The Difference Between 

Romney & Obama

You know the real reason a lot of incompetents go into government?  

For guaranteed jobs no matter how lousy they are at them. 

In the private sector these people wouldn't flourish. Hell, they likely wouldn't even survive.  

That's why since the 1960's Public employee unions have set about creating a byzantine system on purpose that makes it virtually impossible to fire public employees.  This is why places like New York City has to spend millions a year on 'rubber rooms' where incompetent, dangerous teachers they can't get rid off are paid to sit around and do nothing.  

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/dud_of_the_class_V94XccuHkAS9OKOVaTtWMK

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/rubber-rooms-in-new-york-city-22-million_n_1969749.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york

That's not even the worst thing.  Did you know these incompetents ALSO use their incompetency to constantly whine for more tax money to be given to them?  

Only in Big Government can failing to do a good job actually lead you to seriously ask for MORE  money.  

Stupid, Incompetent Government Bureaucrat Drone: "Yes, you're right. Our useless gov't department did a lousy job last year with the stuff it was supposed to do.  But see, that was YOUR fault. You only gave my department $500 million taxpayer dollars to spend.  We CAN'T do our job on an even average level UNLESS you give my department $600 million to spend next year.  As long as you're only giving us $500 million to spend, these are the same lousy results you're going to get."

Obama: OK, here's your $600 million. 

Romney:  You're fired.  

Someone who sees constantly growing government as a GOOD thing would have no problem throwing other people's money at the problem and hope it gets 'better', despite the fact the people USING that money have already demonstrated they can't do a good job with what they were already getting.  

The private sector forces you to be smart and efficient since it's your OWN money you're 'throwing around' and if you waste it you can't just turn around and ask some bureaucrat for more.  

In the private sector, you don't get more of a Company's $ until you PROVE you can adequately manage what you are ALREADY being given.

The government never goes out of business no matter how lousy a job it does.  No matter how much money they waste, or how inefficiently they do their job, there's ALWAYS more cash on tap next year.  

"Sure we're doing a lousy job for the $ we're being paid and the resources we're using. But if you'd only GIVE US MORE $, we'd be better!"

Try that in a private business.  You mess up, you not only lose your job, you could cost everyone in your business their job too.  That forces people to be smart, careful and frugal.  

Obama's demonstrated throughout his first term that he is a Big Government guy all the way.  The Federal Gov't doubled in size from 2000 to 2011, and Obama has done NOTHING to slow that growth.  In fact, he's accelerated the trend dramatically.  

In private business Romney had no problem firing people who couldn't or wouldn't perform to an expected level of competence.  The Left constantly tries to make this look like it disqualifies him from being President or something because it proves what a mean bastard he is & how he 'doesn't care about people'.  

I don't know if you've had any dealings with the actual government bureaucracy lately, but there are an awful lot of people in there that deserve to be fired.  Now.  And instead of being made to perform at an adequate level, they've been allowed to sit there and suck up tax dollars and keep doing a substandard job.  

Sure Romney might get in there and become George W. Bush II, and just grow the government like he did.  But here's the thing: Romney will have a Republican Congress with a large Conservative contingent to keep him honest.  We have to give him a shot. 

We KNOW Obama isn't serious about it. He's had 4 years, 2 of them with a majority, and he did nothing on the spending or the deficit.  Time to give Mitt a shot and see if he'll shake up Washington.  

The Street Theater Will Continue

Until Morale Improves! 

So you probably heard about this story BuzzFeed was pushing a few days ago, and it was quickly seized on by other Lefty sites like Huffington Post.  A bald white guy showed up at a Romney rally in Lancaster Ohio wearing this shirt: 

The amazing thing? Nobody got a picture of this guy from the front.  Just a single picture from behind.  Nobody interviewed him & reporters there did not ask him about the shirt he was wearing.  Somehow he managed to avoid becoming an instant internet star.  He just magically appeared and then somehow got away, returning to the complete obscurity from whence he came. 

