One key factor in the Presidential Election

Workout notes: 6+ mile walk in West Peoria. Lovely walking weather; nice and cool.



Presidential elections with no incumbent (my lifetime)

1960: Kennedy vs. Nixon: Kennedy won by less than 1 point; the parties switched.
1968: Humphrey vs. Nixon (and Wallace): Nixon won by less than 1 point; the parties switched.
1988: Bush vs. Dukakis: Bush won by just under 8 points; the party retained power
2000: Bush vs. Gore: Gore won the popular vote by less than 1 percent but Bush won the EC and the parties switched
2008: McCain vs. Obama: Obama won by about 7.5 points and the parties switched.

I can remember the 2000 election where the Gore campaign kept Clinton at arm’s length, and the 2008 where Bush all but disappeared; the R’s did not want him around.

From the Gallup Presidential Approval Center:


This really helps Hillary Clinton. I think that this will be one “ace in the hole”.

September 28, 2016 Posted by | 2008 Election, political/social, politics, politics/social, walking | | Leave a comment

Trump can win this election. But right now Clinton is winning.

Workout notes: 4 mile walk; easy. Cool weather; sure hope we have that on Sunday, but it does NOT look promising.


As it sits right now: the Electoral College map (via Electoral

The national polls: (via Pollster)


The bookies:


Trump’s paths to victory: he has less than half as many paths that Clinton does (via Upshot)


Sam Wang’s analysis (Princeton)


So it goes. To me, this is looking more and more like 2000 and 2004 (with Clinton being in the position that Bush was in) rather than 2008 and 2012…in the latter cases I was very confident that Obama would win.

I am not so confident this time around. I am not ready to call this a toss-up; Clinton does have the edge. But that edge could evaporate. It is far from being a comfortable lead.

Why I still have hope: though Hillary Clinton is NOT the campaigner that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were, she isn’t as bad as Al Gore. And like him or hate him, George W. Bush was a good campaigner. Donald Trump isn’t the campaigner that he was, not at least as far as the “middle of the country” goes.

September 22, 2016 Posted by | 2008 Election, 2012 election, political/social, politics, politics/social, walking | | Leave a comment

A political post to offend everyone

Part one: my offensive thoughts.
Part two: political articles I found interesting.

My offensive thoughts

1. This is the election where “everyone sucks”. I don’t believe that. I actually think that President Obama is doing a decent job and I think that Hillary Clinton is a highly qualified candidate who will be able to run with the better policies and perhaps improve on them. Yes, I LIKE Hillary Clinton. Perhaps I am not alone?

Psst: President Obama’s late term approval ratings are in line with those of President Reagan and are actually slightly HIGHER at this point in his administration than President Reagan’s were.


2. Yes, I think that Bernie Sanders is acting like a bit of a jackass toward the end of his campaign. But..sorry, I do NOT hate him. I think that he is a politician who is pulling out all of the stops to try to snatch an extremely improbable win.


And yes, he has a sweet basketball shot for someone his age:

And, well, I was actually glad to see him attending a recent NBA playoff game, though some complained about that. Sorry, but I rarely get to this “I hate everything about candidate X” mode.


And yes, if, say, a tree falls on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him against Donald Trump. That would be one of the easiest decisions of my life. A quick question: who would you trust more with the nuclear codes?

3. No, I don’t hate Donald Trump either; all of those “Trump is Hitler” memes just make me roll my eyes. No, I don’t like Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the US (though one Turkish friend told me that “other countries do similar things”) and I’ve spoken out against that proposed policy. True, I do not see Donald Trump as being qualified to be president. Yes, he made a lot of money (but HOW?) but that isn’t a qualifying factor. He knows very little about actual policy and he gains popularity by going around and telling people what they want to hear (e. g. “there is no drought in California“).

And I hate to say this, but I really get a kick out of his shenanigans, as “unpresidential” as they may be.


And no, I don’t buy all of this “NeverTrump” stuff coming from conservatives. Yes, Republicans are rallying around him just like they did with MItt Romney. Paul Krugman predicted this would happen a couple of months ago:

By the way, I predict that even if Mr. Trump is the nominee, pundits and others who claim to be thoughtful conservatives will stroke their chins and declare, after a great show of careful deliberation, that he’s the better choice given Hillary’s character flaws, or something. And self-proclaimed centrists will still find a way to claim that the sides are equally bad. But both acts will look especially strained.

