Remind me not to make any more donations to the Kern County Republican party. Apparently they have "left" me.

There's probably some truth in what Duncan said.  There's a whole lot of irrational prejudice in the Republican Party since, well, decades.

FreeCognate, well said!  I agree with your analysis.

The Hannities and Limbaughs et al, who have been railing on about how bad McCain is, will soon be glorifying him. Oh it will take them a while, they don't want to look too stupid. But as the weeks pass, they'll change their tune from McCain would be a traitorous disaster to, well, he wasn't my first choice as the Republican candidate, but he'll make a fine President. Let the backpedalling begin. LOL

For those Republicans that think a conservative is a traitor for choosing McCain, maybe you should take note that you are in the minority of who the Repubs want in office.

Fourth, electability is key. McCain is the only candidate who polls well against both Clinton and Obama for the big election.

Dream on. In raw numbers, Clinton came in first, Obama second and McCain third. Nobody that voted for Clinton or Obama is going to jump ship and vote McCain in November. Well except for me if it's Clinton, but how many of meez are there?

I think you are taking Duncan's words out of context here, he believes that people took Romney's religion into consideration. I would guess that come the general election Duncan will be working to get McCain elected because of the reasons you outlined in the rest of your article. Your analysis is filled with assumptions about Duncan's views and has only one quote from him.

“Mitt Romney lost in Kern County because there were a lot of people who just could not accept his Mormon religion. I don’t even like to think about it, but that’s what I believe.”

From this quote all we really get is that during his work as Executive of the Kern Republican Party people would not consider Romney because of his religion and he doesnt want to think about it because he believes that is a very low thing for his party to do.

You also have to understand that the vote was very close here in Kern County (36.8% for McCain to 35% for Romney) and California's 22nd congressional district (37.2% for McCain to 34.7% for Romney) according to http://vote.ss.ca.gov/ . That said, a small number of people with extreme beliefs could swing numbers that close.

What it shows, if true, is that a hell of a lot of people who think "faith" is an important issue mean *MY OWN FAITH, AND NOBODY ELSE'S*.

.

Robb, I hope for your singularity.  Somewhere there's a count of D vs. R votes in the primaries so far--excluding Michigan and Florida (special cases) it was like a margin of five million in favor of the D's so far.

@ robwillis - i think we're talking about different polls.  when i'm discussing electability, i'm talking about the national polls asking voters who they would vote for in particular matchups.  namely:

clinton vs. mccain

http://www.realclearpolitic...

clinton vs. romney

http://www.realclearpolitic...

obama vs. mccain

http://www.realclearpolitic...

obama vs. romney

http://www.realclearpolitic...

Real Clear politics does an excellent job compiling the data.  if you looked at those collections of national polls, romney is beaten soundly (double digit losses) against both Clinton and Obama.  McCain largely loses to Obama but the losses are close and McCain beats Clinton, although again the difference is very close.  I don't mean to give the impression that McCain is unbeatable, he is certainly not.  However, when compared to Romney, McCain performs much better in all national polls against both Democratic candidates.

I would rather have run against Romney (a phony known as such to the public) than McCain (a phony not known as such--yet--to the public.)

.

But it's early yet.

Wow, thats a pretty big statement to make of someone based on a  small qoute.

Polls are one thing Jessica, real votes are another. You can tell me McCain has a better chance(slim and none and slim just left town), based on polling. I'm telling you the republicans got stomped on Tuesday and are going to get stomped in November. I don't like it, but if Clinton gets the nod, she'll beat McCain like Nixon beat McCarthy. Fortunately, there's nine months to pull a gaff. 

It looks like it is down to three people, all of them Senators.  I just don't think the problems in Washington are going to be fixed by Senators switching chairs...

Cognate, McCain is going to have to do a complete 180 if he expects to get my Republican vote.  Keep bashing conservatives and you can forget about my vote in November. Hell, I might even suicide vote just to spite that POS..

He certainly has not earned my vote with his pathetic congressional record.

The winner isn't going to switch chairs, she's going to switch to the Executive Branch with a whole lot of newly-minted "unitary executive" powers.

.

No problem with Weathervane McCain doing a complete 180.  He's done it once already this week.

@Bakersfieldblogger,

I don't believe I took Duncan's quote out of context.  He thinks religion decided the vote, i don't.  I'm not attacking Duncan, I'm simply disagreeing with him.  It's really as simple as that. 

The accusation of religious discrimination is fairly serious, don't you think?  If there were exit polls to support Duncan's statement as true, that would be one thing.  However, there isn't, and as one of the Republican voters who didn't support Romney, I felt a personal need to set the record straight.  I may personally feel that Romney's religion is problematic, but that didn't influence my vote.  I do not expect to ever vote for a candidate whose religious views exactly mirror my own and I have never selected a candidate based upon religion. 

I am criticizing the ultra-conservative radio personalities and any "suicide voters" who would vote democrat just to spite McCain.  I have no reason to think that Duncan is either of those.  There are a lot of reasons that Republicans such as myself didn't vote for Romney and they have zero to do with religion. 

