Tidbit of the Day, from Rasmussen:

Democrats now have a net advantage of 3.3 percentage points over the GOP. In June of 2004, the Democrats had a 2.5 percentage point advantage. Please keep in mind that these figures are for all adults, not Likely Voters. Republicans typically do a bit better among Likely Voters (in fact, the two parties ended up even among those who showed up to vote in 2004).

The whole "registered vs. likely" thing has been explained in great detail (see here and here for examples) but is just one more reason why the numbers you see (and WILL see) from the MSM polls are likely to be skewed.

Otto's thought for the day: Politics is first and foremost about winning. "If I were a Reepub candidate"...I would hit that ANWR issue like a heavy bag. If my opponent is on the record for voting or verbally in favor of the caribou over the humans, I would make a huge point of it. There is going to be a LOT of anger about gas prices come November, and most of it will be initially aimed at the incumbents.

Finally, in the "Libs Say The Darndest Things" department, the following:

Wednesday, November 3, 3:15PM...For many opponents of Bush, this election has been a wrenching event, not unlike a death in the family.

This was blogged by a freakin' PROFESSOR at freakin' PRINCETON, the day after the 2004 Presidential election -- and not some liberal arts weenie either. The guy is in freakin' MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. Anecdotal, to be sure, but to me perfectly illustrative of how religious these people are about their politics. A death in the family?! Are you kidding me?!

When you take that kind of irrational emotion into the market, any market, you're gonna get yer clock molecularly cleaned. I hope Prof Wang has some dough in the IEM. So does Dixi.

After an absolutely shite day at work, I haveth not the energy to go link-searching for some evidence/date to back up my claim on this one...more to be done on that front. But at any rate, here's the theory:

As has become clear from the last two presidential elections, there is a clear separation, voting preference wise, between the bigger cities (Democratic) and the more rural areas (Republican). Population is supposed to be roughly equal for every House seat; in other words, the one representative from the great state of Montana has about the same number of constituents as one of the representatives from the not-so-great state of Maryland...both around 400K or so. Not sure about other metro areas in the country, but at least here in DC, the Democratic candidates win BIG...not unusual to see 20 or 30 point margins of victory. But it wouldn't matter if the margin was a hundred points...there's only one seat up for grabs. Thus, the most accurate polling for the House outcome AS A WHOLE would involve a statistically random sampling FOR EACH SEAT rather than a nationwide poll that did not take specific Congressional districts into account.

This, of course, accounts for the following:

A) Eve of the 2002 off-Prez election: Nationwide poll shows 48-48 preferences

B) Actual result: Republicans gain 6.

My guess or rough rule of thumb, based on the above, is that each percentage point in the nationwide poll represents one seat -- or, that if a poll showed a six point lead for the Donkeys (let's say, 50-44), that in reality the outcome would be a net zero for both sides -- stasis.

That's one of the things I'm basing my big RGain bet on.

More reasons to follow...

I'll be referencing Rasmussen a lot in the run-up to November. His track record for the last six years or so is outstanding. Personally, I think Zogby used to be the best, but then something happened...it's like he went corporate or something (which he probably did) and started conducting all sorts of weird, generally anti-conservative polls that of course got big play in the Dinosaur Media. See ya, Zogs...

Anyways, today's short comment is about a number I think you'll hear/see quite a bit between now and the election. Nationwide party preference numbers. It's a good quick soundbite for the Demmies, and I KNOW it will boost their confidence and also have some effect in the IEM market traders. I happen to think that number is misleading vis a vis the market outcome. This week's posts will explore why.

More to come...

'Sup...yeah, I'm back...

On a specialized blog thang. Iowa Electronic Markets' 2006 House Bonanza. Visited the site two weeks ago to see if there was any action vis a vis the off-Prez election. Sho 'nuff. My baby girl Dixi, the '05 Windveil Blue Mustang with the hottest ass EVER, needs a new set of pipes -- shorty headers, to be exact -- and I need some windfall kwon to make the purchase.

And once I saw the share price of the "Republicans Gain" action, I wrote a check for $100 faster than you can say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" and mailed it to the Tippie Homiez. I'm so confident of a big payday right now, I may just go ahead and get the shorties next week, and then make a deposit of 1,000 clams or so come November to cover the bill.

A thousand? Yeah, I think that's about right. As of COB yesterday, here was the price info:


07/21/06 RH.gain06 .097
07/21/06 RH.hold06 .469
07/21/06 RH.lose06 .442

Meaning, in the winner-take-all format, if ol' Otto can get about 10 cents to the dollar on a purchase price, that's a thousand shares...at one dollar per share after the win.

