LISTEN LIVE: I co-host on the radio show "Conservative Commandos" Wednesdays 3:00 - 5:00 PM Eastern

I co-host on a conservative radio show 3 - 5 PM EST every Wednesday on -- Conservative Commandos -- on WNJC 1360 AM, heard in Philadelphia and nearby New Jersey. You can listen live over the internet at http://www.duxpond.com/ Click on WNJC at the top. Then click on a media player choice from the next page that opens up.

Recent Published Articles by Jon Moseley

AT AMERICAN THINKER:

Virginia GOP Nominates Conservative Slate

The IRS Scandal -- a Basic Primer

Debating the Heritage Foundation's Immigration Study

Amnesty and the Economy [No, Amnesty Will NOT Grow the Economy]

Obama's Incompetence Exposed by Benghazi Hearings:  What the Hearings Mean

Gun Control Derangement Syndrome

The Warmist Crisis

The Coming Global Warming Voter Backlash

Global Warming? Oops! Never Mind!

Legislating from the Bench on Gay Marriage

Priebus's GOP Autopsy Misses the Point [Editor changed my proposed title]

Outsourcing the Poor

What did Rand Paul's Filibuster Mean?

Rand Paul Shifts Political Orbit

Will Ashley Judd be Kentucky's Obama?

Amnesty = Extinction  Amnesty = Republicans "Going Out of Business

The Debt Ceiling has Teeth

It's the Waste, Stupid!  Cutting Spending Turns on Waste (my title) 

Obama and the Debt Ceiling

The Real Country-Killer in 2013

The Madness of Keynesian Economics

AT BIZPAC REVIEW in West Palm Beach, Florida
Marco Rubio Catches Potomac Fever [Washington Double-Talk on Illegal Immigration]

Fla. bill would ban using food stamps for stripper, casino tabs 
Pinocchio reigns: Lies our government tell us - BizPac Review

Will Dems’ budget blackmail strategy backfire?

Administration scares taxpayers to avoid budget cuts
GOP has unfinished business with liberal media - BizPac Review

Rove’s idea of electability: GOP elites keep getting it wrong

4.7% Mexican Unemployment: Misguided sympathy for illegals harming Mexico, costing American jobs  -- BIZ PAC REVIEW (Palm Beach, Florida)

AT THE TEA PARTY TRIBUNE:

PERSUASION, NOT RETREAT 

WHO LET THE JOBS OUT? WHO IS SENDING JOBS OVERSEAS?

Playing It Safe is Always Dangerous, which GOP Elites

Embrace the Fiscal Cliff 

Are Republican Policies Good or Bad for the Economy? 

THE GREAT “HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS” WARS

AT CANADA FREE PRESS:
Marco Rubio: Old ideas still best - Canada Free Press

Republican insiders in Delaware violated GOP rules and caused Republican losses in November election

You can read my BIO at:
http://www.teapartytribune.com/author/jonathonmoseley/

(click on "show full bio")

Useful News Links and Resources

Today in the US Senate - Calendar      http://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/senate-calendar?ID=27ba45c5-547e-435a-9efb-ee5624cef026

Live feed (sometimes) from White House Press Briefing Room:  http://whitehousepresscorps.org/

Christian News Wire:   http://www.christiannewswire.com/

2012 RNC TV Ad on Benghazi that Romney Stopped from Running

The KILLER R.N.C. 2012 campaign ad on Benghazi that Romney's Weenies blocked from running -- woulda won the race

KARL ROVE IS NOT THE SOLUTION

            Karl Rove should aim his artillery out there at liberals, not point his guns inside the fort.  Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads” Super-PAC announced plans to attack challengers to establishment GOP incumbents.   Yet Karl Rove’s strategies in the Bush Administration cost Republicans Congress in 2006 and probably the Presidency in 2008.    

            Ironically, American Crossroads also just released a brilliant pre-emptive campaign ad against Ashley Judd.  Judd is considering using her celebrity to run as a Democrat challenger to Mitch McConnell.  GOP insiders do know how to fight the good fight against Democrats.  The contrast reveals the missed opportunities of Karl Rove’s war on conservatives.

            The GOP must face a hard truth:  The grassroots will continue to reject establishment candidates.   Endorsement by Karl Rove’s PAC will signal to many that an incumbent is ‘part of the problem.’