And all of these sanctimonious “only a truly evil, stupid person will vote for Trump” arguments, memes and the like will accomplish nothing, except to make the poster feel more self righteous. The bottom line: no one likes or respects a self-righteous scold; even I find them tiresome even when we are on the same side! Thomas Edsall puts it this way:

Trump’s anger at being policed or fenced in apparently speaks to the resentment of many American men and their resistance to being instructed, particularly by a female candidate, on how they should think, speak or behave.

On April 26, Trump wheeled out a spectacularly offensive attack on Clinton, perhaps designed to provoke the response it got. He accused her of playing “the women’s card” when “she has got nothing else going. Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get five percent of the vote.”

Hillary rose to the bait. Three days later, appearing on Jake Tapper’s CNN show The Lead, she countered:

I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak…. I am not going to deal with their temper tantrums, or their bullying or their efforts to try to provoke me. He can say whatever he wants to say about me, I could really care less.

Trump responded on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on May 2. What Clinton said “was a very derogatory statement to men,” Trump declared. “It was almost as though she’s going to tell us what to do, tell men what to do.” He continued, “It was a real put-down.”

The kind of messages that provoke reactance and a defiant or oppositional response, according to one study, include “imperatives, such as ‘must’ or ‘need;’ absolute allegations, such as ‘cannot deny that…’ and ‘any reasonable person would agree’.”

This is not to say that attacks on Trump won’t work; my guess is that they will. What I am saying is that “only evil, stupid people vote for Trump” won’t change any minds. But saying “his proposed policies are unfair, evil, etc.” might help us with turnout; think of it as invoking “counter anger” (e. g. “Trump’s policies are aimed at denigrating people like you and me”); here is an example of a 2008 ad which might work:

Part II: Articles
This Stanford article discusses the Democratic primary in California. Yes, Clinton leads and yes, there are some racial and generational differences.

Now what about running mates; who are Trump and Clinton going to pick and why? Here is an article about recent history and the “geographical, ideological and demographic” factors that the various candidates used.

My guess is the Trump will pick Christie (New Jersey governor); I haven’t a clue as to who Clinton will pick.

June 1, 2016 Posted by | 2008 Election, 2016, political/social, politics, social/political | , , , , | Leave a comment

Jeb Bush: Trump Supporters Aren’t ‘A Bunch Of Idiots’ (he is right)

Jeb Bush said the following:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said Saturday that supporters for GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump aren’t “a bunch of idiots” and should be respected, CNN reported.

“What I fear is that people, kind of looking down their nose, will say the people that are supporting Donald Trump are a bunch of idiots. They’re not. They’re legitimately scared. They’re fearful,” Bush reportedly said at an event in Amsterdam. “They’re not as optimistic for legitimate reasons and there should be respect for that. And on the other side, a similar respect needs to be shown.”

Now of course, this statement (which I think should be obvious) has met with ridicule. Yes, I know, I know, we’ve all seen the cherry picked photos of Trump supporters and of Trump rallies:



So, yes, there are some dumb people supporting Donald Trump. And yes, there are some evil ones too.

But when are talking about a national candidate with millions of supporters, a tiny selection of supporters tells you very little about the whole.

Here is an example of what I mean: think of 2008, when i was a proud Obama supporter. Well, some of then Senator Obama’s support came from the..well, less than informed people

and some came from morally questionable people too.

Again, this is just statistics in action; the larger the population, the more the population resembles the larger population.

So, what can say about Trump supporters, “in general”?

For one thing, on the average, they tend to have a higher household income than either Sanders supporters or Clinton supporters.: (the data I report measures median household income; “median” means “that income that is in the middle range of supporters; half of incomes are above, half are below”; this is done to mitigate the effects of a few very large incomes)

72K per year as compared to 61k per year for both Clinton and Sanders supporters. Now this isn’t true in every state: in New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Virginia the median household income of a Clinton supporter exceeds that of a Trump supporter. Trump supporters earn more than Sanders supporters in all of the surveyed states.