So how can I be so cocky about this right now? You watch the Evening News lately? (Yeah, I actually did, tonight, NBC...a new low, I'm so ashamed.) Nothing but one horror story after another. Lebanon, Iraq, gas prices, the searing heat, the scorching drought, the shaky stock market, the Dubya stem cell veto...hellfire and brimstone for the full half hour. Kind of strange and kinky coming from a bunch who pretty much flat-out do not believe in God.

But that's actually Reason Number One why that RHGain price is so unbelievably good to me. It can't get much worse than this, if you're a Republican strategist. Toss in the whole Abramoff thing too, while we're at it. This is about as bad as it can get, I think.

And so what does Rasmussen say? Bush's ratings are up since mid-May. Up 6% for Strongly Approve, and up 8% for overall approval. Meaning...bring on more bad news. Especially on the international front.

If Hezbollah and OBL had half an ounce of clue about the American electorate, they would take a long summer vacation. Just let everything wind down for a bit. Then the MSM would pick up the slack and start talking up the deteriorating quality of baby formula, or the repressive nature of Christian outreach missions to New Orleans, or some such drivel that plays well with the gals. As long as the war is the top story, the Demmies will lose more seats. That, my friends, is a stone GUARANTEE.

Reason Number Two, at least as of right now: Congressional districting. Tommy The Hammer (DeLay) did such a good job of gerry-rigging the maps, it will take a Kennedyesque act for most incumbent Elephants to lose. I don't really agree with gerrymandering, but let's be honest here, you lefties...your side did it like it was going out of style when you ran the show. It's part of the package when you take over, a Spoil Of Victory. DeLay was every bit as ruthless and effective redrawing those lines as Carl Albert or Jimmy Wright or the Tipster or any of those Democrat magnates were. THAT, I think, is why he was so despised by the Left.

But you know what? In the end, I'm just a freaking contrarian. If RHLose were at 7 cents, I'd buy it. I cannot stand large groups or the thinking therein, so I'm just gonna pick the lonely orphan and run with it like freaking LaDainian Tomlinson. Dixi will thank me...and that's plenty enough.

Stick THAT In Your !@#$% Pipe

Let's see how much the Self-Appointed Defenders Of Freedom will have to say about this...

No smoking -- OUTSIDE. In Calabasas, California, home of the famous frog-jumping contest (?) and hardcore Leftists.

All of the Usual Suspects have been soiling their shorts big-time over the Bush Big Brother Wiretapping tempest...where the authority is limited to people having conversations (no doubt to book those Dream Vacations) with places like Iran and Sierra Leone.

But Otto expects to hear some Simon & Garfunkel, The Sound of Silence, from those wingnuts when it comes to Calabasas' Brave New City...a place where:

-- Second-hand tobacco smoke is "a toxic air pollutant"

-- Magnanimously, private residential property is exempt from the happy new law, "other than housing used as a childcare or health care facility when employees, children or patients are present" (emphasis Otto's -- and also note that it will be a very short step for some future "activist/lawyer" to argue that houses of parents with kids are in fact providing "childcare" and thus are in fact INCLUDED in the ban)

-- The wise Overlords of the City apparently can read people's minds and habits, since "The city said it would relax the ban at times when non-smokers aren’t present in a public area"

-- Passing the buck -- to, where else, PRIVATE INDUSTRY -- is the preferred method of coercion ("Business owners will be responsible for ensuring that all employees and patrons comply with the new law")

And for yer coupe de gracious, The Big Taco:

Individual citizens can report offenders to the city and officials will determine how to handle fines on a case-by-case basis, said Tony Coroalles, Calabasas city manager.

Right outta Uncle Joe Stalin's playbook...

So let me just say, all sarcasm and satire aside -- This is the Real Deal here, if you're truly and sincerely worried about government intrusion. This is the Real Deal, if you're truly and sincerely committed to "minority rights." This is the freakin' REAL DEAL if you're truly and sincerely adamant about Bill Of Rights freedoms.

But you know what, you Lefties? You're not. Not worried or committed or adamant, truly and sincerely. In the end, it's all about The Power...the ability to force people to live the way you think they should. The Power is the only thing you're truly and sincerely interested in.

"Speaking truth to Power", my ass.

Stick THAT in your !@#$% pipe and smoke it, you hypocrites.

Know Your Target -- And Beyond

I can totally understand the big ruckus being made over the Dick Cheney shooting incident. He's a public figure, number one, so that goes completely with the territory. You screw up, you get headlines...no problem with that. And I'm not even gonna defend, at least vociferously, the scenario/circumstances surrounding the event. The title of this post is the FIRST RULE of hunter's safety, and it was burned into Otto's brain at an early age...thanks to Dad and a mandatory course I took in the great state of Montana circa 1970. I am 47 as I type so you can do the math...and figure out that I had a shotgun in my hands at a very early age. It's still that way in ol' MT. Which would probably shock and infuriate the anti-gun Left, all by its lonesome. A gun in the hands of a 12 year old?! Yeah bitch. But anyways...

