Clinton Continues to Deny A Run for 2012 – Claims A Woman is Likely to Run.

A recent CBSNews article on Clinton's continued denial of a bid for the presidency in 2012, has more than a few of those leaving comments on the article a bit disappointed. The Secretary of State was asked the questions on foreign soil, while still in the position of Secretary of State, which would, in any sane scenario, be the wrong time and place to announce a bit for the White House. The most interesting remark that Clinton made in the article however, was in response to a New Zealand television interview, during a Q and A on the likelihood of the United States being open to electing a woman as president, after emphasizing it she, herself, would not run, Clinton stated:

"But it will be someone, and it is nice coming to countries that have already proven that they can elect women to the highest governing positions that they have in their systems,"

There is more speculation of a run by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and CBS has driven home a point that pushes those on the left of American politics around the bend. The article: “Palin Emerges with Even More Clout” in reference to the high percentage of candidates that won election in 2010 with Palin’s backing, goes on to speculate if, with the increased clout, Palin might run in 2012.

So what does the fascination by CBS have to do with anything other than, perhaps, ratings? CBS is driving by ratings, first, because these two woman are perhaps the most (by media standards) divisive in the nation. Secondly, according to some pundits, the networks have become cheerleaders, so to speak, for the Obama administration. However, one must look to these women, and other women in government, and the private sector, to understand that Clinton saying, “it will be someone”(CBS), means that there will, indeed be women candidates (including Clinton herself, more likely to make an announcement on American soil in mid 2011) in the 2012 field. As to how well a woman would fare against the pack of men that will assuredly be in the field, along with a media that is blatantly sexist, it is difficult to tell. Of course, should there be two women, from opposing political parties running for the White House, and gaining strength in primaries, the obvious would occur.


A recent election night interview on Fox News with Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin is worth watching. The video below highlights the fact that women are indeed, ready to stand up and not wait another 20 years before taking up the challenge. One must also note that speculation and the field of candidates will not take shape until mid-2011, when musings and reports of visits to Iowa and New Hampshire by a myriad group of possible, turns into actual announcements.

Field of GOP Presidential Candidates May Include Donald Trump – Seriously Considers Run against Obama in 2012

Donald Trump 2012? Image askmen.com

Donald Trump has announced that he is ”seriously considering” a run for President in the upcoming 2012 general election. The first mention of Trump considering a run as the Nation’s top CEO, came from a CBS News article on October 5th, after a poll conducted in New Hampshire pushed Trump to the top of a field of GOP possible candidates. The poll, which as of October, news sources could not locate a source, was conducted in September. Those polled were questioned if Trump’s donations to Democrats in the past and his television appearance would help or hurt him in a run at the White House. (Granite State)

Trump, who is an American businessman and Reality Television “Star”, made the announcement national on Fox News' “On The Record” last night. Trump’s focus is creating jobs, and the trade deficit between the U.S. and primarily China. He noted in the interview on Fox that politicians are talking about creating jobs, but not offering solutions. His solution would be a 25% tax on imported goods, which would even the playing field for U.S. production of items such as Toys. Additionally, Trump stated that the international business community finds elected officials in the U.S. to be “stupid”, and that lobbyist for foreign interests in Washington may be swaying the way certain elected officials cast their votes.

Trump would certainly add more than a bit of drama and business acumen to the “hypothetical” field of GOP nominees, which includes Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, among others. Santorum was in New Hampshire yesterday, “testing the water”. Others, who have made the trip, according to WMUR, New Hampshire are: “Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former New York Gov. George Pataki and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.”

“The Donald” also made mention of his potential run on his Facebook page where he received some positive feedback from his fans. There are multiple “Donald Trump 2012” pages on Facebook, none, as of yet, official. His political ideology of Protectionism just may resonate with voters who are frustrated with the lack of manufacturing jobs, the return of which would certainly be a boon to those millions of unemployed, especially the 99’ers (or those who will have their unemployment checks cut as 99 weeks expire this week).

Historically, President Theodore Roosevelt led the nation with a policy of tariffs on foreign goods, which he used to push the United States to the heights of prosperity.