From the late 1990’s Karl Rove and other GOP strategists openly walked away from the Party’s conservative roots.   Rove was the architect during the Bush Administration of massive over-spending, adding $4 trillion to the national debt, massive expansion of government regulation, liberal social programs, pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.   George Bush campaigned on a new “Compassionate Conservatism” -- as opposed to that other kind.  

In 2010, the more GOP elites like Karl Rove demanded  “Don’t you dare vote for Christine O’Donnell!” the more eagerly and enthusiastically grassroots voters lined up to nominate her.  Poking a thumb in Karl Rove’s eye was the main reason conservatives donated millions to Christine’s campaign.

 

Insiders want to school the grassroots on their Tea Party “mistakes.”  But Tea Party actions are not accidents.   The Tea Party is a deliberate revolt against big-government, deficit-spending insiders.  That’s why criticism of Tea Party candidates has no effect.    The more the establishment tells the grassroots whom to vote for, the more they vote the other way.

No disrespect intended to Christine.  She deserves to be voted for.  I have known Christine O’Donnell personally.  Contrary to biased reports, she is a smart, sweet, talented, and capable woman, even though she has her ‘human’ moments, as do I.   But the reality is that grassroots Republicans were largely giving the Republican establishment the big raspberry by rejecting Mike Castle.   Republican primary voters knew exactly what they were doing.

            But conservative candidates cannot win, either, while the establishment is slandering the Party’s own nominees.   Let’s revive a tired old quip:  “It’s the Squabbling, Stupid.”  It is hard to win over independents and Reagan Democrats while Republicans are yelling at each other.   

Imagine being invited to Thanksgiving Dinner when you know the host family will scream at each other much of the day.  It isn’t that you don’t like Thanksgiving, but….   you still might prefer to stay home with a peanut-butter sandwich.   The insiders blame loose cannons.  Or is the problem that Party insiders are firing artillery on their own troops? 

Unfortunately, Republican insiders are like a restaurant whose food the customers don’t want.  Instead of changing the menu, they try to slander all the other restaurants in town.  GOP elites have learned nothing.  They are unwilling to listen, learn, or change.  

In December 2009, Rove invited tea party leaders to a closed door meeting in Dover, Delaware, prior to headlining a fund-raiser at Baywood Country Club.   Russ Murphy of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots described the Tea Party meeting to your author:  Rove “bloviated” for a while and boasted about his own importance and top connections. 

Russ Murphy warned Karl Rove that Mike Castle was not coming out to meet the voters.  Christine O’Donnell was earning the tea party vote by spending time talking to them and answering their questions.  Mike Castle was aloof and arrogant.  Mike Castle was simply a lousy campaigner (in my phrasing).  

So did Karl Rove, campaign genius, leap into action and fix Mike Castle’s mistake?   Nope.  Instead, two weeks later, a slick dossier of attacks and smears against Christine O’Donnell circulated in December 2009 to national media, conservative leaders, and Delaware politicos.  The detail and organization of the slick dossier indicates a national institution paid for an extensive research project.   However, the Bylaws of the Delaware Republican Party prohibited the DEGOP from taking sides prior to the May 2010 Statewide convention.    

 The result was to galvanize support for Christine O’Donnell and alienate Mike Castle from the grassroots.   Yet the smears in that dossier were repeated thousands of times all during 2010, and damaged the general election.   Almost everything you think you know about Christine is a lie set in motion in December 2009 by the GOP establishment.   

 Yet there are none so blind as those who will not see.  GOP elites have done nothing since 2010 to win the Republican grassroots back.   The Karl Roves cannot fix the problem because they do not understand what it is.

 

Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley was campaign manager for Christine O’Donnell’s 2008 nomination, worked for her after the 2010 election, and is active in the Northern Virginia Tea Party.

 

Did Obama Violate the Constitution and/or the law and commit Impeachable Violations?

Obama's actions signing Executive Orders may not only be illegal but could even be constitutional violations justifying impeachment, former Attorney General Ed Meese warned in advance of the actual announcements today.

So did Obama actually cross that line or not?  Did he heed Meese's warning and tone down any previous internal plans.  Did Obama violate the law and US Constitution today on January 16, 2013?

