And so it seems to be the case with the divorced lives of Mark and Jenny Sanford. But even with their attempts to find a family harmony, a way for them all to feel happy and fulfilled, they’re doing so in a fishbowl despite their best efforts to work things out privately. I feel for them, having every stumble put under a microscope of people who don’t know them and would prefer to use their pain and struggles for their own political benefit.

Out of that fishbowl sloshed news on Tuesday that the Sanfords would be going to family court in May to address an alleged trespassing charge arising out of the home visitation limits set by their sealed divorce decree. Two things are evident: one, none of the Sanfords–Jenny, Mark nor the four children–wanted the public sticking their noses into their private lives; and two, someone for political purposes with no concern for the Sanfords obtained (possibly illegally) the sealed family court record and released it to the public (again possibly illegally) to harm the Sanfords as much as possible.

In her statements, Jenny Sanford said: “It is a private matter. The documents are real, but it was my understanding that the documents would remain sealed, along with our divorce agreement….I am doing my best not to get in the way of his race. I want him to sink or swim on his own. For the sake of my children, I’m trying my best not to get in the way, but he makes things difficult for me when he does things like trespassing.

In his statement, Mark Sanford said: “I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14 year old son because as a father I didn’t think he should watch it alone. Given she was out of town I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps under the light of my cell phone when she returned and told her what had happened….out of respect for Jenny and the boys, I’m not going to have any further comment at this time.”

I feel for Jenny and I feel for Mark. I can see both of their sides, but most of all, I can see it’s none of my business how they decide to work it out. I just wish them all comfort and peace, happiness and health–and I wish them privacy in their private lives.

I’ve been pleased to see that Elizabeth Colbert Busch herself has had the integrity to only say “no comment” in response to media inquiries to the content of the Sanfords’ sealed divorce and family court records. Breitbart.com reports: “Sanford’s opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch was herself party to a very contentious divorce years ago. She was even found in contempt of court for “willfully” ignoring court orders and held in a county jail for 6 hours. Divorces do not often bring out our inner-angels.”

But as with Mark Sanford’s struggles with divorce and custody, I don’t care about Elizabeth Colbert Busch’s travails in the same arena. It’s their private business that has little to nothing to do with how they will serve the Constitution and the voters of the South Carolina Lowcountry.

It’s obvious that the opponents of Sanford have nothing beyond slime-ridden, ill-gotten personal attacks to combat his stellar public voting record. None of the despicably leaked contents of the sealed family court records alter my opinion that Mark Sanford is by far the superior candidate to represent the Lowcountry. It does not shake my belief that I can count on him to vote to save America from debts and deficits and weak defenses. I will still vote for Mark Sanford for Congress on May 7, and I urge all other 1st District voters to do the same.

I was willing to wait and see if his words of sincerity would translate into action—and what I saw was Sanford try to ease out of the limelight as much as possible, letting everyone take potshots at him unanswered, letting everyone vent their venom, anger and disappointment, as he went about what was important to him: trying to repair and resolve the relationships in his life out of public view. When he would emerge into the spotlight, however briefly, he would be asked the inevitable question about the affair, how could he have done it, and every time, he would answer anew with deep reflection, sincerity and humility—never lashing out at others or trying to make excuses, never acting like “c’mon, I’ve already answered this.” Time and again, his actions matched his words. Over time, I fully forgave him.

Here is a man that has had a very public fall from grace, such a spectacular fall and with such circumstances that I believe it was a once-in-a-lifetime screw-up. I actually trust that he has worked to put his life back together in a way that assures me it won’t happen again. He is ready to move on, and so am I along with a multitude of #SC1 voters.

While he has been a big enough man to bear all the slings and arrows hurled at him, he hasn’t been too big to still humble himself before us and ask for a second chance, in an extremely personal way. Mark Sanford needs us. He needs us to give him the chance to fully redeem himself, and I think that makes him even more beholden to us in a deep, almost spiritual way. I believe he has something to prove to us now, to make things as right as he can possibly make them in this lifetime. We could be vindictive and withhold redemption from him, make it so that no amount of effort to regain our trust would ever be good enough, but I don’t think his sin comes anywhere close to deserving that punishment. I’m willing to give him the chance to go the next step and make amends to us, because South Carolina’s 1st district needs him. America needs him.

Now let me tell you why.