Richard Neal (MA2), Get’s Rave Reviews from MA DNC Vice Chair – “He Still Cares...about the Little People.” Richard Neal Up For Re-Election in 2012

From the Springfield Republican’s article “U.S. Rep. Richard Neal improves election record to 18-0 with 2nd District win over Tom Wesley”comes this little gem:

Debra Kozikowski, vice chairman of the state Democratic party, said they were not surprised that Neal withstood the challenge of Wesley, a business executive who positioned himself to ride the anti-incumbent wave.
Of the two candidates, Neal had a stronger claim as a populist, Kozikowski contended. “He still cares about the little things, about the little people,” she said.

Neal, who had not faced a challenge in 16 of those 18 elections has little to crow about, neither does Ms. Kozikowksi, considering that 41% of those “little people” she speaks of voted for Neal’s opponent, Tom Wesley (If those are the "little people" she is referring to.) Wesley, a veteran and businessman who had never run for office and had little cash on hand garned 41% of the vote. Wesley fell short in the Western part of the district, with three cities showing high returns of votes: Chicopee, Springfield and Northampton. Additionally, Progressive Community Organizers, driving low-income and “immigrant” voters to the polls, produced votes for Neal that were not there for Coakley in the January 19th election.

In reviewing vote returns from these two of the three cities mentioned in the Mass Live article as having given Neal the edge From: The Boston Globe website, Boston.com:
Deval Patrick won Chicopee with 6,850 votes to Charlie Baker (R) 6,270 votes. Tim Cahill took 2,643 votes, and Jill Stein 364.
Springfield returns: 8,019 votes for Baker, 3,058 votes for Cahill and 20,221 for Patrick, with Green Party candidate Jill Stein taking 563 votes.

In town by town results for the MA2 district
Chicopee: 10,670 Neal, 5,375 for Wesley, Springfield: 24,423 Neal, 6,972 for Wesley
In Chicopee, 16,127 voted for the Governor’s Office, with 16,045 voting in the Congressional Race, in Springfield: 31,861 voted in the Governor’s race, with 31,395 voting in the Congressional race. In precincts such as Agawam: Baker won over Patrick: 4975 to 3614, with 1703 voting for the two other candidates (10,292). However, on the Congressional Side, Agawam went for Neal: 6192 to Wesley’s 4402 (10,594). This pattern is prevalent with all districts and recording of votes.

These anomalies in extra votes for Neal may be due to the Globe’s accounting, once the final results are posted on the MA Secretary of State’s website, results may differ slightly.

The explanation as to how the votes varied, can be twofold, either votes were manufactured in the District in Neal’s favor (as in get out there and vote for Neal, while neglecting to get out the Vote for Deval Patrick), or overall, and more likely, the problem in the past and continued in this last election: name recognition. Those who may have voted for Wesley, voted for Neal as Wesley was for the most part unknown (compared to say Scott Brown). Wesley did run an astounding ground game; however, Neal was running advertising in both the east and west of the districts.

Additionally, Neal targeted voter groups: Holding meet and greets with free food for seniors at local eateries (The Annual Senior Appreciation Dinner at the Hu Ke Lau, held a week before the election is highlighted on Neal’s Facebook page. (Unfortunately, prior to Neal’s Facebook, it is difficult to find a 2009 Annual Senior Appreciation Dinner). Regardless, Neal had to work hard for this campaign, and should not, as suggested by the State Party Chair, who expressed that Republicans would lose control of the House 2012, rest easily on his “laurels”.

Should Neal exclusively caucus with the Democrats, and follow the next Minority Whip as he did Ms. Pelosi as Speaker, during the next year, he fill find that those emails sent and unanswered (see comments under Masslive article link posted above), will indeed set the stage for the next candidate to oppose Congressman Neal. (Who, incidentally no longer holds the power in Congress that he did on the morning of Nov. 2nd). Neal should make returns to the district between votes and hold town hall meeting where he can listen to those “little people” for some feedback. As to the next candidate, that man or woman has paid attention to what took place in this race, (and other races statewide) and will, perhaps having more cash on hand, use it in conjunction with effective advertising in both sides of the district (matching Neal) allowing those “little people” to get to know him or her.

Should Neal change his 18 term habits and suddenly get close to those aforementioned, and begin to pay attention, then he would win the hearts and minds of his district. As of now, his job is to listen to the 41% of the voters who decided his job performances was lacking. If not, then 2012 might find him in another expensive and prolonged fight for term #19.


