Yes, I actually read the whole article. The guy makes a lot of sense. I particularly like this part:
Political analysis is not about math. Political analysis is about people. To analyze politics, you must be able to analyze people. In other words, the poet and novelist becomes the political analyst, not the mathematician and software engineer. Politics is all about people.
It seems no one is interested in studying ‘people’ anymore. Look at the political analysis currently. There is very little analysis of the current ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, for example, or the person from Pennslyvania or person from Iowa. In fact, there are no people. There are only numbers. Stark, lifeless, numbers. The problem with leveling political analysis to nothing more than a soup of numbers is that it cannot measure intensity. What does intensity have to do with politics? Well, everything. Intense people are those who vote.
And I hope he is right about this one:
Take to the bank, folks, Pennslyvania is turning red this election. I’ve been talking Pennslyvania for the last couple of election posts so might as well continue. Pennslyvania is the *special state* of this election, the state that everyone will be talking about after the election. In that regards, Pennslyvania is to 2008 as Florida is to 2000 and Ohio is to 2004.
And I think this is a very good way of looking at conservatives:
With conservatives, there is a three legged stool of three different types of conservatives. The first leg is strong foreign policy (represented by McCain). The second leg is Social Conservatism (represented by Huckabee). The third leg is Economic Conservatism (represented by Romney). Reagan was all three legs of the stool.
There is lots of other good analysis in this article. I am putting this guy on my favorites list.
Why is Mitt an economic conservative? Because he's rich?
We have a long, long road ahead after this disaster, but if Mitt Romney is an economic conservative, then I'm going to just take up vegetable gardening and forget about politics.
Mitt is an administrator, a very skilled one, but he'd administer anything. You certainly get the impression that if we had socialism, Mitt would do his damndest to have the best socialist system in history.
But an economic CONSERVATIVE?
Don't be absurd.