You say "Sixth, Romney can be rejected outright for his spending."  Who the hell are you to say how a person can spend his own money.....sounds very Demo!  I was an hour away from voting for Romney because he had the best character of the candidates.  I voted for McCain because of the venom and hatred bu the lady filling in for Laura Ingram.  Why all the hate?  How could anyone vote for Clinton instead of McCain?  Crazy talk.

"Sixth, Romney can be rejected outright for his spending."   Romney spends his own money.  That should be the way its done, not demanding the taxpayers pay for political campaigns.  Hell, Johnny Jackass has missed a ton of votes while he's pimping for my vote.

And for the last 2 decads, McCain has had NO PROBLEM spending my money.  Well, Johnny Jackass, get ready to get a REAL job cause you are not getting my vote.

@ Roysan and Ronmexico

What part of "Romney is entitled to spent his own money anyway that he likes" was unclear? My criticism was not focused upon Romney's right to spend but on his poor fiscal judgment in that he ignored the clear warning signs that his campaign was in trouble by using his own considerable financial assets to float a failing campaign. 

Let's look at the numbers.  This is just using 2007 data.  At the end of 2007, the Republican frontrunners and their fundraising totals were:

Romney: $88,499,686

McCain: $41, 102, 178

Huckabee: $8,986,532

Now lets look at the delegate counts after Super Tuesday:

Romney: 279

McCain: 720

Huckabee: 197

Romney's campaign donations budget was double McCain's and ten times that of Huckabee.  His poor results demonstrate the inefficiency of the campaign.  Using just the 2007 figures and not including January 2008, Romney paid $317,203 for every delegate.  If you adjust for the fact that roughly half of the total contribution figure was Romney's own money, that means that Romney personally paid roughly $150,000 per delegate.  In contrast, McCain's entire campaign has spent $57,086 per delegate and Huckabee has run a very efficient campaign that amounts to $45,616 per delegate.   Don't conservatives care about financial efficiency? I do.  The decision to dig deep into personal funds wasn't a good sign.

What part of "Romney is entitled to spent his own money anyway that he likes" was unclear?......Well, maybe it was this part..

"Now, Romney is entitled to spent his own money anyway that he likes but I as a voter have zero respect for a wealthy individual attempting to buy an election."

I guess I am unclear about the last part of your quote....SO, you have more respect for someone that uses taxpayer money to finance their bid for President???  THats just fine if you like Johnny and his band of big spenders spending MY money in Congress, and then telling ME that I don't pay enough taxes and shouldn't get a tax cut.. Meanwhile, he turns a blind eye to the flood of illegals coming over the border.

I have zero respect for John McCain. Sorry..he's got a lot of work to do after 20 years of pissing on conservatives.

Since when did enforcing border laws and lower taxes became the dominion of the Far Right??  I thought those two principles were shared by all Republicans and Conservatives.  I guess not...Looks like two more reasons to stay at home on election night.

 In contrast, McCain's entire campaign has spent $57,086 per delegate and Huckabee has run a very efficient campaign that amounts to $45,616 per delegate.   Don't conservatives care about financial efficiency?

Yup, I certainly like financial efficiency, especially if someone is spending my money.  And Johnny has done a piss poor job of being a good capital steward with MY money.  Also, I don't like the bullshit backroom politics McCain and Huckabilly entered into.  Maybe you do.  Maybe that is how the "center" does things....

From Time magazine http://www.time-blog.com/sw...

"Here are the numbers just for the 19 states where both parties had elections yesterday

Obama/Clinton voters: 14,460,149
McCain/Romney/Huckabee voters: 8,367,694

Or, 73% more Democratic voters than Republican voters."

McCain has not, and will not, inspire anything close to the turnout that the Dems are getting. He will lose by a larger margin than Mondale did.  And deservedly so. He lost me forever with his shamnesty bill last year.

Ron, you do realize that the figures that I quoted were all contributions figures, right?  None of that was "your money," unless of course you chose to donate to someone.

As for your "confusion" over my quote, I think you demonstrate a compelling reason why reading comprehension requires an understanding of context.  Yes, it is quite possible for me to respect the right of an individual to spend personal money freely while also not respecting the decision to funnel millions of dollars into a failing campaign.  That shows very poor decision-making on the part of the candidate.  Without his own money, Romney would have had a budget equal to McCains.  Yet he performed significantly worse with double the budget.  Why is that?  Because Romney continued to lead a campaign that failed to resonate with the bulk of the Republican Party, despite his endorsement by ultra-conservatives, and instead of changing his campaign to try to appeal to a greater diversity of voters, he just kept throwing in his own money.   

I think it's good for our political system that elections haven't devolved into "the richest candidate wins."

Hmmm,  Honey, maybe you could define for me what an Ultra Conservative is...  I never considered my position on taxes and enforcing existing laws to be ultra conservative, yet you continue to paint with the broad brush of Ultra Conservative.   Mr. Straight shooter (lol) now says he believes in tax cuts and enforcing existing border laws.. Wow, he's turned into an Ultra Conservative now??........Uhoh, how is he going to appeal to the voters that think the "rich" people shouldn't get tax cuts?  How is he going to appeal to the voters that think the evil corporations should pay more taxes?/ How is he going to "resonate" with the voters that think the Chief Executive should turn a blind eye to enforcing existing laws???