Secondly, there is a positive correlation between income and IQ; on the average those with higher IQs tend to earn more money than those with lower ones. NOTE: the New Scientist article I linked to also deals with wealth too and there isn’t much of a correlation with IQ and household wealth (example: those with higher incomes might well spend more):

The work reveals that while exceptionally smart individuals typically earn more, they are also more likely to spend to their credit card limit, compared with people of average intelligence.

Jay Zagorsky at Ohio State University in Columbus, US, analysed personal financial information collected from 7500 people between the ages of 33 to 41. Subjects provided details about their cash flow – including wages, welfare payments, alimony, and stock dividends – and their overall net worth. They also answered questions about whether they had “maxed out” any of their credit cards, missed bill payments or filed for bankruptcy.


On the surface, Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income. “Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year,” he says. For example, a person with a score of 130 (in the top 2%, in terms of IQ) might earn about $12,000 more per year than someone with an average IQ score of about 100.

On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth. The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.

But when Zagorsky controlled for other factors – such as divorce, years spent in school, type of work and inheritance – he found no link between IQ and net worth. In fact, people with a slightly above-average IQ of 105 , had an average net worth higher than those who were just a bit smarter, with a score of 110.

Again, there is the correlation between INCOME (not net worth) and IQ.

So, if anything, the data might suggest that Trump supporters might be somewhat brighter than the Sanders and Clinton supporters, on the average. I say “might” because I don’t know the “n” for these income samples. It might be that the Clinton and Sanders groups are larger groups, and therefore subject to “regression to the mean” effects whereas the early Trump supporters might be a more selective sample of people (fewer people).

But I think that there is no evidence that Trump supporters are dumber than either Sanders or Clinton supporters.

May 22, 2016 Posted by | 2008 Election, 2016, politics, politics/social, social/political, statistics | , , | Leave a comment

The end game of a losing candidate is often not pretty

Workout note: 8.1 mile run (hilly) in 1:26:46 (43:43, 43:03). I was stiff going out. The improvement on the second half was basically the difference on my last mile. It was a pretty day and long sleeves was too much.

Jumble though this is 5 seconds slower than my PB, this was my first “perfect score”.


Main Focus

Yes, tempers are flaring among the Democrats. One might wonder why Sanders is still in the race. This article gives a conjecture: yes, Sanders is more pragmatic than one realizes (e. g. he has been good about getting amendments added to bills he initially didn’t support) but his life has been a case of succeeding as a long shot. So, though the odds against him getting the nomination are slight (18-1 underdog in the sports books as of today), he still has a mathematical chance (say, winning 80 percent of the pledged delegates in California and flipping a ton of the super delegates). So he’ll keep fighting.

However, while many Sanders supporters ARE bright people (and I enjoy the company of several of these people), others have been mislead by articles like this one. Yes, *even* when you factor in the caucus state votes, Hillary Clinton still has about a 3 million vote lead.

Sadly, a significant minority of Sanders supporters either don’t know that or haven’t accepted that. A minority of these supporters have behaved very badly.

Yes, I know; some of the violent reaction has probably been exaggerated by the press; one Sanders supporter pointed out that there was no video showing chairs thrown in the Nevada Convention (though this had been reported in some articles.).

And yes, Hillary Clinton made some cringe worthy statements toward the end of the 2008 campaign, when she was being asked to drop out (and yes, she was much closer to Obama in delegates than Sanders is to her).

So, hopefully, we can come together after this, though I am sure that a few of the “Bernie or Bust” people will sit this one out.

May 19, 2016 Posted by | 2008 Election, 2016, politics, politics/social, running, social/political | , , , | Leave a comment

Democratic endgame and resentments…

Correspondents Dinner This is President Obama’s speech. It is hilarious.

Yes, President Obama said that, with regards to who will be doing the President’s speech at the dinner, we have no idea who she will be, and yes, Hillary Clinton has a 2 standard deviation lead on Donald Trump in the polls, and that translates into about a 93 percent chance of victory. and I will say that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both well known, so perhaps there won’t be too many surprises.