Comparing voter statistics from the two previous elections: in 2010 Democrats in Hampden County accounted for 39.66% of the electorate with Republicans at 13.8% and Independents at 47.67%, in Worcester County, Democrats 29.86%, Republicans at 12.86 and Independents at 56.62% The 2008 Statistics show the movement of the parties by country Hampden County: 39.81% Democrat, 13.42% Republican and 46.02 Independent, Worcester County: 30.65 Democrat, 13.02 Republican and 55.54 Unenrolled (Independent) between the two elections offered slight variances.

Massachusetts Mid-Terms – Democrats Hold Commonwealth – GOP First Timers Show Impressive Margins - Analysis

The Nation's Results: Historic Gains in House - CNN Map

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts remained somewhat reliably Democrat in the 2010 mid-terms, with the majority of State and Federal offices held by incumbents. However, for the first time in decades, the Democrats in the Commonwealth were forced to defend their districts, with returns on Congressional races showing much narrower margins of victory than projected by pundits. The results shown on the Boston Globe’s website here with the majority of precincts reporting Congressional races shows the gap between the political ideology of the Commonwealths populace has narrowed significantly over the elections held in 2008. In the MA2 District, Richard Neal (with 91% reporting) won the district by 18% over, first-time GOP candidate Tom Wesley who garnered 40% of the vote. In the MA4, Barney Frank won by only 11% over Republican Sean Bielat and the 10th District Open Seat went to the Democrat Bill Keating by 5% over Republican Jeff Perry. The balance of the 9 Congressional Seats show similar results with few exceptions, with much narrower margins than previous House elections.


Massachusetts Resuts Show MA GOP Voter Growth - Map Boston Globe

What is most remarkable is that in the MA2, the race was played out with grassroots ground games only and little spent on adverting by the GOP challenger, Wesley. The MA2 did not get the national attention that races in the 4th and 10th districts enjoyed, with GOP challengers filling impressive war chests from citizens nationwide. Few PACS weighed in with the exception of Mitt Romney’s as far as Bay State GOP races were concerned. Therefore, with a significant gap in funds, Tom Wesley forced Richard Neal to fight for his Congressional Seat, and took not 25% of the vote, but 40%. One has to understand that what Wesley accomplished was twofold: one, he made gains in uncharted waters against a 22 year entrenched Democrat who was vying for the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Neal was forced to spend his war chest, not on Democrat races in districts far from the Bay State, where House Democrats nationwide faced defeat. The same can be said of those who faced similar financing and lack of national press; Jon Golnik in the 5th District, Bill Hudak in the 6th, Marty Lamb in the 3rd and Bill Gun in the 1st – running ground games and scratching for the national spotlight when the pundits and Conservative activities nationwide barely glanced at those races. The National GOP owes all of these players a debt of gratitude, and now, with the results in, 2012 might get a bit more uncomfortable for those districts.

The Governor’s office was held by Deval Patrick with a little help from Democrat turned independent Tim Cahill, who took a surprising 8% of the 97% currently reporting in , leaving Republican Baker short by exactly 8 points necessary to best Patrick. One can view the results are hardly a mandate for Patrick, who garnered 49% of the vote.

Although a victory is still a victory, it is not without a little pride in the citizens of the State who stood up and voted with the GOP in a strong showing, specifically as Progressive Democrat Community Organizations were out in force in the final days before the election, focusing on low income and “immigrant” populations across the State to get out and vote. In Western Massachusetts, the Alliance to Develop Power whose focus appears to be immigration reform, and Neighbor To Neighbor, whose focus appears to be “Voter Empowerment”, got out the vote with slogans such as "Today is the Day, Defend What’s Yours."

Although the Progressives Democrats who helped Richard Neal, Barney Frank, Deval Patrick and a significant number of Commonwealth House and Senate groups maintain their seats, again, it was a scramble in the the finals days to counter the startling increase in voters turning to the GOP.

The results overall results were, however, historic, as nationwide the GOP took the house in an “historical sweep” (CNN) while coming in within 4 Seats of taking the Senate.