As numbered by Fox News, Obama listed 23 executive actions he is taking:

This is an analysis of each of the 23 Executive actions, although this is based only on the headlines. A thorough study of the actual Executive Orders, the full text, would be needed to gie a thorough, final answer. Some of the headlines are incomprehensible standing alone.
 1.Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

ANALYSIS:   The President has the authority as the head of the Executive Branch -- the boss of employees -- to order his employees in how they do their work.  Here, it appears that President Obama is ordering his employees in the Executive Branch to stop doing a sloppy job.  That is legal and constitutional.

However, the kind of data involved is often governed by many different laws, such as the Privacy Act and HIPPA.  Obama cannot order government bureaucrats to take actions that do not comply with those laws.

 2.Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

ANALYSIS:  This is unclear.  Obama cannot change or remove legal barriers.  Only Congress can do that by legislation... unless those legal barriers were created by government regulation in the first place.  Obama can remove regulatory barriers that exceed what the law requires, to bring the Executive Branch into closer faithfulness to the law.

 3.Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

ANALYSIS:   Obama cannot by Executive Order provide any financial incentives or preferntial treatment in the law for States.

 4.Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

ANALYSIS:  As the boss, the President can order the Attorney General to review things and report back the results of a study.

 5.Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

ANALYSIS:  It is proper for government departments and agencies to issue regulations ("rulemaking") to implement laws passed by Congress.  It is illegal for the government to promulgate (issue) regulations that exceed what a Congressional law authorizes or requires.  So Obama cannot lawfully change the law by ordering a regulation to be issued, unless that is what a law passed by Congress already permits.

Here, Obama is not ordering his own employees as the boss (the meaning of an Executive Order) but is purporting to authorize State and local law enforcement to run a full background check.  While States would probably have the authority to do that on their own (if they haven't already), The President by Executive Order cannot authorize State and local law enforcement to run a background check on anyone.

This is likely to be challenged when someones gun is seized.

 6.Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

ANALYSIS:  The President can publish letters.

 7.Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

ANALYSIS:  The President cannot spend taxpayer funds on any such campaign unless funds are authorized and appropriate by Congress.  Obama can go around giving speeches himself.  He may be able to divert some relevant appropriated funds that are available for very similar uses already.

 8.Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

ANALYSIS:  The President can order his employees to study things.  However, it is unlikely in my experience in the bureaucracy that the CPSC will actually do this using its own personnel.  The bureaucracy will want to hire consultants and enter into contracts to have other people study the question.  That would require funds authorized and appropriated by the Congress.

 9.Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
 
ANALYSIS:  The President as the boss of Federal employees can order them how to do their jobs, if consistent with governing laws.   It would appear that if federal law enforcement is not already tracing guns recoverd in criminal investigations -- I'll bet my straw hat they already are -- the boss can order his employees to stop being sloppy.

10.Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

ANALYSIS:  The President can release reports.

 11.Nominate an ATF director.

ANALYSIS:  DUH!

 12.Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

ANALYSIS:   This would appear to be legal, but it probably will require the expenditure of taxpayer funds, which must be authorized and appropriated by Congress.  There are related or similar programs already.  But this would seem to mean that Obama is going to change the criteria for how those program funds are spent.  That may violate the purposes and conditions set up by Congress.

 13.Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

ANALYSIS:  What exactly does this mean? 

 14.Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

ANALYSIS:  Again, the President as the boss can issue orders to his own employees.  But this would appear to require spending taxpayer funds without money being authorized and appropriated by Congress.  The President cannot do that.

 15.Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

ANALYSIS:  The President as the boss can order his Attorney General, whom he appointed and whom serves at the pleasure of the President, to research something and issue a report on it.

 16.Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

ANALYSIS:  The President has no authority to clarify or modify a law.

 17.Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

ANALYSIS:  The President can write letters to people, and people might possibly even believe what the letter says.  However, the President cannot change Federal law by doing so.

18.Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

ANALYSIS:  The President has no authority to provide incentives to schools because taxpayer funds must be authorized and appropriated by Congress and any change in the law granting any non-financial incentive would have to be made by Congress. 

 19.Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

ANALYSIS:  The President can order his employees to develop plans, including model plans.  He cannot require anyone to pay any attention to them.

