TexasCHLforum.com

Skiprr wrote: Third: It's been stated as absolute fact that Texas is a foregone conclusion: 34 electoral votes for McCain. Done deal: nothing can change that.

There can be only two sources of information from which to derive this dangerous (IMHO) assumption: recent state political history and poll results.

To the former point: If you're under 35 or so, you don't remember anything but a Republican Texas. Fact is, Texas has been staunchly Democrat far longer than it's been Republican. The first Republican Governor of Texas in over 100 years, since the Reconstruction, was Bill Clements, elected in 1978. He was defeated by Democrat Mark White in '82, but came back to win again 1986. The Republican Party in Texas really came into its current position of strength around 1984 when we saw Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Phil Gramm on ballots.

So, in truth, Texas has been strongly Republican for only the past 24 or so years. A very short time.

Now here we are facing a financial crisis the likes of which the country hasn't experienced since the Great Depression.

We have a sitting Republican President with (unfairly, I think) some of the lowest approval ratings in U.S. history (Gallup pegged Bush at a 25% approval rating in October, just three points higher than Truman in 1952).

We have the largest recent-immigrant population, by total number, in the history of the State of Texas. See the story a few weeks ago where the U.S. Census Bureau published its estimate: one in three households in the Greater Houston Metropolitan Area speak Spanish as the primary language at home.

I'll add here my opinion that legal immigration is to be encouraged and appreciated.

Given the facts of today's environment, I'd say our short hold on Republican dominance is very much in jeopardy. Our position November 4 is tenuous. It certainly is not a foregone conclusion.

Fourth: Election polls are more prevalent and accessible than at any time in history, and citizens don't scrutinize them with the level of analysis and skepticism needed. I posted about this on another Topic. To risk annoying The Annoyed Man with repetition...

Opinion polls are an art, not a science. All of statistics is based on extracting the most accurate assumptions without having available complete data from the entire possible universe of targets. The key word is "assumption" because polls and surveys have to work with only a portion, a sample, of that total universe.

In fact, when polls report their "margin of error" (e.g., plus or minus 4%), they really take into account only sampling error, because of the four major types of survey errors that's the only one that can sufficiently be quantified. The other biggie sources of errors are coverage error, measurement error, and non-response error. In the instance of Presidential polling, I'd point to coverage error and non-response error as the non-quantifiable factors that offer the greatest chance for inaccuracy.

Pre-election polls serve valuable purposes, but I wish they weren't as prevalent. Remember when, in October of 2004, Newsweek polls had 47% of the vote for Kerry, 45% for Bush, and 2% for Nader?

These are opinion polls, random surveys, and they have a very real potential to mislead and to affect voter behavior.

The last poll results I saw for Texas (Rasmussen, October 23, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... index.html) showed McCain ahead by 10 points. As things go, that's a respectable lead. But does it mean a McCain/Palin win is a foregone conclusion? Absolutely not.

All it would take for a Republican loss in Texas is for a healthy number of Republicans and Libertarians to assume the state is done-deal Red, and either stay home or vote for an independent candidate or a write-in.

Then bingo, NObama could walk away with 34 electoral votes by a very slim margin...for example, by less than 400 popular votes, like New Mexico in 2000.

Think about it.

longtooth wrote:

pedalman wrote:As much as I would like to vote my conscience and select Bob Barr on the ballot, I would have to go with McCain on this one. I still remember the fiasco that occurred when Ross Perot ran for office.

I do too & I am one of the guys that voted for him. That was a mistake.

kalipsocs wrote:Why? How is it a fair election that a few select people decide the next president than the total count of votes for the entire country? Not to mention no one is riding on horseback as fast as they can to get the vote in! Times change and its hardly fair that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a couple other states get to choose the next president.

The Annoyed Man wrote:
First, let me say that it is not my intention to be disrespectful, so please don't take what I write next that way, but I absolutely could not disagree with you more. So, let's unpack what you've said here...