The Sanford Record

Mark Sanford is the fiscal conservative’s fiscal conservative. He was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. Outside of his fall from grace, Sanford had a stellar record of public service.

When he was in Congress from 1995 to 2001, he actually returned a quarter of a million dollars to the US Treasury every year, which he had personally slashed out of his Congressional office’s operating budget. This was money allocated to him, approved by voters to spend, but he took it upon himself to protect the voters further, pinching every penny and looking after voter wallets.

This attitude was also reflected in his Congressional voting record, making him ranked as the most fiscally conservative member of Congress by both Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union.

Then, as a two-term Governor of South Carolina, when Obama came to office and was shoveling our money out of the doors of the White House, Sanford was the first governor to reject the stimulus money–$700 million of it. This is important not only because he was standing on his fiscal conservatism principles (and withstanding the onslaught of leftist and media howling), but by his very act of stepping forward and having the courage to lead on it, other governors around the country were emboldened to follow his lead, to compete to see who could be declared the most fiscally conservative of the fiscal conservatives.

Wouldn’t it be a great thing to have that repeated over and again in Washington–contests to see who can spend less instead of the quest, even by Republicans, to spend more? It takes bold leadership, someone that can withstand the pressure to cave, to do this. It’s something Bostic has no record of doing, and no record of even claiming to be interested in doing it. (His campaign mantra has become “Sometimes you just have to say yes” as they jeeringly call Sanford “Mr. No.” When it comes to the insatiable appetite that Congress has for spending our grandchildren’s tax dollars and Chinese loans, I want Mr. No casting my vote any day.)

And Sanford is not afraid to take on his own party. While Boehner and the House leadership keep telling us that they’ll get us a better deal next time every time they cave, Sanford is one that won’t cave. The Republican-dominated South Carolina legislature and he had some mighty famous battles, with Sanford constantly vetoing their spending bills and forcing them to override them to pry the money out of the SC coffers. (Understand that and you’ll understand the background of the trumped-up “ethics charges” his opponents love to tout.)

He made the GOP majority squeal with indignation when he brought two little piglets, Pork and Barrel, into the statehouse to bring attention to their spending spree. We NEED more politicians with the guts to stop the spending in opposition to their party’s good old boy backscratching system.

Due to Sanford’s storybook record of reigning in state spending, the CATO Institute ranked him as the most fiscally conservative governor in America. (Can Bostic come anywhere close to these prestigious accolades? No.)

And the Tea Party needs Sanford in their ranks. Not only because he would be a solid vote with them, if not a leader. They have had difficulty in getting leadership to go their way, mainly because so many are freshmen and sophomore backbenchers. Sanford, however, by virtue of his previous three terms in the US House of Representatives will immediately reenter Congress with seniority over nearly 60% of his colleagues. He will be hard to ignore, and in a position to press the Tea Party perspective.

The Bostic Record

Personal injury lawyer Bostic presents himself as a Christian family man. I believe him. Most of Bostic’s support is coming from the extreme-wing of the religious right, whose sole focus is on Sanford’s divorce with much less concern about spending reductions and liberty issues. In fact, their tactics have been cause for alarm by some, including the leader of a local Tea Party group. (As noted in today’s Morning Jolt from Jim Geraghty at National Review, Bostic describes himself as a creationist, but declines to elaborate on how he defines that. If some GOP are worried about Sanford being promoted to the general election because of the national media jokes about the Appalachian Trail, just wait till they sink their teeth in on creationism.)

As you can tell from the above, I’ll leave people’s faiths to themselves. My focus is on our country’s debt and spending, and it is in those areas that things give me pause with Bostic.

First, while Bostic served on Charleston County Council from 2000 to 2008, its spending increased 25%–significantly outpacing inflation and population increase. Bostic argues that Charleston County voters themselves voted for the increase. I reply, yes, but he went along with it and voted for every single big-spending budget. He championed no cost-cutting measures, and some complain that he even added in projects such as the long-running I-526 extension boondoggle without subjecting it to voter comment or diverted tax revenues to his own pet projects, such as the Greenbelt Plan.

Taking the spending thing further, Bostic refused to sign a pledge to reduce federal spending—even though most of the other candidates in the primary signed it. It was just him, the Democrat general election candidate Elizabeth Colbert-Busch and two other small percentage voter getters that spurned the pledge. Bostic and Sanford both signed Grover Norquist’s ATR pledge to not raise taxes, and that’s a good thing, but we are drowning in debt. We must reduce spending if we are to save America. Our spending is unsustainable, and it should have been an easy thing to pledge to do.