 20.Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

ANALYSIS:  The President can release a letter, and maybe someone will actually believe what he says. 

However, the President absolutely cannot require the State governments to do anything, which is clearly unconstitutional (says the US Supreme Court)

 21.Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

ANALYSIS:  The President as the boss can order his employees to knock off the coffee breaks, get to work, and finish a task that they are lawfully permitted or required to perform.

 22.Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

ANALYSIS:   Same as 21, although "commit" is like making a New Year's Resolution to stop smoking.

 23.Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

ANALYSIS:  President Obama can talk.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-plan-assault-weapon-ban-universal-background-checks/#HBRF5QM4BgGWa3Uz.99

Review of Romney campaign Reveal How Republican Campaign Consultants destroy GOP

Here is why Republican candidates always lose — stupid campaign consultants:

“Romney’s strategists WORRIED that stressing his personal side would backfire, ”

Faced with a winning action plan in front of them, Republican campaign consultants talk themselves out of almost every thing that might actually work.

Campaign consultants are experts at sitting around and fretting, and squirming, and twisting themselves into pretzels and finding some reason not to do what needs to be done.

Republican strategists are experts at shooting themselves and their candidate in the foot.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story-0.html

One of the gravest errors, many say, was the Romney team’s failure, until too late in the campaign, to sell voters on the candidate’s personal qualities and leadership gifts. The effect was to open the way for Obama to define Romney through an early blitz of negative advertising. Election Day polls showed that the vast majority of voters concluded that Romney did not really care about average people.

Republicans, as it happened, had lost track of their own winning formula. Democrats said they followed the trail blazed in 2004 by the Bush campaign which used an array of databases to “microtarget” voters and a sophis­ticated field organization to turn them out. Obama won in part by updating the GOP’s innovation.

Romney’s inner circle of family and friends understood the candidate’s weakness all too well: He was a deeply private person, with an aversion to reveal­ing too much of himself to the public. They worried that unless the candidate opened up, he would too easily be ­reduced to caricature, as a calculating man of astounding wealth, a man unable to relate to average folks, a man whose Mormon faith put him outside the mainstream.

Romney’s eldest son, Tagg, drew up a list of 12 people whose lives had been helped by his father in ways that were publicly unknown but had been deeply personal and significant, such as assisting a dying teenager in writing a will or quietly helping families in financial need. Such compelling ­vignettes would have been welcome material in almost any other campaign. But Romney’s strategists worried that stressing his personal side would backfire, and a rift opened ­between some in Romney’s circle and his strategists that lasted until the convention.

Should the Republican Party Change its Agenda to Fit the Times?

The Republican Party is torn by conflicting theories.  One part of this conflict is a claim that the Republican party should change its agenda, platform and positions simply to offer a new agenda to keep up with the times.  That is some RINO's are actually insisting that the GOP's platform should change simply to offer something new.  Not something specific or something better.  Just anything new simply to be new.

They argue that simply becuase the Republican Party is consistent and doesn't change in its positions, that is bad and makes the GOP unappealing.  To appeal to the next generation of voters, they argue, the Republican party should be offering something new (apparently always offering something new continuously to each new generation).

But we should ask:  Why would an evolving set of values be desirable?

Why would we ever want to show that the Republican Party adapts?

Republican values are either right or wrong.

They are not a question of fashion — this year’s fashion is dark blue sailor style dresses and next year’s is lace.

Truth is truth. Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

And as soon as you suggest that the Republican agenda is one of changing fashions, you have telegraphed to everyone that you actually, in reality, believe in nothing, stand for nothing and (most of all) know nothing.

Why should anyone follow you if you are willng to change your beliefs like the changing of the seasons or the shifting of the winds?

If you believe in nothing, why should anyone agree with you?

If you believe in nothing, why should anyone believe in you?

If you have no answers (no enduring values or principles) why should anyone trust you?

Better Candidates? Or Better Campaigns? The Food Fight within the GOP

There are at least two major competing theories on how the Republican Party can win:

There is the “blame the candidate” theory.

There is the “run better campaigns” theory.

(There are other major debates as well, such as issues, but meaningful discussion requires taking one major chunk at a time.)

The GOP is paralyzed and tearing itself apart because there is no agreement or consensus or even any common understanding of what others are saying. Each side is so indoctrinated in its own assumptions of what is “self evidently” true (they think) that each side doesn’t even recognize or understand what is being said.