Let us just make sure that we, all of us, understand a little about hunting birds...

Pheasants were my preferred target growing up, because they were the biggest and flew the slowest. (My first question to all of the Libs at work making fun of Doofus Dick the last two days has been: Have you ever shot a game bird? Guess how many have answered Yes? Correctomundo...ZILCH.) Even there, I almost shot my brother once on a hunt, when he had wandered up a hill the other side of a little gulch when Max, our completely retarded English Springer Spaniel, scared up a pheasant while I was walking point. The bird flew at about a perfect 90 degrees to where I was standing -- the classic line and the easiest shot -- and I swung the muzzle of the 20 gauge up and to the right perfectly and had a perfect lock when I saw Charlie standing right behind my shooting line. Still not sure how I managed to refrain from pulling the trigger because we'd walked like forever and not seen a bird that day, and you get really antsy for some action after 2-3 hours...but I did, and held the line on the bird some more, another second a half or so, until Charlie was out of the way, and then let 'er rip. And the bird went down. It may have been the best shot I've ever taken, and that's why it's still so clear in memory.

But here's the crucial part, the understanding part...what transpired that day happened in about three to four seconds max. And that is an ETERNITY compared to the way a quail comes out of the brush. I mean those critters just explode out, and are immediately up to about 35 mph cruising speed. You've got maybe a second, or two at the most, to get a shot off when you're hunting quail. Compared to pheasants, quail look like hummingbirds. And there is a lot of information you gotta process in that second or two. Heck, the average reaction time is about .3 seconds, right? Yeah...check it out yourself.

Again, no excuses on behalf of the Veep. ANY time somebody gets hurt in a hunting accident, it is the shooter's fault -- period. But aren't we forever hearing from the lib cogs some variation on the theme of "Don't criticize until you've actually walked in their shoes"? Maybe that admonition applies only to others, and not themselves...hmmm?

So There

So the wife and Son and I were down at The Phone Booth, the MCI Center, Sunday night to watch the Georgetown-West Virginia basketball. A good time was NOT had by all, even just the three of us, for despite what looked "on paper" to be great seats -- three rows up from the floor section at one of the ends of the court -- the floor section turned out to be the G-Town student section, who stood the entire contest. Sweetie watched the vast majority of the game via the Jumbotron. I saw kids, students, from both schools with beer, and it escapes me how that can still happen, so out in the open these days, with MADD on the prowl and everything else. Let's face it...on this front, all but the hardcore Christian right has just given up on the subject of teenaged drinking. But that's really a whole separate blogpost thang there...

I can't help but get fired up at these affairs. I mean I just CAN'T. The ethose and pathos of competitive sports were the raisons d'etre of Otto's Family growing up. And I have seriously adopted the Mountaineers at this point. Having a cabin located in WV is one thing. Having one of your children attending the state university is a whole new level.

So when the Hoya students, all of ten feet or so away from us, started the chant of "We're Not Inbred" during the game, the fire got stoked. It was sweet justice when the blue and gold ran their offense during crunch time, displaying the control that comes from a senior-heavy team and NCAA tourney experience, and walked off the floor with a thirteen point victory. So let me just say for the record, to all of the GU students and K Street lawyer alumni and everybody else who shares the "WV inbred" view:

-- Marion Barry was the mayor of DC for like a zillion years, and you damn well know he'd be elected AGAIN this year if he ran...and you're actually PROUD of this POS city called DC?

-- If this country got invaded, where would YOU rather be -- in some DC office building or out in the WV woods?

-- If this country got invaded, who would YOU rather be with -- a DC lawyer or a WV grocery store clerk?

-- What's the crime rate per capita in DC versus WV? Look it up, you morons.

-- Do appearances REALLY mean that much to you, you beautiful people with your three figure haircuts and five figure wardrobes and seven figure houses? You guys preach to us all day long through the WaPo and the education system run right here in DC, about being non-judgmental and all such bullshite, and then take one look at an average West Virginian and think "inbred." You hypocrites.

The unofficial state motto of West Virginia is "Almost Heaven." I can tell you, from having lived here in a suburb of the Nation's Capital for twenty years, that this place is Almost Hell. I'm outta here like an Alberta Clipper in seven years, when our retirement finances are in good order, and to hell with y'all. Eff DC. Eff Georgetown. The pretensions of this place are Almost Unbearable.

So there.