However those backing the Sanders campaign have yet to concede. Oh, the signs are there; for example the Sanders campaign has reduced staff. Still, you see stuff like this from Sanders supporters like Robert Reich:

I’m getting lots of emails and notes on this page from those of you who say you’re feeling discouraged, given the diminishing likelihood of Bernie’s nomination. And from others of you who ask me what you should do in the event he doesn’t get the nomination. To both, I have these three suggestions:

1. First, continue to work hard to increase Bernie’s chance of success. (Despite what you hear in the media, he still does have a chance.) California’s June 7 primary will be critical.

2. If Bernie doesn’t win the nomination, you have to decide for yourself how active you’ll be in supporting Hillary Clinton. If Trump is the Republican nominee, my personal view is Hillary’s election to the presidency is absolutely essential to the future of this nation and the world.

Though I welcome point 2, point 1 is just plain irresponsible. Sanders is at “winning the lottery” degree of probability. He has to win something on the order of 60 percent of the remaining delegates, and he is trailing in California. Remember, just winning impressively is no longer good enough to catch up.

Hence, his “Bernie or bust” supporters are talking about “burning it all down”. Seriously? Ok, we’ve been through the PUMAS of 2008 and guess who won the general election? And yes, I was sore at Hillary Clinton..but then again, she didn’t trail as bad as Sanders trails. And now, look who I am backing!

Now some have become very bitter toward Senator Sanders. I can recommend this very long, but fact filled essay. All too often, Sanders supporters accuse you of being a “sell out” or “closet Republican” if you reject their plans which make…some rather rosy assumptions. In fact, the 2016 Democratic debate is really between the pragmatists and the idealists. Or views of the problems facing the United States and where we want to eventually end up are remarkably similar.

But as far as Sanders goes, this meme sums it up for me.


He is no revolutionary nor is he a saint (neither is Hillary Clinton). He is a politician and he is fighting to win..and politics can be bare knuckles at times.

May 1, 2016 Posted by | 2008 Election, Barack Obama, political/social, politics | , , | Leave a comment

Confederate Flag Rallies vs. 2008 voting shift

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a map of past and future Confederate flag rallies. Seeing this reminded me of the 2008 New York Times presidential election map; the map (under “shift”) tracks the shift to or from the Democratic candidate in 2004. That is, if a county is colored blue, Obama got a greater share than Kerry did in that county; if the county is colored red, McCain got a greater share in 2008 than Bush got in 2004.

So I took the liberty of comparing the two maps:


Interesting, no?

July 23, 2015 Posted by | 2008 Election, political/social, social/political | | Leave a comment

A very silly video from me…

February 2, 2014 Posted by | 2008 Election, Barack Obama | | Leave a comment

Photo/Cartoon Saturday


Ironically, from this angle, this could be Barbara and me, though both of us are slightly wider than Secretary Clinton and President Obama respectively.

Yes, I am hearing “Hillary 2016” and I have mixed feelings. Yes, if I were appointing the next President, I’d probably pick her. But she ran a horrible 2008 primary campaign; she managed to squander a huge lead in the polls and in money and her husband did her no favors. My worry is that she’d get out-campaigned in the general election.


I find this interesting. There is a group of people that Paul Krugman calls “The Very Serious People”. To be one of these you need to:
1. go along with the conventional wisdom and
2. be completely wrong most of the time and
3. claim that the “smart people” would have also been wrong.

Think: Iraq (WMD?), the economy, the election (“razor tight”, they kept saying even though the nerds and hippies were right….AGAIN).


Yep…keep it up Republicans.🙂


I made 9 on this list. Talk about misusing the apostrophe! I admit that I still don’t understand what “fullutent” is….”falutin”, or someone who is…gassy?🙂


Even stone guys are…guys.🙂

February 2, 2013 Posted by | 2008 Election, Barack Obama, big butts, bikinis, hillary clinton, human sexuality, political humor, politics, politics/social, religion, republicans | , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Barack Obama’s America: in the mold of fundamentalist “doomsday/second coming” type films

Since Mr. D’Souza spends much of his time interviewing talking heads who either provide little data or misleading data…I’ll go ahead and give my summary opinion on his movie. Then I’ll follow with detailed comments, with references.