Furthermore, interlopers who want to destroy the Republican party keep giving “advice” to the GOP. This has been going on for decades when the mainstream media and Democrats in national discussion purport to tell the Republican Party how to win, when those giving advice are dedicated to making Republicans lose. So here we have “advice” from those who openly admit they are playing for the other team or eventually make it clear throughout the course of their comments.

So, a lot of energy and words are being given aimed at (a) encouraging Republicans to stab each other in the back and inciting Republicans to fight one another and (b) encouraging theories that keep Republicans untrained and uninvolved, and ensure Democrat victories in the future.

So, the “blame the candidate” theory argues that if only we had “quality” candidates they would  auto-magically follow a “ballistic trajectory” from announcement day to election day, and the outcome of the election would be completely predetermined by simply the quality of the candidate.

Republican insiders push a candidate-based political Calvinism. Pick a great candidate and the candidate will inevitably win just for being such a great guy, like night follows day. The outcome is predetermined simply by the selection of the candidate.

This was Mitt Romney.  Many assured us that (1) Mitt Romney would win because he has no baggage (SURPRISE!) and (2) Romney would auto-magically win just because he is such a “quality” candidate.

This debate is still raging in Delaware, where the “blame the candidate” theory is especially doubtful, because the fabled “quality” candidates choose not to run. The “magic Republican” candidates people hope for clearly are not interested in running for office. Why would they want to?

But the “blame the candidate” theory has great appeal.

The “blame the candidate” theory justifies people sitting at home on their sofas and simply throwing bricks and rotten tomatoes during the commercials in reruns of “Family Guy” and not actually doing anything. If the only problem is the candidate, you can always find something to criticize other than in yourself and your own behavior.

The other theory (“run better campaigns”) requires people to take responsibility, take “OWNERSHIP” of the outcome of election, and to actually make things happen for yourself.

Under the “run better campaigns” theory, you have control of your own participation (at least in part). YOU CAN BE EMPOWERED. You can gain knowledge, power, strength, and influence by your own initiative, not dependent upon anyone else. You don’t need to wait for anyone else. You don’t need anyone’s permission. You are not under anyone’s control. The power is in your hands.

So you can go out and learn more and more and be an expert in how to win elections. You can be the resource in campaigns, election after election, so that candidates need you.

Under the “blame the candidate” theory, there is nothing you can do until the fabled “quality” candidate comes forward (which will never actually happen, because no matter how good the candidate, you can always find something wrong).

And until a “quality” candidate sees that Republicans know how to win campaigns — not just beat each other over the head with campaign signs — what “quality” candidate in his or her right mind would ever enter the race?

But there’s a problem: If you think you know it all already, then you cannot learn more.

Until you realize that there is more to know, you won’t go out looking to learn it.

If you think you have “arrived,” then you cannot rise any higher.

 However, none of this is meant to suggest that anyone should repeat what happened in past elections. However, a person who does not study past experiences to learn from them is impoverished by a failure to learn. What makes civilization a success is when we stand on the shoulders of past generations. We look at past elections *NOT* to hold them up as examples to be repeated, but to gain as much understanding as possible, to do better in the future.

Also, no one is suggesting that better candidates are not better than worse candidates. But if you think that the quality of the candidate is the ONLY component of a winning campaign, you are going to get slaughtered. It is always better to have a better candidate. But candidate selection is only the very early beginning, not the end of the story.

Beware people who want to elect Democrats telling Republicans “Don’t bother getting more training and knowledge on how to win elections.”

If Good Men Do Nothing

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”
– Edmund Burke

“If good men do nothing in the face of evil, are they really all that good to begin with?”
– Jonathon Moseley

GOP Campaign Consultants Badly Hurt Mitt Romney's Campaign

Mitt Romney failed to convince the voters that he would be better than Barack Obama -- because he never tried.  Simply saying that Obama didn't improve the economy is not a logical argument.  Voters are smart enough to ask the other side of the question:  Would you, Mitt Romney, be any better?  Yes, Obama has been a disappointment.  But does it logically follow that Mitt Romney is necessarily a better choice?