Oh. OK.  

[Actually, being serious for a moment, because this is a false flag attack, they can't show the guy's face or interview him, because if they did THAT he'd be quickly identified and people would discover he's a Democrat, not a real Romney supporter.  It would blow the game.]

Also a few days ago, the Obama For America [OFA] HQ in Denver had someone shoot out a window: 

Now I don't know about the Denver office window. There ARE crazy people on both sides.  But I'm very certain the guy in the picture wearing the shirt is a Democratic operative doing a false flag attack on Romney's rally.  

The only site on the web that sells that slogan that anybody can find is the virulently anti-Palin website Zazzle: 

http://www.zazzle.com/antipalin/gifts?cg=196681417743621968

So it's almost certain that guy is doing a false flag hoping to give the MSM exactly the kind of story about 'Romney supporters' that they want to be making.  

This isn't the first time the OFA office in Denver has been attacked.  In 2009 11 windows were smashed, and it turned out the perp was actually a Democrat: 

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/25/fake-hate-crime-alert-leftists-vandalize-denver-democrat-hq-dems-smeared-obamacare-foes/

So while plenty on the Left are now screaming about racist hate-filled Republicans driving around in their pickup trucks looking for OFA buildings to attack, let's remember who often gets caught after these supposed 'hate crimes' take place: somebody faking it to make a play for sympathy.  

Isn't it curious that Romney's been trailing Obama in the race until just last week, yet we never had the MSM finding blatantly racist messages at the 100's of rallies held, or any acts of vandalism at OFA buildings?  Surprisingly this stuff has only started happening SINCE Romney pulled ahead.  

I had some fun with this train of thought on a message board today: 

http://vine.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showpost.php?p=20208609&postcount=784

I can only imagine as Romney's lead continues to grow how his supporters will struggle to contain the VIOLENT, RACIST RAGE that dwells within them.

RAWR!!!!

After hundreds of Romney rallies this year, and months of no incidents at OFA buildings, right after Romney surged into the lead we've got the media - like Captain Ahab and his great white whale - suddenly spotting EXACTLY what they've been hoping to find at the same time Denver's OFA HQ gets attacked again, just like it was in 2009.

Since they waited until their guy was leading the race to start this behavior, I can only wonder just how much worse it's going to get if Romney actually builds that lead.
Of course I'm being sarcastic here. If actual Romney supporters were frustrated and desperate about what's going on in this campaign badly enough to start lashing out, they would have done this in the months their guy was trailing.

It's really interesting that these street-theater false flags starting happening the week Romney surges ahead for the first time.

You can expect to see more false flags the next 3 weeks. These aholes actually think this is going to be a close election, so if they can swing a few voters by faking racist Republican messages and vandalism, they just might drag Obama over the finish line.

Fueling this kind of stupidity is a WaPo/ABC News poll out to day trumpeting loudly that Obama holds a slim 1 pt lead............in a D+9 alternate universe.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/1...-obama-up-one/
So the "OMFG, you're not going to vote for the guy supported by the RACIST/VIOLENT mob, are ya?!" street theater will continue.

To much hilarity.

Yep. It's gonna be a fun 3 weeks, folks.  

The 'Big Shift' To Romney 

The Media Is Manufacturing 

Continues!

Check out the Real Clear Politics Electoral Map: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Romney is currently building leads in FL, VA, NC.   OH is a tie at the moment.  Romney well within the margin of error in the others, which is why they're tossups.  

Romney now leads in 5 national polls, is tied in 1 and trails Obama by 1 in another: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Look at the way the polling has gone the past 2 months, for Sept-Oct. 

The DMC-created mirage of the 'inevitable' Obama victory is evaporating.  Several of these polls are STILL using absurd D+8 or greater samples....AND ROMNEY IS AHEAD.  

http://news.investors.com/special-report/508415-ibdtipp-poll.aspx#ixzz28pL3Htpj

Team Obama must have needed new shorts after seeing some of these numbers.  