Bostic has also refused to timely file his FEC disclosure form indicating the amount and sources of his income. He has filed for an extension that will put this knowledge out of reach for the runoff Republican voters but will be laid bare for general election purposes. How do voters know what’s in it, especially since he deems it too complicated for his CPAs and law firm to be able to figure out? What kinds of nasty surprises await us? Both Sanford and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Colbert-Busch managed to get their forms in on time.

Finally, the most disturbing thing is that Bostic has repeatedly canceled or refused to appear in debates and forums before conservative, libertarian and Tea Party groups. It’s quite troubling that Bostic had to be dragged to have a one-on-one conversation with Sanford on the issues facing South Carolina’s 1st District and America.

During his eight years on Charleston County Council, Bostic also missed an average of 20% of its twice-monthly meetings. The Bostic campaign took great offense to Sanford’s noting this during their first one-on-one debate, with Bostic saying that his wife suffered from cancer twice during his tenure, implying he had to miss county business in order to tend to her needs. Quite understandable, of course.

However, the SC Patch looked into a sampling of Bostic’s attendance records and found:

Patch reviewed the minutes from 11 of the meetings during Bostic’s time on council. Those minutes are attached to this article. On nine occasions he was either was out of state, out of the country or out of town. On two occasions his absence was unexplained.

His attendance ranges from 67 percent in 2005 to 93 percent in 2001. Most years on council it ranged around 80 percent.

When another media outlet asked the Bostic campaign to confirm the absences were directly related to Mrs. Bostic’s illness, they declined to respond. The Huffington Post also notes that the indignant tweets that his son, actor Daniel Bostic, tweeted after the debate (and served as fodder for various right-wing blog attacks on Sanford) have since been deleted.

North Charleston Patch added that his son, Daniel Bostic, tweeted: “Not gonna lie – I’m still infuriated over Sanford attacking my dad for missing council when my mom was dying.” As of Friday afternoon, the tweet was no longer on Daniel Bostic’s account.

The broad picture here is that Bostic has left the #SC1 voters with many questions: on his finances, on the issues, his beliefs and principles, on whether he can withstand the withering attacks that would come his way should he advance to the general election. He’s asking us to just blindly trust him. Bostic’s record is full of secrets. With Sanford, we know all his secrets.

On top of that, Bostic has a history of not showing up, and when he has shown up, he has voted for bigger budgets and said he would support background check gun legislation and a Constitutional amendment to make traditional marriage the law of the land (does he really believe that, with some states already approving gay marriage, an amendment could ever get ratified? or does he just think it sounds pretty to low-info voters?). Worst of all, he’s said he wants to be non-partisan and work across the aisle.

If he’s been so fearful to let the voters see how his positions contrast with Sanford’s, how will he stand up to politicians in Washington that are going to want him to just shut up, sit down and vote the way they tell him to?

We know Sanford will have the fortitude to stand up for us, against both Democrats and Republicans. He’s been there in the heat and glitz of Washington; he knows the games played and how not to get played. This is no time to be sending a rookie in during the middle of the game. We need someone that can be a strong voice, have some seniority and lead others to vote the right way.

The Closing Argument

There’s an old story about the 1884 presidential race between anti-corruption fiscal-conservative New York Governor Grover Cleveland and the Republican Senator from Maine, James G. Blaine. Blaine made his status as a devoted family man a centerpiece in his campaign, and his campaign had the dirt on Cleveland and an illegitimate child Grover had fathered out-of-wedlock years before but had supported financially.

The Blaine campaign taunted him with the slogan “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House. Ha, ha, ha.” The scandal was embarrassing indeed.

Yet, when it came to soberly assessing the race with logic instead of emotion, one observer noted (as related in Irving Copi’s classic text Introduction to Logic):

Since Cleveland has a terrific public record but a blemished private life, and Blaine has a storybook private life but a checkered public record, why not put them both where they perform best—return Blaine to private life and keep Cleveland in public life.

I couldn’t say it better myself. Put Sanford where we know he’ll do a stellar job. Return Sanford to Congress.

Let’s take just one example to illustrate my point. From the illustrious Slate Magazine, we have king of the Journolist, Dave Weigel, doing his darnedest to tear down Mark Sanford’s whopping 53 to 40 lead over challenger Curtis Bostic.