That trend was evident in Massachusetts, and as the process begins for 2012, one can guarantee that although down today, the MA GOP cannot be counted out. In a following statement released by MA GOP chair, Jennifer Nassour, speaks to the fact that, gains were made, but it is not an overnight process:

“Tonight the Massachusetts Republican Party made significant gains in the Legislature. Changing the color of Massachusetts to purple won't happen overnight. The important fact is that entrenched incumbents, who often fly beneath the radar, had to stand up to public scrutiny this election cycle. I’m proud of our GOP candidates who worked hard and focused on important issues like creating jobs, lowering taxes, and reducing government spending.”

Thank You to the People Who Took the Time for the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Today, across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, hundreds of thousands of registered voters will take the opportunity to mark their ballots and effect change in the status quo. In the first time in recent memory, there will be options for both state and federal offices on the ballot. For so long, the state has existed under a single party “rule”; however, this year is different. The men and women, who ran for all of us in the Bay State, specifically those citizens who have left their jobs, and have put their lives on hold in order to run for Congress, or the State Legislature, or the Governor’s Office are owed a debt of gratitude. They took the risks, not to reap great reward, (as the positions sought do not make up for the private sector jobs left behind), but to stand up for the “the rest of us”.

The opportunity exists to today, to bring a balance to the Commonwealth, to hire a citizen rather than a career politician in some instances, in others, to hire someone who, although already having served in some capacity, would be an additional voice for those who value fiscal conservatism. As we head to the polls this morning, let each and every one of those voting, thank those who we many never have met, or for that matter, may never have heard of, for taking that time.

It is the hope of this Massachusetts resident of the MA2nd Congressional District that we, the collective people across the state, embrace the new order of political discourse that is already in place in Massachusetts, and with each vote cast, will go towards giving a voice to all citizens. Regardless of the outcome, whether incumbent or challenger, it is the public servant who put people over party that should win the hearts and minds of the Commonwealth. Sometimes that is the case, sometimes it is not. Although, most races taking place, never saw the national spotlight, nor were they polled, rather dismissed by every beltway pundit as David’s going forth against a Goliath with no hope – it must be remembered - it is not the press, nor the party that will decide the outcome, but the people.

Fear of Citizens - Indiana Hires Armed Guard for Employment Offices as Unemployment Benefits Set to End for Those Collecting 99 Weeks

In States where the maximum limit for collection of unemployment benefits is set at 99 weeks, those benefits will be ending this month. Not all states qualify for the 99 week extension – for example, Arkansas has a lower unemployment rate; therefore benefits end at 26 weeks. However, for those living in states where the extensions have been granted by the Federal Government up to 99 weeks, those benefits, funded by Congress, are set to expire. It is estimated that 1.5 million citizens nationwide will have exhausted the maximum benefits this month.

Taking an unusual step the State of Indiana has invested $1 Million in Federal funds to hire armed security guards to protect “staff and clients” at 36 of its employment centers statewide. (Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette) Fearing those whose benefits have expired will have violent reactions at these centers apparently prompted the State of Indian to make this unprecedented decision. There is no explanation for the move other than an expectation that violence might take place. Indiana, ironically, is one of the seven states that showed a “significant” increase in the job market, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with a gain of 39,200 jobs – however, the government does not indicate if these are private sector or state jobs. A total of 316,555 persons were unemployed in Indiana as of September 2010, this figure does not include those who’s benefits had previously expired and/or those who are underemployed.

Playing Monday Morning Quarterback: had a portion of the billions in federal stimulus gone to those unemployed for retraining, and would the Federal government and the State governments cut the corporate tax rate, perhaps those manufacturing jobs lost throughout the U.S. might make a return, a slow process at best, but one has to ask: How long can the economy survive when the job market is limited to either service jobs or government jobs? Speaking of which, as the unemployment increased, and the need to create jobs was evident, those federal jobs “created” should have been offered first to the nations unemployed, or a form of FDR’s workfare.

However, billions were wasted on ridiculous pork barrel projects, while those in Indiana and elsewhere watched their futures implode. Yet, what has happened, apparently, is the unemployed are being used as a political football by the administration– first by extending benefits without creating jobs in the private sector, and then turning around and blaming Republicans for not extending benefits without increasing the national debt. Although the Republican solution was to use non-committed Stimulus funds to extend benefits, the Democrats declined and came up with the brilliant solution of not producing budget.