As the race enters it's final 3 1/2 weeks, the Democratic-Media-Complex [DMC] is being forced to tick downward it's absurd D+9 or greater poll models to a more realistic D+4 or so.  They've also started to switch their polls from Registered Voters (RV) to Likely Voters (LV), something that will bring the actual electorate into sharper focus.  

Now I've been saying for months Romney's going to win in a landslide.  The actual desire of millions of Americans out there from 2009 to the present to stop Obama's agenda and get him out of the White House has only increased since the 2010 mid-terms.  

But the DMC figured it'd get around that fact by just, you know, IGNORING it.  They've spent a year and a half pretending the Tea Party is stone cold dead.  They announced it had died, then quickly moved on, never realizing the Tea Party was growing just fine before they ever even deigned to look down from their chariot and notice it.  And it's grown just fine since they decided to start pretending it's dead.  

The next 3 1/2 weeks they'll have to keep ticking downward on the Democrats in their samples and adding Republicans and Independents and weighting them to fit actual reality.  When they do that last poll just before Nov. 6, we're going to actually see a +R electorate.  Maybe as high as R+3.  

When that happens the Left is going to absolutely freak out.  All they're gonna remember is that the DMC was telling them for MONTHS Romney had no chance.  What about all those polls showing Obama up by DOUBLE DIGITS?  

The only POSSIBLE explanation many of them will entertain will be that the REPUBLICANS HAVE JUST STOLEN ANOTHER ELECTION! 

They will reject the real reason: that the DMC was intentionally fudging the numbers to drive a narrative it wanted and to shape perception in an attempt to sell the idea back in August & September that this race was already long over and Obama had won it.  

Now the same DMC that loudly told anybody who was still listening to them that this race was over in September are going to have to spend all of October and the 1st week of Nov. watching Romney leave Obama in the dust.  

It Begins. 

The Liberal Base That Was

Told To Laugh LOUDLY

At The Merest Hint Of A

Suggestion That Mitt

Might Win Suddenly 

Realizes Obama Is Losing

Not a full fledged panic yet.  The fun's only started.  The full-fledged high-decibel existential wail of fear won't happen until Paul Ryan flambe's Biden at the VP debate and then Mitt curb-stomps The Smartest Man In The Room again at the Foreign Policy debate on the 15th.

http://minx.cc/?post=333616

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/romney-takes-lead-in-rasmussen-swing-state-tracking-poll-4946/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/romney-up-2-in-new-national-poll-from-daily-kos/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/more-polls-romney-now-within-three-points-in-michigan-two-in-pennsylvania/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/pew-poll-romney-erases-eight-point-deficit-now-leads-by-four-among-likely-voters/

Get your popcorn ready, folks. The next 3 1/2 weeks are gonna be EPIC.  

Just How Much Effort DID 
This White House & State Dept. 
Put Into It's Libya Cover-Up? 

How about........THIS much:

It took almost a month to discover they yanked a Special Forces security team from Benghazi almost exactly a month before the consulate there was attacked and our ambassador was killed.

We know this because Congress subpoenaed the leader of the team to come testify about it's being withdrawn from Libya:

http://minx.cc/?post=333596

http://www.ktvq.com/news/congress-to...bya-diplomats/

Quote:

CBS News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya. Lt. Col. Andy Wood led a 16-member Special Forces site security team responsible for protecting U.S. personnel in Libya. The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack. Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased. Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack. A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it. Wood, whose team arrived in February, says he and fellow security officials were very worried about the chaos on the ground. He says they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, D.C., but that the officials denied requests to enhance security.

People were asking right after the attack how we ended up with over 30 US citizens isolated in a conflict hot zone in which Al Quaeda and a dozen other terror groups are active, where it took over TWELVE HOURS to get some aid to the site AFTER the attack started. And that aid had to come all the way from Spain.