First:
You said Obama is favored by the ignorant. Well, that makes somewhat more than half of the nation's voters then to be ignorant. (I prefer the word "deceived.") If their ignorance causes them to favor Obama, and his policies reinforce their ignorance, then they aren't likely to change, are they? Therefore, 4 years from now, virtually all of those voters will still support Obama... ...plus the additional votes he picks up between this election and the next. That's not much of an awakening. It took Russians 80 years to decide they didn't like socialism. Guess what? My mother was there recently, and a huge number of Russians miss the old days and would like to return to a more socialist system. That's not much of an awakening. Most of Europe has been largely socialist for 50 years or more. They still like it that way, and whenever the government of France threatens to cut back entitlements even the tiniest bit, tens of thousands of people riot in the streets and burn cars. That's not much of an awakening. When you institute socialism, you rob the people of the ability to make future decisions in a responsible manner. They never get it back. Maybe they do as a small number of individuals, but not as a people. If Obama gets the chance to institute his socialist policies, they will be here permanently. Even if it does change, it can take many decades, and as the Russian example proves, they often want it back after they've gotten rid of it. Imagining that people will change their socialist tendencies once they've had a taste of the real thing is wishful thinking.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Second:
The Rasmussen polls are polls of likely voters, which means a heck of a lot more than other polls, and which is why they are so respected by both major parties. It's like the difference between asking all gun owners if they prefer Glocks or 1911s, or asking just those who are most likely to actually buy one or the other 3 weeks from now. The second group will give you a far more accurate answer, because they are the ones actually putting their money where their mouth is. Any poll showing a McCain lead of 19% is just plain loopy because it is not based on likely voters, so you're basing your hope in that regard on a chimera. I realize that the polls take Libertarians into account, but if a reliable poll shows a McCain lead of 9%, and your argument persuades the most conservative elements of the Republican voters to do what you are doing because they are not satisfied with McCain (and many of us are not entirely satisfied with him), then that 9% dwindles to nothing, and Barr's smooth talking has given the state over to Obama. And, any reputable pollster will tell you that their number has a margin of error of +/- 3-4%. So, if McCain's lead shrinks in Texas to 3%, then an Obama victory in Texas is well within the margin of error, so McCain doesn't really need to lose all 9% to risk losing the state.

Third:
You're also assuming that, if Obama gets elected, the people who elected him won't like what they get. That's a false premise. They are voting for him precisely because he stands unapologetically for what he says he stands for - even if he doesn't like to use the "socialism" word. They are going to be delighted with him, because they stand for exactly the same things they do. It is conservatives who aren't going to like what they get, and they already know he's a train wreck waiting to happen. BTW, I have heard a number of experienced political strategists, liberal and conservative, who actually work to elect electable candidates state that they believe that an Obama administration will last eight years, but that a McCain administration will likely only last 4 years - which would give conservatives time to lift up another candidate who has better credentials. Their opinion is based on actual working experience. Yours is based on wishful thinking. Mine is based on a healthy fear of Obama.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Fourth:
Who are those Obama voters comprised of? They are the 40% who don't pay any taxes at all anyway of the 95% that Obama always talks about giving a tax break to, who are going to receive a handout of money they haven't worked for, paid for by the money he has ripped off from those who actually paid taxes. They are every single grievance group of racial minority, who in the aggregate, comprise 40-50% of the general population and who have been successfully exploited by Democrats in the politics of racial division and class warfare. They are are not going to reject Obama's brand of socialism because their wallets will be fatter because of it without doing any additional work. Do you think for one minute that, on a political landscape in which playing the race card is now the standard tactic whenever someone cannot confront logic with logic, that logic will ever again have a chance in electoral politics? Nope. This particular election season has forever changed the way politics is done in this country. An honorable candidate with a wealth of good ideas cannot get elected in America anymore if his ideas depend on the personal responsibility of the electorate in order to work. As a libertarian, you should be doubly aware of that fact.