So the question remains, how long will these career politicians play this game with those who the State of Indiana fear most? Surely, a temporary fix is just that, and it is hoped that with a new face on the Congress, those who have lost hope over the past two years, will find solutions and relief instead of the US versus Them dogma coming from the Campaigner in Chief – unless of course, he takes a sharp turn to the middle and begins to talk to the other side of the aisle. Is the suffering of millions really worth the votes? Apparently someone thinks so, otherwise, there would have been solutions in place, regardless of whose idea it may have been, even a Republican.

How long before other states follow Indiana’s lead? As every day, millions of American’s are reminded but for the Grace of God, they are not in the position that so many millions of American’s find themselves today, we all of us, look for leadership and solutions, that will not only offer a hand up to a neighbor in need, but allow for the return of private enterprise as the horse that drives the cart. Without the private sector jobs (i.e. taxpayers), the nation, already deep in debt, will simply run out of money.

Richard Neal (D) Incumbent and Tom Wesley (Republican) On the Issues – MA02 Voters Guide.

Richard Neal (D) Incumbent running for MA2 Congressioanl Represenative - photo Kerry.senate.gov


There are more than a few searches seeking the differences between the two candidates and how they stand on specific issues: The following is a “public service” offering insight on where each candidate stands on a specific issue.

Congressman Neal: Website Neal For Congress.com

The Obama Health Care Plan – voted in favor

The Stimulus Plan – voted in favor

Neal has voted with his Party Leadership (Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama) 98% of the time, 100% on key bills – source The Congressional Record.

Appropriations FY 2010 include a few large requests outside of the district.
The Center for Civic Education, Calabasas, CA 91302
Rep. Richard Neal (MA-2) requests $35,000,000 (Requested)

Online Collaboration for Reconciliation and Democratic Citizenship
Cooperation Ireland, Inc., New York, NY 10022
Rep. Richard Neal (MA-2) requests $17,175,607 (Requested)




Tom Wesley, Republican Running for MA2 Congressional Representative 2010 - photo Wales GOP


Tom Wesley, Republican Challenger: www.tomwesley.com
Health Care Reform – Against the Obama Health Care plan – proposes alternate options (available on website>

Job Creation and the economy – Tax incentives (cuts) over stimulus allowing for the creation of private, rather than public employment.

A full profile of Candidate Profile of Tom Wesley can be found on this blog at tomwesleyrepulicancandidatema.htm.

Note: Richard Neal’s campaign did indicate that the Congressman would submit a profile on issues, however, (this blogs test of the fairness doctrine) - it had not been submitted as of this late date.

Therefore, when choosing who best represents ones values going into the voting booth, the above offers a very brief overview of both candidates.

Note: To find your polling station and your ballot choices in Massachustts visit: WheredoIvoteinMA.com. One need only enter their street address and zip code to access their polling statoin as well as a sample ballot indicating all candidates.

MA 2010 - Incumbents Attempt to Defend Democrat Stronghold – Clinton Said to Be Making Robo Calls on behalf of Richard Neal

Hampden County, MA 02 Congressional District, Several Democrats have questioned why it is necessary for former President Bill Clinton to make robo-calls on behalf of Richard Neal yesterday. The message, which sources said sounded garbled, (similar to all pre-recorded robo calls), was a last plea to get out and vote for Congressman Neal on Tuesday. The question: How bad is it, when Bill Clinton is making last minute calls into the District that is allegedly “Safe Democrat”? One has to ask why Robo Calls – Perhaps in response to a visit by Clinton which never materialized, (First reported by the Blog The Atlantic, then picked up by the Boston Globe. This Neal Campaign denied that this visit was ever going to take place, and that there was no need for Clinton to come to Neal’s defense. Of course, that was in August, before the Massachusetts Republican Primary, and one Tom Wesley, citizen running against Richard Neal. Apparently, there are several candidates across New England, getting last minute help from the former President and Democrat Icon, Bill Clinton.

Yesterday, Clinton came back into New England, this time, visiting four New England States, including Rhode Island, where he endorsed the Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate, Frank Caprio,, who last week, was summarily dismissed by Barack Obama in favor of the Independent Candidate, whom Obama endorsed instead.