And now we discover just a month before Steven's and others died in this attack, there WAS a security team on site that could have likely held off this attack..........and this administration pulled it DESPITE repeated requests for more security in the face of growing danger. 

Oh and I LOVE the State Dept. Sr. Official's brush off to CBS News: "Sure we knew if the terrorists ever seriously came after those guys they were all dead anyway.  Did you have a point?"   

This is even stupider than the WSJ interview where one of these State Dept. retards said their 'security plan in Libya worked'.

Let's get curious: why did it take 3 1/2 weeks to learn this? Those who think this whole 'Benghazigate' thing is a joke that isn't going anywhere might need to rethink that.

UPDATE:  It's become clear what the Democrat response to this is going to be:  Because Congress cut the State Dept.'s security budget, they are going to claim Republicans trying to save a couple of bucks forced the State Dept. to yank these security teams out of Libya due to finances.  

http://vine.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showpost.php?p=20196593&postcount=385

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget

See, if Republicans weren't such greedy, bean-counting pricks, this team never would have been yanked out of Benghazi.  

The problem with this new excuse is even IF Republicans cut the State Dept.'s security budget, they didn't tell ANYBODY to pull teams in hot zones.

What kind of sense would tell this State Dept. facing budget cuts to pull security in it's most dangerous postings in conflict zones?  A country where terrorists groups have been killing people and launching attacks?

If your security budget is being cut, adjust your security in safe zones like Paris or Bermuda, etc. Not freaking Libya.  Why do I even need to point this out?

This is IF the reason for pulling this special forces team was financial at all. That's not proven in any case yet.

As someone on Twitter pointed out last night, Italy alone has FIVE consulates.  Do we really NEED five consulates  in a relatively small country like Italy, each with it's own security teams?  

COMMON SENSE tells you not to pull security from a post that's undergone attacks in a hot zone.  So this excuse won't go anywhere.

How The American Mainstream Media

Will Miss The Biggest Story Of The 

2012 Presidential Election & End Up

On The Ash Heap Of History

It's a Twitter rant. Start at the bottom, read up.  

So Just How Deep DOES

That Rabbit Hole Go?

Take A Look At What

We're Dealing With:

Right after some polls showed over 70% of Democrats think the economy is doing just fantastic & the country is headed in the right direction, one of them popped into my Twitter TimeLine to argue about polls.  

Here's how it went: 

So this Liberal Democrat jumps into the conversation I'm having to claim he sees no evidence whatsoever that Hope N' Change fever has abated, or that Republicans will turn out in greater numbers in this election than turned out in 2008.  

OK.  Here we go.

Here's the Pew Link about only 9% of people contacted by pollsters agreeing to give a response to their questions: 

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/30/we-are-the-91-only-9-of-americans-cooperate-with-pollsters/

Since Cody asked 'based on what measure' am I saying more Republicans will turn out for the 2012 Presidential election than voted in 2008, I supplied him with one: 

Here's the pic I gave him: 

Unless something happened since July that I missed, the Hopey Changey stuff is still pretty much dead.  

Cody then made the excellent point that a pollsters rep is made on being ACCURATE.  Why yes - in their very last poll before before the election is actually held.  Before that? Not so much.  As I now attempted to explain to him.

To demonstrate just absurdly some of the media's national polls had been skewing lately, I posted this chart: 

Cody didn't even blink on seeing MSM polls giving Obama a national lead of over 10 pts.  At this point I was pretty much sure I wasn't dealing with a rational person.  

Note the dodge Cody tries:  Where's your source for Hope N' Change fever ending, or that more Republicans will turn out this year than in 2008?  Oh Gallup? You do have a source?  Just one?  Meh. 

Yeah. He asked for evidence.  He got it.  He uses the "Oh is that all?" dodge.  

