggesting U2 should be ashamed of their latest indulgent, hackneyed album, which is unlikely to spawn a single memorable hit despite glowing reviews by the fawning music critic corps. I’m referring instead to U2’s rapidly graying female fan base, many of whom are now in their mid-30’s to late 40’s, the prime bonbon-eating house-frau demographic.

Ladies, if I may speak frankly, I understand your natural temptation to tart it up for a special occasion, but a night out to see Saint Bono and his potato-eating minstrel show does not give you carte blanche to embrace your inner groupie whore and transform yourself into an offensive eyesore for the rest of us, particularly straight men. For the most part, we’re not winking at you; we’re whincing at the sight of you. We care not to gaze upon your saggy, braless racks swinging pendulously in your low, low tank tops. Those little butterfly and dolphin tattoos placed strategically somewhere on your now ample torsos have long stopped being cute and suggestive. Now they’re just creepy and sad. The low rider jeans you’ve donned were created with a specific body type in mind, and are not intended for mommies who still retain a good portion of their pregnancy weight. (Here’s a good rule of thumb: if it looks like bread dough is rising from your gut and hips, take them off.) Coping with aging is hard, but no amount of badly applied makeup and curiously unnatural hair dye will hide the fact that you’re not 22 anymore. Just accept it and present yourself accordingly.

Guys, you’re not entirely immune from some well deserved ridicule, either. Though you’re thankfully less prone to revealing flesh than your desperate housewifes, much of what you wear to cover that flesh on a night out has taken on a distinctly douchebag-ish tone. Can you please just stop with the superfluous Ed Hardy T’s, the shirts with the inexplicable eagle crests emblazened on them, the tight partially faded designer jeans, and the hipster Fedoras? (Here’s a good rule of thumb: if it looks like something Jon Gosselin has been photographed wearing, take it off.) Men look their best by keeping it simple. When they embrace ill-conceived style fads like a Eurotrash metrosexual, they are ripe for well deserved mockery.

In the old days, shame kept people in line and saved the rest of us from being distracted by the buffoonery of those trying way too desperately to relive their youth. Ah, what a lovely time it was. It’s up to us to end this lunacy and bring shame back with a vengeance. I’m forming a Mock Squad. Who’s with me?

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Do you believe in unicorns?

I’m not being facetious; it’s a legitimate question that goes to the heart of the raucous health care reform debate in which the whole country is currently mired. I’ll explain.

Various incarnations of socialized medicine have been implemented in jurisdictions spanning the entire globe since the 1920’s. That’s over 80 years of accumulated empirical evidence we can examine to determine what sorts of government mandates and interventions in the health care arena appear to work, and which ones do not. For policymakers, the rational approach to reform would be to consider this evidence and advocate policies implementing the measures that are clearly beneficial and eschew those which have proven most consistently to be detrimental. Based on what is buried in the competing mammoth bills of what has thus far been labelled ObamaCare (or KennedyCare now that the senior Senator/murderer from Massachusetts has finally expired), it is abundantly clear that no such rational approach was taken in the name of "reform". It seems as more and more people actually take the time to read the bills and share their findings, more details emerge about how extensively the core of the Democrat "reform" effort emulates the failed policies of distressed and bankrupt socialized medical systems at home and abroad.

Far be it from me to impugn the motives of liberal Democrats as sinister. So, short of that, what am I to conclude from the approach they have taken in drafting their proposed "reforms"? I’m left with only one other explanation as to why they would ignore the lessons of history and drive forward so vigorously with such flawed proposals. Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result." Ergo, the sanity of The ObaMessiah, his acolytes in Congress, and the 30% of Americans who still strongly favor his version of health care "reform" is suspect. If you can convince yourself so thoroughly that adding 47 million people to the health care system will not only cost nothing, but actually save $1,000,000,000,000, then you are certainly capable of believing fictional characters are very real and walking amongst us.

So, if you support The ObaMessiah’s health care "reform" agenda, I ask you, deep down...honest to God...no kidding around...for reals...Do you believe in unicorns?

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Zeke’s eye and some thoughts on ObamaCare...

Zeke, my six year old Beagle/Retard mix (see profile pic), punctured his right eye last Monday chasing a bunny through some thorny brush, which prompted a trip to the closest animal hospital with a 24-hour emergency room. As I sat in the waiting room with the furry moron, it occurred to me that I was smack dab in the middle of a pure market-driven, fee-for-service medical operation, albeit for veterinary care. It was a bonafide working model of a system that is far more efficient and desirable than anything His Holiness The ObaMessiah was pitching on his ABC infomercial in typical snake oil salesman fashion.

Granted, I wasn’t overjoyed about shelling out $166 for an emergency exam and some eye salve, but Zeke did receive prompt and professional care from a skilled and courteous vet staff. Had I purchased pet health insurance for him previously, it might have been preferable to my own coverage. Unlike me, Zeke is unemployable; he does not have opposable thumbs, a brain larger than a kiwi, or the ability to speak. Consequently, his range of insurance options is defined by the marketplace, not by his employer, and is mostly free of onerous regulations. His insurance would not be subject to artificial inflationary pressures from state-bound coverage mandates or bureaucratic meddling with reimbursement and rationing. Lucky, care-free little bastard. I haven’t decided if I’m actually going to buy him some insurance in case his next bunny hunt goes horribly awry. If he gets hit by a cement truck in the process, I can always have him euthanized.

My trip to the animal ER also reminded me of a story about a former boss of mine (a committed liberal of the 60’s hippie variety) who once paid $10,000 for a series of surgeries to save a stray cat that died a few months afterward. He was also a huge proponent of single-payer universal health care. I don’t think the rationale behind these threads are unrelated, as they offer a glimpse into the pervasive empathetic reasoning that has obscured rational assessments of socialized medicine’s true cost. The mainstream news media and Hollywood have worked diligently the past two decades to push hard for the universal care agenda by playing the empathy card to a society that seems increasingly swayed by feelings and imagery over substance and reasoned argument. By exploiting exaggerated medical horror stories in a two-pronged approach, they have consistently demonized HMOs, the insurance industry and greedy doctors, and lauded the supposed greatness of socialized medicine in other counties while conveniently ignoring the substantial drawbacks. The true source of America's healthcare problem, government, is never labeled as such; rather, government is invariably celebrated as a benevolent provider to the ever-ailing masses.

Ultimately, the inflation and inefficiencies that plague the US medical system stem from market distortions caused by Ponzi-esque government programs and burdensome regulations that pervert the price mechanisms necessary for a viable and free health care marketplace. In spite of this rather obvious fact, here we are, 15 years after the death of HillaryCare, on the cusp of adopting myriad radical changes at the federal level which would distance us even further from a free market solution, with guaranteed disastrous fiscal and medical consequences. I can't say I'm entirely surprised. This is, after all, just the sort of “change” His Holiness promised to deliver. Sadly, we've drifted far from the days when less bombastic presidents could speak openly about affirming the limits of federal power without being considered a cruel heretic. It was Silent Cal who once said, “Government should not assume for the people the inevitable burdens of existence.” Now that's the sort of “change” I can believe in. Yes, I can!