Do you remember movies aimed at Evangelical Christians; remember the doomsday/second coming time films such as The Late, Great Planet Earth? The formula: take a smattering of facts out of context, build a “hey, it could be this way, you know” framework that is designed to appeal to an anti-intellectual evangelical Christian audience (“see, just like the Bible says!…It fits! Oh, I NOW UNDERSTAND things so much better!”).

Well, that is the formula for Dinesh D’Souza’s film 2016: Obama’s America. It has very little fact in it; it is mostly a stream of baseless conjectures and mangled factoids which seek to, well, not so much to critique what President Obama has actually done (the way that Fahrenheit 9-11 did with President Bush) nor to report what Obama aides said (the way that Game Change did for Sarah Palin). The idea is to “prove” that Obama is, well, unAmerican…..well, let me correct that: to reinforce the prejudices that the Fox News watchers already have of Obama. Note: right win delusions of Obama’s policies are taken as “facts” throughout; the rest is a collection of people giving their opinions followed by D’Souza proudly waving his prize overhead.

Ultimately, it reminds me a bit of this:

Playing chess with a pigeon

When you try to play chess with a pigeon, it gets on the board, knocks over the pieces, poops all over the board and then struts around with its chest out.

That is pretty much what D’Souza does here.

Details about the movie:

First 10 minutes: Mr. D’Souza spends time talking about himself; he describes why he found life in India (at that time) constraining and the opportunities he found in the United States; he also describes his own ascent into the Republican ranks.

He is setting up a contrast, I am sure.

Next, he talks about President Obama’s “strange” actions: returning a country’s property to them (routinely done; the bust of Churchill was scheduled for return prior to Obama taking office), helping rid the world of Gaddafi, not going to war (?), negotiating the rough waters of the Arab Spring, trying to get better relations with the Muslim world (oh noes, not that!) and not blindly siding with Israel on every issue at every time (something many Jews don’t do). This is the “straw man” part.

Now he says: “hey Obama wrote a book”, called Dreams From my Father. He did, and I read it. It is mostly about his journey to Harvard Law School; he does describe a visit to Kenya and he talks about the pain of growing up without his biological father. So, you see…the logical conclusion for Mr. D’Souza is, well….Obama got his world view from his dad…someone who was almost totally absent in his upbringing (save a visit and some correspondence). He didn’t grow up around him, and yet he is supposed to be his major influence? Seriously.

Oh, he talks to a psychologist and he hears: “oh he could have been a positive presence”. But nothing ties his father’s political ideas and world views with President Obama’s views.

Then D’Souza starts to “trace out” where Obama lived….to prove what I don’t know. He does talk about anti-colonialism that he felt while growing up in India and tried to make the connection with Obama growing up (partially) in Indonesia…as a US Citizen with a white American mother….ok…
He then claims that young Barack was sent from Indonesia to Hawaii by his mother to “escape (his stepfather’s) pro-western influence”. Huh??? Going to live with white Americans in America is “escaping a pro-western influence”? (Barack Obama was actually discussing his step-dad’s CORRUPTION and going along with it…not being “western”) He talks about his dad’s influence in that his dad was held up as an example of…wait for it…someone who was honest???? Oh noes, not that!

Then it mentions that young Barack was introduced to Frank Davis and spent time with him. How dangerous was Mr. Davis? He was put on a watch list by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI (like, say, M. L. King or any number of others?) (eyeroll)

He then quotes a snippet in which Barack talks about his undergraduate days at Occidental college; this wasn’t meant to be “look at how great I was” but rather a description of a growth phase (he also talks about smoking cigarettes and grinding them into the carpet, and a lot of stuff that wasn’t intended to paint him as being praiseworthy at that time).

But now Mr. D’Souza is going to try to “learn more about Obama Sr.”; it turs out that…..wait for it…young Barack had an idealized view of his dad? Wow..very unusual indeed.

(fortunately I am about half way through this dreary film…)

Now we have some Kenyan footage. D’Souza finds someone who lives there (and probably have far less access to daily US News) to say that Barack Obama’s views are similar to his father’s, and of course he talks to the obligatory ….ooooohhh….”leftist radical”. What this has to do with President Obama, I am unsure of.

He talks about President Obama’s tax policy and tells how his dad made a statement “theoretically….” (the government could tax 100 percent of income) and then goes on to say “is this what President Obama means when he talks about “fair share”?