To counter what Gallup had to say about declining Democratic voter enthusiasm while Republican enthusiasm has risen to 2004 levels, Cody countered with this link: 

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/09/the-recurring-and-misleading-focus-on.html

That's a column written by Gallup's editor in chief Frank Newport on PARTY IDENTIFICATION.  That has nothing to do with VOTER ENTHUSIASM.  Dem's have ALWAYS held a voter ID edge over Republicans.  And they still manage to lose plenty of elections in the past couple of decades.  Maybe Cody hasn't gotten around to noticing this.

Not only that, even when Republicans trail in voter enthusiasm, such as they did in 2004 when Dem enthusiasm was a sky-high 68% according to some polls [including the Gallup one I used] and Republican enthusiasm was only 51%, Bush still beat Kerry handily.  

I pointed out to Cody the link he sent had to do with party ID, not voter enthusiasm, which is what the Hope N' Change BS was based on.  He totally ignored this.  

In response to his claim MSM pollsters have no reason to skew their polls, I asked him if he had noted all the MSM polls the last 2 months or so that predicted an electorate on Nov. 6 that would be +9 Democrat or greater.  He responded by referring me back to Frank Newport's column at Gallup. 

Let's remember: 2008 was WAVE ELECTION for Democrats.  That +7 adv. they had in the vote was pretty damn big.  You have to go back to one of Reagan's landslides to find a Presidential election where one party outvoted the other by such a big honking margin.  

Cody is claiming that on Nov. 6 Democrats are going to MATCH or even EXCEED the vote advantage they achieved in 2008.  This while every poll shows Democratic voter enthusiasm has tanked dramatically since 2008.  

Go read that Frank Newport column again that Cody linked to. Is there ANYTHING in it where Newport provides evidence that we are gonna see another huge wave election for Democrats in 2012?  All he discusses is why using PARTY ID alone to predict results is just stupid. 

Here's the only point in that column Newport discusses a 10 point lead by one candidate or party, which is probably what Cody latched onto in his Google search: 

Basically, if an observer is concerned about a poll’s results, that observer should skip over the party identification question and just look at the ballot directly. In other words, cut to the chase. Don’t bother with party identification sample numbers.  Look directly at the ballot. 

For example, we know that in Ohio:

• Obama won by 5 points in 2008

• Bush won by 2 points in 2004

• Bush won by 3 points in 2000

Now if a given poll in Ohio in this election shows Obama with a 10-percentage-point lead, one should just ask, “How likely is it that Obama would be ahead by 10 points if he won by five points in 2008?” -- forgetting party identification, which we assume is going to be higher for the Democratic Party if Obama is ahead, anyway. The discussion of the ballot in the context of previous ballots is, in fact, a reasonable discussion. It may be unlikely that Obama will double his margin in 2012 from what occurred in Ohio in 2008. Or maybe not.  But the focus should be directly on the ballot, and discussions of reasons why it might be different than one expects should not involve an attempt to explain the results by focusing on changes in party identification  -- which is basically a tautological argument. 

What kind of answer does Newport expect when he asks the question, "How likely is it that Obama would be ahead by 10 points if he won by five points in 2008?"  With a President who's approval rating has been underwater for over a year, and even after what the electorate did in 2010, Cody reads that and thinks Newport expects the answer: "Pretty damn likely!"

This is seeing what you want to see instead of what the person is actually saying.  Newport is pointing out if Obama won Ohio by 5 points in 2008, and Dem enthusiasm has cratered since then while Republican enthusiasm is up, how LIKELY is it that Obama is leading there by DOUBLE what he won by 4 years ago?  Anybody who thinks the answer to that questions is "Pretty much a certainty!" can't read very well.  Or has a very significant case of solipsism.  

So the 'evidence' Cody is supplying to 'prove' that Democratic vote enthusiasm hasn't declined while Republican enthusiasm has risen, and that most of the Republicans that stayed home in 2008 will also stay home in 2012 doesn't even say what he claims it does.  

Cody wasn't done yet, though.  Again, I try to get him to answer: what does HE think of MSM polls that keep projecting a +10 Democratic electorate or greater?  Since he's using an aggregated number combining all the MSM poll results along with Gallup and Rasmussen.  