Another Reason Why I Switched

Looks like ol' Swanny, Lynn Swann, is gonna run for governor of Pennsylvania. Against that ol' mafioso Don Ed Rendell, he of the Magic Philly Money Machine. As long as Swann keeps the charm up and doesn't drop the pass, he's in. Touchdown. So says Otto.

An article in a Philadelphia online publication takes some time to highlight the phenomenon of former athletes who become politicians. But it fails to ask the question I think is most interesting, and gets to the true heart of the matter politically: How come almost ALL of them are Republicans?

The liberal answer would likely be: Because they make truckloads of money and want the tax rates lowered so they can keep it all for themselves, the greedy bastards. Add to that the fact that so many of them are these ultraright religious freaks, praying before and after games...

Didja know there's actually a website called stevelargentsucks? That's the perfect encapsulation of the current state of the Democratic party. All hate and envy, all the time...

Otto will give you his take. The professional athlete may well be the truest, purest form of entrepeneur there is. He or she takes a skill -- which, by the way, many of them credit God for, hence the gratitude and non-secularism -- and develops it to the absolute maximum, and then goes out and tries to make a living with it. These people know the odds, like for every 100,000 high school football or basketball players there's maybe one or two that make it to the pros, and yet they CHOOSE to go ahead with it anyways.

There's risk all over the place. Bodies break down over time, no matter what you're doing, but especially in sports that's deadly to a career. No cushy tenured positions in sports, no sir. It's all about performance, and results. One injury and you're finished.

But there's also reward -- BIG reward -- if you work hard enough and keep the vision.

At which point, the typical Democrat fingers your paycheck and says, "It's not FAIR that you make that much money. Give it to me...NOW."

You would think that if someone chooses to enter a lower risk profession, one that by the cold hard rules of the marketplace is necessarily going to pay less, that person would more or less be happy with and understand their salary.

You'd be wrong.

It took Otto a while to figure this out...that the party he chose to join in his youth was the party that denigrated rather than celebrated success stories. But it WAS figured out, eventually...

And guys like Swanny, well, they're just another reason why I switched.

Even In Death

Via Matty Drudge:

KING FUNERAL TURNS POLITICAL: BUSH BASHED BY FORMER PRESIDENT, REVEREND

Tue Feb 07 2006 15:49:48 ET

Today's memorial service for civil rights activist Coretta Scott King -- billed as a "celebration" of her life -- turned suddenly political as one former president took a swipe at the current president, who was also lashed by an outspoken black pastor!The outspoken Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, ripped into President Bush during his short speech, ostensibly about the wife of Martin Luther King Jr."She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said. The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation.A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably."But Coretta knew, and we know," Lowery continued, "That there are weapons of misdirection right down here," he said, nodding his head toward the row of presidents past and present. "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!" The crowd again cheered wildly.

Former President Jimmy Carter later swung at Bush as well, not once but twice. As he talked about the Kings, he said: "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." The crowd cheered as Bush, under fire for a secret wiretapping program he ordered after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, again smiled weakly. Later, Carter said Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America. "This commerative cermony this morning, this afternoon, is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi," Carter said, the rest of his sentence drowned out by loud applause. "Those who were most devastated by [Hurricane] Katrina know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans. It is our responsibility to continue their crusade."

So what I'm wondering, and would respectfully ask both The Most Reverend Lowery and former Sunday School teacher Carter if given the opportunity, is: Was Christ glorified? At a funeral, in a church, was Christ glorified by these things you said? Were souls won for Christ because of what you did? Was the community of believers, which I don't think I have to tell you includes BOTH President AND Mrs. Bush, unified and strengthened and energized by your speeches?

I saw the vid clips last night, and I will tell you what your words did for me...they made me angry. Red-faced and cursing angry. This morning, I'm just sad. I stumble, a LOT, in my walk with Christ, but one thing I have never EVER done in a front-and-center church setting -- and yes, I've had more than a few of those occasions -- is deliberately say something that would cause discord amongst the body of believers. I have never EVER singled a fellow Christian out for criticism in front of a church.

I've seen it happen, in the spur of the moment when people got flustered or were just shooting from the hip...but your words yesterday, they were prepared and written down and thought out. And you went ahead anyways...

Why? Can it be that your politics are more important to you than your faith? How can you justify that, except maybe for some completely off-the-mark interpretation of Jesus as the original Che Guevara or something, "revolutionary for the people."

It's sickening and disgusting to me. But in the end, what I think really doesn't matter that much. It's what God thinks that counts. You answer to Him in the end, not to me or anyone else.

And really, Mr. Lowery and Mr. Carter, I can't imagine what that answer is going to be. Nothing in the New Testament supports what you did yesterday. Even in death, you feel the need to score some political points. It is unbelievable.