Oh dear. Clinton tax rates for those making 250K and up is 100 percent? This is the classic “lying while not making a false statement” tactic.

1. We are two thirds of the way through this dreadfully bad film and
2. We now “know”, from….uh…I am not sure what…listening to what other people said?…that President Obama is an anti-American communist!!!!

Now we get to the “how did then candidate Obama win election” and we get well, first the data-free, fact-free opinion of a talking head who purports to know what Obama voters thought…based on…..well, nothing.

There is the scene in which Hillary Clinton (as a candidate) knock’s Obama’s naiveness ….but it was a naiveness based on…..Obama believing that Republicans would work with him!🙂

Then there is the focus on “white people voting for Obama” when in fact, he lost the white vote both times and was voted in largely on the strength of racial minorities. (43 percent of the white vote in 2008, and MUCH less in the deep south (surprise!)).

Now we get the “Obama’s terrorist pals”; you’ve heard these before. And yes, Reverend Wright. His “God damn America” was really part of a sermon in which he reminded people that, in the Bible, God’s blessings were conditional and based on whether Israel lived up to God’s standards. When it didn’t, God allowed for Israel to be defeated and occupied (that is much of what Jeremiah is about).

I think that President Obama addressed this rather well; he mentioned that Rev. Wright didn’t see America’s ability to change from what it once was. He said so in public. Oh well. He describes Wright saying that he was “offered 150K to shut up” (D’Souza did NOT say that Obama or the Obama campaign made the offer).

Now to policy: not go ahead with the pipeline? Well, maybe it is a bad idea? Not opening our coastline to new drilling? It would be years before any potential gas price benefit would be realized…and frankly I’d rather not have another BP fiasco here.

Health care bill? You mean the one that the Heritage Foundation came up with? (that is what Obamacare was modeled after; it was presented to President Clinton by Senator Dole as a compromise in 1993.).

And then he talks about Obama sympathizing with Muslim terrorists (Bin Laden? Drone strikes? Killing TOO MANY terrorists, according to some Republicans?)

And oh yes, Obama is taking down our capitalist society:

S&P500 Since December_0

(note: click on the link; it talks about how, while we are no longer shedding jobs the way we were under President Bush, are are barely above break even in terms of new jobs keeping up with new job seekers:


Jobs Since 2007 vs Population vs Labor Force_0

So my link does NOT see things through rose colored glasses; far from it. Back to the movie:

He shows some criticism of his “work”; he says “I’m a college president”.🙂 Technically, true AT THAT TIME….of some outfit called “The King’s College”.


And his prediction about spending money “as if the deficit didn’t matter”….well, someone who knows something about economics says that is a bunch of BS. But hey, Paul Krugman only has a Nobel Prize in economics, so what does he know?🙂

Then he slams Obama for dreaming of a nuclear free world! Guess who else had such a dream and wanted it badly?

Nuclear weapons-free world: a vision of Kennedy, Reagan, Obama

Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and now, Obama all envisioned a world free of nuclear weapons. The US-Russian START accord, announced Friday, is a next step in that direction, experts say.

Oh yes, the “reach out to the Islamic world”. He quotes Obama’s Cairo speech and shows the part where “all too often, Mulsim nations were treated by proxies…”. True enough, but they were mostly treated by the Russians that way; Obama was NOT specifically talking about the United States at that moment.

A weakened America now permits the rise of “The United States of Islam” (complete with map!) composed of countries who, well…often hate each other (Sunni and Shitte countries in the same “United States of Islam? Must be news to them…)

Then comes the oh-so-scary US debt graph…in absolute dollars instead of “percentage of GDP” (yes, our GDP is growing and therefore our capacity to handle debt…and yes, maintaining an unnecessarily large military and nuclear arsenal is expensive, no?)

Cure to a talking head complaining about the national debt (not putting it in percentage of GDP terms), children’s choir rehearsing for an Obama event and Obama’s Denver speech….and the usual “the future is in your hands”.

And thankfully, the film is over.

Update: here is a review that is spot on.

January 27, 2013 Posted by | 2008 Election, 2012 election, Barack Obama, movies, political/social, politics, politics/social | , , | 1 Comment