I don't want to hear what he THINKS Frank Newport has to say about it, because I had already read the article Newport wrote and knew it didn't even say what Cody was claiming it did.  

Instead he RT's an earlier tweet of mine, wanting to claim I provided no evidence that Hope and Change Fever has died out.  Er, weren't we just discussing the Gallup poll on Voter Enthusiasm?  I linked the Gallup chart again.  Does it or does it not show Dem enthusiasm dropping from 61% in 2008 to 39% this July?

When the person I'm talking to on Twitter

1. Pretends I didn't offer any evidence for something when I did and
2. Links me an article to 'prove' something the article doesn't say

I realize I'm pretty much wasting my time with the discussion.  So here came the first threat of a block.  

At this point, still refusing to say what HE thought of MSM polls skewing +10 or greater to Dems nationally, he changed the subject to what an AWESOME job many Democrats think Obama is doing.  

Yes folks. over 70% of Democrats polled DO believe Obama is doing a fantastic job: 

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/328904/voters-keep-missing-conventional-wisdoms-memo

Among all likely voters, 56 percent say the country is on the wrong track. This number has fallen because 72 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of African-Americans now say the country is on the right track. Yet two in three independents still think the country’s on the wrong track.

So yeah, this is the kind of myopic solipsism we're having to deal with here when it comes to the Obots.  

Finally Cody decides to claim I must have not read Frank Newport's article.  That's how he'll get out of having to rationally discuss Media polls that claim a +9 or greater Democratic edge in the electorate this November.  Naked appeal to authority, now stop asking me, etc. etc. 

Only as I've already showed, Newport isn't saying what Cody thinks he's saying.  Newport certainly isn't arguing for +9 or greater advantage for Democrats nationally right now.  He's says NOTHING that could possibly be translated into a low Republican turnout matching 2008.

So I press him: I want to know what YOU think of polls that say Dems will top the +7 in 2008 with a +9 or greater.  

Finally he answers & claims pollsters are helpless and have no control over how many R's, D's and I's end up in their samples.  

This is just laughably absurd.  Imagine Pew saying "Oh hey, that +19 Democrat sample we used in early August, we just couldn't find enough R's and I's to answer the phone."  After the initial round of calls they ended with +19% more Dems in the sample than R's? No problem - do more calls until you get more Republican responses.  Or you could always, you know, WEIGHT the poll to realistic proportions by dropping a lot of the Democrats.  

It never occurs to Cody why Pew and MSM pollsters will put out a poll that was already heavily skewed to Dems, and then in the WEIGHTING they do of it, INCREASE the skew by adding more Dem's and dropping Republicans.  

So no, pollsters DO 'have control' over how many D's, R's and I's end up in their samples and they CERTAINLY  have control over how they choose to weight the sample.  So this is nothing more than a dodge.  This is the 3rd time he's dodged.  I let him know if he's going to keep doing this I'll just end this conversation and block him.

Once he says I must not have read Newport's article again, the one that's not saying what he thinks it does, it's time to end this.  But not before he gets in a parting shot by linking me to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog at the New York Times which attempts to argue that there's no CONSISTENT partisan bias in Media polling...in the last 21 days leading up to the election.  

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/

As I explained in an earlier post, these MSM's pollsters won't quit the skewing games and get serious about their sample numbers actually reflecting reality until just before the election takes place.  

http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-you-wont-see-accurate-polls-from.html

That LAST poll a pollster puts out is the only one anyone will remember or really discuss.  Thus it's the only one where the pollster's reputation is REALLY on the line.  But in August, September, early October?  Will anybody remember a few years from now how Pew & others claimed they were seeing a +10 pt or greater adv. for Dem's back in September?  Not really.  

If Cody thinks Democrats will make history again on Nov. 6 2012 and match or exceed that historic turnout advantage of 2008, all I can say is I hope somebody is there to hold his hand on Nov. 7 and tell him it'll be all right.