Obama's administration will excuse people from the consequences of their actions or lack thereof and will no longer require it from any of them. In fact, he has already tried to redefine personal responsibility, with some degree of success by the way, as the duty to pay higher taxes on the part of the wealthy so that the less wealthy don't have to be responsible. You don't like what republicans and democrats are forcing down your throat right now? What 'til Obama's president. He's going to force it on you, but it won't be down your throat, it will involve some other part of your anatomy. Once a sitting president has taught 150 million people that they no longer have to be responsible for their own conditions because government will do it for them, do you seriously think that the next president can ever convince them of anything different? It ain't gonna happen. Not in 4 years. Not in 16 years. That opportunity will have sailed for distant ports, and it ain't a comin' back.

In Conclusion:
So you can go ahead and give your vote to Barr if that's what floats your boat (even though voting 3rd party is functionally the same thing as giving it to Obama), but that choice ignores boots on the ground political reality, and reality makes no allowances for yours or anybody else's wishful thinking. Reality just is what it is. In a close election (and this one does appear to be tightening up), if McCain loses it will be the fault of conservative people who did exactly what you are advocating. Welcome to Obama's world. I hope you like it, because you'll never again see the world you want. It will have been permanently altered. You're not going to have the chance to change it back in 4 or 8 years. That's not a realistic expectation because the sin of socialism will have already been released from Pandora's box and set fully into motion (see the Russia example above). It is far easier to say "No, you can't have that" than it is to take back what has already been given away. Similarly it is almost impossible to regain a right that has already been lost. Remember that the Democrats are very confident, with some reason, that they will pick up a filibuster proof super-majority in Congress this go around. And, they will have a sympathetic president if Obama is elected. What are you going to do when Obama's "common sense" solutions say you can't have a CHL anymore? What are you going to do when Obama's "common sense" solutions make you surrender your AR/AK? What are you going to do when Obama says you can't buy centerfire rifle ammunition for hunting anymore because it is too powerful, and you don't need something that powerful? What are you going to do when Obama says you can only own a revolver, in .22 long rifle, and it must be stored at the local police station, because all semi-automatic pistols have been reclassified as machine guns? (Don't believe it? Look at DC's gun laws, which Obama supports.) They will have the political muscle to enforce all those things, and there won't be a single thing that any conservative can do about it - short of an armed insurrection. A Republican president with the power of a veto is the one thing that stands in the way of all this.

After you've lost all those things, are you going to come back here and opine that in 4 years, you'll get all those rights back? Ask the English and the Australians how well getting their gun rights back worked out for them. In case you've forgotten, it didn't work out well for them at all - and that is the vision that Obama has for this country. He wants us to be exactly like Europe. Speaking of Europe, what are you going to do when an Obama administration makes preaching what the Old Testament says about homosexuality into a crime of hate speech, like it is in Switzerland and Germany, where a pastor can be imprisoned for it. Talk about "failed policies!" That is what voting your bedrock conservative conscience will do for this nation during this particular election cycle if you can't see you're way to compromising with the more moderate elements of the Republican party even just for this election.

At almost any other time, I would say go ahead. I might disagree with you, but vive la difference. I just don't believe we have that luxury this time.

I'll stop here. The Bible was certainly right that "Pride goeth before the fall." Like I said, I call myself a conservative, but I certainly hope that conservative pride doesn't take us to the fall. Because we'll never recover from it.

That's my 2¢. I realize that I probably didn't say one thing to get you to change your mind. Again, I meant none of the above in disrespect. I just profoundly disagree with you.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Kalrog, I appreciate what you're saying, but I couldn't disagree more. It's a false strategy. As I posted above, Rasmussen shows McCain up by 9% (in a fluctuating and volatile polling enviroment). If 10% of Texas votes libertarian this year, OBAMA GETS THE STATE'S ELECTORAL VOTES!! That's just plain old math. There's no way around it. So the more you encourage Texas libertarians to vote for Barr instead of McCain, the more you encourage an Obama win for the state's electoral votes. Your vote is not without consequence. If your strategy blows up in your face and Obama wins Texas, it will not be the fault of Texans who voted Democrat - because they are currently behind by 9%. It will not be the fault of Texans who voted Republican - because they voted to maintain that 9% lead. However, it will be the fault of Texans who voted third party - because they voted to squander the Republican lead.