Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Vote for...


Yes, I know. This is never going to be a "political" blog. Then again this is not about politics but anti-politics.

The Presidential casting of every McCain vote in California is worthless. Wasted.

Let me explain. McCain will never carry California without already having enough electoral votes to gain the office with or without California. Yes, a twelveth of the electorate is irrelevant to the contest. This frees us leaners in both directions up to vote conscience and/or message.

"None of the above" has its attractions.
Green would encourage a nanny state.
Cthululu is unlikely to accept a draft.
Whointheheck is the Libertarian candidate this year? Says volumes that I don't even care.
There's an answer. Understand, he doesn't stand a chance. He is not in my opinion even qualified. And that's a pretty low bar seeing as I consider all four big ticket candidates qualified. Echoing the attached graphic, I find the 2008 candidates a case of the evil of two lessers. So, here's the answer:
Write in Ron Paul.
Okay, I just washed my hands. Call me Pontius. This is a message vote. And none of this secession stuff. California would never allow the USSA to retain nuclear capability after the split.

N.B.: Saying Kalifornia is irrelevant is not exactly correct. 20% of the money for the campaigns will most certainly come from within the State.

18 comments:

Jean ValJean said...

Pretty much the same as an Obama vote in Texas. He will probably carry Dallas county and Travis (Austin) county, but will lose the state.

Jean ValJean said...

Oh, and FIRST MURST & LIVERWURST!

Jean ValJean said...

Watching the the Paulson/Bernanke hearing...
" I don't have an MBA, but I could have taken and run down Merryl Lynch to the ground so that Bank of America could buy it, if I was known I was going to get paid $90 million for it. I'm just saying, that's what happened!"
--Some Congressman at the Paulson/Bernanke hearing whose name I don't know, but just became one of my favorites.

chickenlittle said...

CTHULHU? NO
TURU yes!

Rob Dawg said...

JVJ,
!st, 2nd, 3rd.

I don't know where everyone is today. Probably loading up on whiskey and gunpowder.

It's so weird to see people who we know are going to vote yes arguing so effectively as to why this blackmail alarmist concoction is dead.

Rob Dawg said...

chicken,
Cool, I liked the one with the electricity monster and the one with the WW-II nazi and his dog "Willie" the best. Must be why I look like Race Bannon today.

Casey Serin said...

Must be why I look like Race Bannon today.

Did you shave your walrus mustache, Walrus? ;-)

Pleather Murse said...

Well, if any Cali repubs own a second residence in a swing state ... vote early, vote often. Heh.

Pleather Murse said...

I think Bob Barr is the Lib candidate.

Son of Brock Landers said...

pleather murse is correct, lib candidate is bob barr.

i find it amusing that congressmen who have watched the deficit nearly double in 8 years are arguing over the costs of a bailout. It's like they want to draw the line in the sand now. Grandstanding, useless grandstanding.

If the California initiative to allow electoral votes to be awarded to who won that congressional district (like in Maine) had passed: 1. no democrat would win the white house for 20 years or until they moved to the center and 2. california would be a much visited state by the candidates rather than a pitstop to raise money.

Rob Dawg said...

Son of...,
Exactly, California is a vast and productive generally mainstream to conservative land burdened with SF and LA.

CA is taken for granted by the Dems and snubbed by the Reps. The intercine squabbling prevents the delegation from being effective in D.C.

Lex said...

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin, candidate of the Constitution Party, of whom I know nothing other than what's in his Wiki entry.

What a waste of a remarkable campaign. Based on past performance, the Libertarians would have done better by nominating Howard Stern.

serinitis said...

What I have been mulling in my mind is some highly leveraged gambling positions on the Election. No foreign country (except possibly Saudi Arabia) want the Republicans to win. There is also a slight possibility of race riots if Republicans win. Obama needs to be ahead by 5% to make up for the Bradley affect. If the race is real close near the election would a highly leveraged bet against the dollar be a good idea?

Son of Brock Landers said...

@rob dawg - it blows my mind that the state had gov wilson for two terms and then slipped into the left coast abyss. I do think it is possible for a GOP candidate to win Cali again in a general election for prez, but it just might have to be a current or former governor of CA. Like one that might balance a budget. Gosh, my allergy meds are making me talk crazy.

@serinitis - Pshaw, to say there might be race riots if obama loses is racist! i will report you to the obamacorps immediately. I do agree the bradley effect will be in play but maybe less so than 20 years ago.

serinitis said...

I don't think there will be race riots. But if Obama shows 2-3% in the polls and still loses, the liberals will not accept the election results. How that will show up, I do not know, but it will not be good for the country.

California regularly elects moderate Republicans to statewide office. And McCain would have had a real chance at California if Bush wasn't so over the top bad.

wagga said...

So CA is overtaxed and under-represented?

Eruca sativa (Arugula) party coming up soon in Marin County!

Lab Dog™ said...

Vote Arugula!

Pleather Murse said...

I think the short dollar play (via UDN for instance) may be a good play. The trillion-dollar Paulsen plan is likely to be highly inflationary. The other etf I like is the TIP (inflationary bond fund.) I also like USO and GLD, but only on a pullback.