I am not your "honey."

I have attempted to address your arguments with respect and evidence.  It is obviously a wasted effort.

Your candidate lost, get over it.  Don't worry.  In a few months, Rush and Sean and Co will be telling you to vote for McCain and you can pretend that this is all just a bad dream.

Ummm.... Romney was not my candidate.  Neither was, nor is McCain.  My candidate is the one who believes in "main stream conservative values".  Question still remains.  Since when did enforcing existing border laws and supporting tax cuts become "Ultra Conservative"????

Ron,

They sound like common sence to me...................

Has McCain ever held a job outside of the government? 'Cuz we know about the expectations of government employees (being and ex-employee myself).

McCain's going to see this picture a *LOT* in the coming months:

Looks like true love to me.

In the "Valley of the Blind" ronmexico, the man with one eye is an "ultra conservative"!

See if perky freecognate can cypher that!

No learning, your feeble attempt at pseudo-intellectualism failed.

What it meant was that in your world anyone with an IQ above 80 is a veritable genius.

No cyphering necessary.

...and Learning, the only Skelton you've ever read, I cyphered, is Red.

Learning says: "Saberhagen: yah, you missread my post:  I was mocking ronmexico.  Which makes you look pretty foolish for calling me an idiot and despicable.   I will hold my breath until after you have taken an adult literacy course, reread my comments and offered an apology."

I revisited your wry "honey" post directed at Jessica, but still failed to clearly see the "mocking" of ronmexico you intended. I guess you felt the quotes would indicate that. If that was indeed your meaning and intent, then please accept my humble apology.

You add: "Oh and your free-ranging rant about how awful everything is was just plain stupid."

Thank you for your input, but I have no apology for my opinion which you have so tersely characterized as showing a lack of intelligence.

Apparently, you strongly reject my personal assessment of McCain's qualifications to lead the next administration and/or my feelings regarding the present administration's achievements.

Fair enough.

But stupid?

Without hearing your voice, its tone and inflections, seeing your eyes and body language, it's nearly impossible to accurately perceive the emotion, if any, that might lie behind this derogatory and potentially inflammatory comment.  

But the words by themselves seem to suggest a passionate or possibly angry response to what I wrote.

I don't know whether it's anger or disgust that you feel toward my stupidity.

I actually reread my rant to see if it was indeed inane enough to evoke such a response.

Maybe my stupidity lies in the fact that I still don't see how stupid what I wrote may actually be?

Perhaps you would elaborate?

What may even be dumber is that I prefer to believe that this is simply another classic case of blogger's miscommunication such as my earlier misinterpretation of your"honey"  meaning. After all, it's not uncommon in this meduim.

But if not, then might I accurately conclude that you won't be inviting me over for dinner and meaningful conversation any time soon?

BTW, I believe your closing comment about the need for centrist government is exactly right. "This country needs the center to grow and prosper or the worst, those at the fringes, will destroy it."

Eloquently stated.

I wish I had said it.

I also wish for intelligent leaders whose philosophies embrace rational centrist thinking and application of government.

Does that then make us both stupid?

Ron : I never said "ultra-conservative" meant "enforcing existing border laws and supporting tax cuts ."  You haven't asked my opinion on those issues and i think if you did, you just might be surprised by the answer.  i did say that Rush and Sean are ultra-conservative.  Please explain to me how Mr. Hannity isn't a member of the far right.  I'd love to hear who you think is to his right.

But I'd love to hear more about your understanding of the political spectrum - if you think McCain is liberal, then what about Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama?  Dennis Kucinich?  Do you think they're all the same  - that they're all liberal?  Do you not see different layers and gradations of conservative and liberal?  Are you going to pretend that the conservative radio voice of the party didn't try for weeks to skewer McCain, painting him as the worst of liberals?  Are you further denying that now they still want their pound of flesh, that Sean on Fox News tonight didn't continue to press his case that McCain needs to bow to conservative pressure and change his horrible ways? 

I frankly don't care who you vote for in the national election.  That's your choice.  I hope you don't decide to "suicide vote" because I think that cheapens the voting system.  We're very fortunate to live in a nation where we enjoy the free exercise of voting rights.

Randomfactor: Hilarious pic, thank you for sharing.

Saberhagen:  Thanks! I think? =p Yes, that pic is sadly me.  I hate it but my husband likes it and talked me into putting it up.  I'm not out to defend McCain, at least not right now.  I look forward to see how the next 9 months progress.  I don't think McCain is perfect; however, I do think that he was the best Republican option available to California voters.

 I am glad that he won because it does show a clear move toward the center after years of the Republican party swinging too far to the right.  There are many reasons to prefer McCain over the alternatives and the reasons to prefer have zero to do with religious prejudice.  And, well, the response of the far right has been downright funny.

Learning: I thought you were joking but appreciate the explanation anyway.  We must have a similar sense of humor. 

Excellent comment: "This country needs the center to grow and prosper or the worst, those at the fringes, will destroy it."