Unfortunately, Romney’s Presidential campaign (meaning the campaign consultants who usually ruin the Republican Party) ran a campaign on the strategy of saying nothing more than

• “Him bad! Me no him!”

A year ago Mitt Romney had tons of money and knew that the economy would be the #1 issue and would decide the election, if properly played.

So it is great that only a few days before the election 673 economists endorse Mitt Romney’s economic plan.

But why wouldn’t a campaign with plenty of money put that in motion up 8 to 10 MONTHS ago?

Mitt Romney has never tackled the most crucial question of the entire election:

“Sure, Barack Obama has not fixed the economy, but should we take a chance on you the Republican and the risk that you mght make things WORSE?”

If you are a voter who is hurting, you’re not happy with your life under Obama. But can you take a chance on the economy getting even worse if Republican policies would cause a re-run of the 2008 economic crash.

Cheerleaders for the establshment Repulicans fail to understand:

If you are a voter struggling with this economy, you survived (almost) one economic crash. You cannot afford to risk another economic crash. So if there is even the slightest chance that Republican policies might cause another crash, a rational voter would choose a bad Obama over a “worse” Romney (as they might perceive it).

Republican political gurus have run away from the issue, because they always run away from every issue and have the spines of wet linguni, for the last 4 years.

Well, now that negligence and cowardice is coming home to roost.

Republican gurus allowed Democrats to get away with bald-faced lies about what caused the Democrat-inspired economic crash in 2007 and 2008. EXIT POLLS RIGHT NOW are showing that a majority of those showing up to vote blame the bad economy on George Bush. That is very bad news for Romney, because it gives a clue to WHO is turning up to vote.

I have been in those meetings with self-proclaimed campaign experts when they wring their hands and squirm in their seats and wet their pants over the prospect of EXPLAINING something decisively and forcefully to the voters, countering Democrat lies, and taking a stand on anything. They think they are brilliant and clever by saying absolutely nothing of substance in a campaign.
While Mitt Romney has dramatically over-performed early expectations of him as a perceived establishment Republican, his actual campaign apparatus has struggled under the albatross of traditional Republican mistakes.

Delaware Election Results Explode Christine O'Donnell Myths

Delaware election results just dropped a nuclear bomb on political theories among Republican moderates and liberals.
 
In 2010, Christine O’Donnell got 40% of Delaware’s heavily-skewed Democrat electorate for US Senate, despite nasty civil war within the Republican party nationwide and in Delaware.

No, this is not about her. This is about YOUR understanding of how elections work and what is going on politically in Delaware.

In 2012, even Republican Mitt Romney only equaled in Delaware Christine O’Donnell’s vote — both at 40%.

How do all the “haters explain how Mitt Romney did no better in Delaware than Christine O’Donnell did for US Senate? Both got 40% of the vote.

In 2012, Republican candidate for US Senate Kevin Wade = 29%

Republican candidate Tom Kovach candidate for US Congress = 33.4%

Republican candidate for Governor Jeff Cragg = 28.6%

Republican candidate for Lt. Governor Sher Valenzuela = 37.1%

Republican candidate for Insurance Commissioner Benjamin Mobley = 36.8%

Now, let’s REVIEW.

WHY? TO LEARN. To PLAN for next time. To do better next time. To build a house on a firm foundation of sound strategy, not on clouds of self-delusion.

So if we put all the theories to the test…. Are all those theories wrong?

Why under the various theories did Christine O’Donnell do BETTER than all of these Republican statewide candidates?

If one's theories don’t work, do you re-examine our political theories, or do you dig in and believe in fairy tales?

Get Some SLEEP on Election Night -- We Probably Won't Know Results for 10 Days

I believe we will not know who our next President is for at least 10 days.  Ohio will be very close.  So a recount is likely.  And there are a huge number of Ohio voters who will be casting PROVISIONAL BALLOTS because they requested absentee ballots but did not return them, according to one report on Fox News (by a commentator not a journalist).  So when they go to cast their votes in person, they will be allowed to vote but only with a provisional ballot.  Those provisional ballots won't be counted for 10 days.  Not a recount.  They won't even be counted the first time for 10 days, while officials verify the voter.

Update on Liberal Democrat Cat

The liberal Democrat cat is no longer begging at our door.  The cat was last seen running off with another, bigger cat.  Yup.  Typical.