One must understand that in the final day before the mid-term election, the last place one would anticipate hearing or seeing the Democrat Party Icon would be New England. This due to the fact that in past elections, the New England States have been reliably Democrat, to the point where the GOP virtually ignored all states, especially Massachusetts. This mid-term it appears to be a different story.

From Boston to Chicago – Battles Waged in Otherwise Democrat Strongholds Point To Overall Voter Disillusionment. The Rise of The Phone Book Candidate.

The Boston Globe’s morning article ”Up and Down the Ballot, GOP is Dreaming Big” talks about political parties possible gains and/or losses in what was once known as one of the “bluest” states. The Globe references the election of Republican Scott Brown in January and queries if that election were an anomaly or a change in the attitude of voters towards the State GOP. What the Globe, as well as conventional U.S. media are either not understanding, or ignoring, is that this election is not about one political party, rather it is about the rejection of ideology.

As President Obama made a swing through Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois, in an attempt to rally the Democrat base, he warned supporters that Republicans would undo the “progress that we’ve made over the past couple of years”(Reuters).

The President appears to have hit the nail on the head. It is specifically the type of “progress” that the American people are rejecting in 2010 as it was the lack of progress that was rejected in 2008. President Obama was elected on the promise of hope and change; increased protection for the middle class specifically from tax burden, an end to war, and most importantly a new era of transparency and a return to bi-partisanship. What the electorate received was exactly the opposite.

In a nation where two parties dominate the political arena, the ups and downs of both parties have, to date, been fairly predictable, however, this election and most probably going forward, the trend has shifted to one of individuals investing more time in educating themselves about the candidates, to the point where no amount of robo-calls, negative advertising, and or please from party influential’s, will make a whit of difference.

The election of Scott Brown was not about the Republican party (although he ran as a Republican), it was the rejection of the ideology of one-party rule, either in a state or a nation, as well as the “progress” made by a Congress and President in concert, which was soundly rejected by a majority.

With a constant bad news on every front – from potential terrorists attacks, to the rise in utility bills, rise in insurance premiums, the prospect of those on Social Security not receiving an increase in benefits for the second year in a row, the fear of not having a job, finding a job, losing a job, being unable to move across state lines to find a new job (either by not having the financial ability to do so, or the lack of jobs everywhere in the states) – people are not merely angry, they are depressed. Some of those who are angry with the current situation are heading to the polls on November 2nd, and those who are depressed over the decisions they made in 2008 are planning to sit it out. Those who have never voted, for a variety of reason, are now registering, for the most part, as “independents”.

The reality is, that although no one has a crystal ball, and polls, even those scientific polls, show a margin of error that allows for a “toss-up”- there will be significant change on the 3rd of November, (given some of the Congressional districts might be decided by a handful of votes), and that change is a rejection of the status quo.

When pollsters include the question of choosing an unknown out of a phone book over an incumbent – a growing majority believe the man on the street is more capable than the current office holder. Therefore, it is a question of those desiring to effect change in the direction of politics and the two-party process in Washington that will rule out. The incumbents, one must remember, were, when they first took office, merely people out of a “phone book” as well, having the same beginning qualifications as those now running for the first time. It is what the incumbents have done with their time, and how well that resonates with the voters that will rule out (not including gerrymandering, voter fraud and the like). Many of those who will be elected on the 2nd, will not have had huge war chests, will not have reached every household in a State or Congressional district, or state district, they will merely be: that person out of a phone book, given the same opportunity to either represent the people of a State or District in a manner that is both transparent as well as bi-partisan, and perhaps most importantly to take that progress made back to the drawing board.

Incidentally, endorsements from the Press, touted by both sides, Republican and Democrat, are suggestions by editorial boards, and have, since 2008, held little influence over the electorate. It is the endorsement not of other politicians (representing Washington), that will make or break a candidate; it will be the endorsement of the people that rules the day. It is also a numbers game, as to the ideology of the individual voter and whether they hold conservative, moderate or progressive views. Those moderates and conservatives are the majority, and the probability of the phone book candidate winning in the end is likely. Experience, in this election, will not garner much sympathy from those types of voters and that is regardless of party affiliation.