Unaffiliated Voters in CT

I saw a fascinating statistic in the Stamford Advocate on November 4, unafiliated registered voters in Stamford CT almost equal the number of registered Democrats and largely outnumber the Republicans.

Democrats = 21,462 = 35%
Unaffiliated = 19,794 = 32%
Republicans= 13,984 = 22%

The article also says that 44% of the registered voters in the entire state of Connecticut are also unaffiliated. I am now trying to figure out if this holds true across the country, and if so how many of these people are actually disenfranchised from the established parties? And how can do we determine if there is enough support to begin a new political party that addresses the needs of the middle?

I would assume that the number cannot be as high as 44% across the country, but this trend has to mean something. They always say that a true election is only trying to convince the middle 20% they are correct, with 40% voting for one side and 40% voting for the other. Maybe this chasm is growing, and now only 25-35% are set in their voting habits?

Some Random Bush Humor

The White House continues to blame Newsweek for our negative image in the Middle East. "After all," says the White House, "we were admired abroad before Newsweek invaded Iraq based on false evidence, killing thousands of civilians and then set up a government widely viewed there as a Newsweek puppet. And then there was the time Newsweek tortured all those prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo." The White House added, "Newsweek has done irreparable harm to our image."

While Dubya has been reading the Bible, chopping down forests and wasting money and lives in the Iraqi sand trap, North Korea developed the bomb, South Korea became the stem-cell research leader and the dollar plummeted to an all-time low. Now that's leadership!

Sports Break

Here is a big surprise, the Rangers have beaten the Devils 3 out 4 times so far this year, which is amazing since New Jersey has owned the BlueShirts for the past 10 years. However, the lowly Pittsburgh Penguins come into town with the new "Great One" Sidney Crosby and wind up beating the Rangers in the Garden 3-2. I am concerned that this young Ranger team is going to play to the level of their competition, a typical mistake of a young team, rather than play to their full potential, which has seeemed to very high.

The NY Football Giants look to be for real. They overcame the malaise associated with flying cross-country to play a seemingly meaningless game against the 49ers. Now SF is absolutely terrible this year, starting a complete unknown Cody Pickett at QB after Alex Smith and Ken Dorsey went down with injuries and Tim Rattay was traded to Tampa Bay. I did not expect much from the home team, and the Giants were very sluggish in the first half, but came out and dominated the second half. This week they are facing another terrible team as the Vikings come to the Meadowlands. This should be a slam dunk for them, I will be shocked if they lose. After that the Giants face the reeling Eagles at home. Then they go to Seattle to take on the high flying Seahawks in a game which could determine home field advantage in the playoffs. Stay tuned.

The Jets are as unlucky as you can get this year. Last week Wayne Chrebet and Chris Baker went down with injuries. The good news is that they are going to bench Vinny (old man) Testeverde and play Brooks Bollinger this week against the streaking Panthers. I did not see the game against the Ravens where he was pulled, but he certainly enegized the Jets when he came into the game on Sunday. It was nice to see someone rolling out, rather than sitting in the pocket. It adds a little more excitement to the game. The fortunes of the Jets are not looking good over the next few weeks Carolina, Denver and then the hapless No Home Saints, which seems to be the only winnable game in November for Gang Green.

Kudos to the Philadelphia Eagles for suspending Terrell Owens for the rest of the season for conduct detrimental to the team. I understand the players association needs to file a grievance on his behalf, but if the Eagles prefer to pay him not to play, and are willing to take the consequences of the that decions (presumably a losting season from here on out). I don't think they should be forced to cut a player they have under contract, so another team can pick him up. TO me, this is not a money issue but a competitive issue. If I am the Eagles, TO is my property and I don't want him playing for the Packers or the Texans or anyone else this year.