Here is video of Michael Barone with some blunt talk on why Republicans actually lost two seats in the U.S. Senate even though there were 23 Democratic seats that had to be defended and only 10 GOP Seats. What was Barone’s explanation?
“The Tea Party brings some talented people into politics — think of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson for example — but it also brings some wackos and weirdos and witches, and we put too many of them on the ticket.”
One of the most knowledgeable people in the United States on all-things political is predicting Gov. Mitt Romney will win the 2012 Presidential Election on Tuesday “handily.” Michael Barone believes Romney will win between 285-315 Electoral Votes.
WASHINGTON EXAMINER – Michael Barone: Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That’s bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president.
But it’s also true that most voters oppose Obama’s major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery — Friday’s jobs report showed an unemployment uptick.
Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don’t identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney.
That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting — and about their candidate — than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.
That’s been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada. . . .
. . . . Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals. . . . Read More
Political Analyst Michael Barone has written his review of last night’s GOP Presidential Debate, and he writes that NBC News Anchor Brian Williams was “embarrassing” in the questions he asked that revealed he has “been drinking liberally of the MSNBC kool-aid:
WASHINGTON EXAMINER: The biggest mystery about the Reagan Library/MSNBC debate last night is why the Reagan Library allowed MSNBC to be the co-sponsor. Brian Williams, whom I haven’t watched much in recent years, seems to have been drinking liberally of the MSNBC kool-aid; many of his questions were so steeped in liberal distaste for Republican positions that it was embarrassing. There was no questioning about the nation’s fiscal position, aside from asking whether Rick Perry would abjure $1 of tax increases in return for $10 of spending cuts, very little on the macroeconomy and very little on foreign and defense policy.
Even so, most of the Republican candidates performed pretty well. My overall take is that Rick Perry, in his first presidential debate ever, did not perform commensurately with his recent lead in the polls, but did not do badly either; Mitt Romney was smooth and sometimes even interesting; and some of the other candidates did quite well. If that’s the way Republican primary voters and caucusgoers see things, the result may be to tighten the race for the nomination. . . . Read More, including Barone’ summary of each candidate’s performance in the debate.