Here’s the opening paragraph to Weigel’s gem of corrupt, lying propaganda:

Last night, the two Republican contenders for South Carolina’s open House seat finally debated one-on-one. Mark Sanford hadn’t bothered to attend every primary debate. He had a clear path to a runoff berth, and he eventually won 37 percent of the vote as a team of munchkins split the rest. But Curtis Bostic, the conservative former Charleston councilman who eked into the runoff, had worked all of the GOP’s low-profile events and debates. He was tested, ready.

Pure baloney, from start to finish. One of the chief complaints against Bostic in #SC1 is that he has not been showing up to events, and has been refusing to debate. Mark Sanford has been at these events, eager to answer any and all questions. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at the publicly available record (easily searchable by esteemed journolisters such as Weigel himself) at the Charleston daily newspaper, The Post and Courier. Here’s the newspaper’s archive search engine. (Unfortunately the search results use temporary one-time URLs, otherwise I would provide convenient links to each article for you.)

Regarding a candidate forum on February 12th before 150 members of the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, just as the quick sprint race was starting, the paper notes: “16 of 20 candidates – from the Republican, Democratic and Green parties – sat elbow to elbow on a stage inside a Charleston hotel.” The paper reports what attendee Mark Sanford said about “the one issue where [the candidates] diverged the most,” immigration, especially on Lindsey Graham’s amnesty plan:

Former Republican Gov. Mark Sanford said he didn’t support the plan.

But we never got to hear the position Curtis “Sometimes You Have to Say Yes” Bostic took on Grahamnesty that day. Why? Because, as Weigel could have seen in the paper: “Those candidates who didn’t appear Tuesday include Sullivan’s Island businessman Keith Blandford, former Charleston County Councilman Curtis Bostic, state Rep. Peter McCoy and Democratic candidate Ben Frasier.”

Okay, maybe Weigel’s opening could have just been a minor error, if Sanford then hid the rest of the campaign, resting on his name recognition, as Weigel implies. But no. Let’s check in on the other two forums to see who was there. If you took Weigel at his word, I think you’ll be surprised:

In the Post and Courier story on March 1, regarding the forum attended by both candidates Sanford and Bostic, it was a good thing Bostic showed up because in the midst of much agreement by all 15 candidates there, “Only engineer Jeff King and former Charleston County Councilman Curtis Bostic indicated clear support for instant background checks for gun purchases.” So if Bostic’s wildest dreams were realized and he made it to the floor of the US House, he would be Mr. Yes and vote with the Democrats against the NRA and Lowcountry gun owners.

Then we have the March 7th forum hosted by the Republican Liberty Caucus. Fifteen of the 16 GOP primary candidates appeared. Guess who showed up? Mark Sanford. Guess who didn’t? That’s right. “Only former Charleston County Councilman Curtis Bostic did not appear.”

That was the last debate prior to last night’s post-primary debate. Clearly someone gave Weigel intentionally wrong facts that he lapped up without bothering to check, or he made them up out of whole cloth, weaving a little fantasy tale for low-information voters.

[Update 3/29/13 6:20pm: I forgot to mention that Bostic has also declined to participate in a couple other one-on-one post-primary debates, including a second one by the RLC.]

Now, let’s move down in Weigel’s piece of fiction. He rates Bostic’s performance as just “okay,” while noting Sanford’s was superior. But this is just the setup to smack Sanford down again:

He was okay. Sanford absolutely outplayed him. It took nearly an hour, past a long digression about whether the candidates should do a Lincoln-Douglas style debate (the primary is in four days!), for an audience member to ask about “the elephant in the room.”

“In 2009, you broke the trust of the people of South Carolina,” said the questioner. “How do you reconcile redemption with the costs of your personal decision, which could have compromised the state and/or the party?

I don’t know what debate Weigel watched, but it wasn’t the one last night at Porter-Gaud School, where moderator David Webb, not an audience member, asked Sanford the question, as noted by the Post and Courier, The State and local journalists on Twitter. (Oddly, Weigel still repeats Webb’s quote verbatim, while attributing it to someone else.)

He closes his short and bloody piece by bookending Sanford’s response with this:

This was a friendly way to ask the question. An unfriendly way might bring up the scandal (pretty much forgotten now) of South Carolina paying for Sanford trips that turned into trysts. But a “how can we trust you” question? Easy for Sanford.

Important question, and I suspect one that I’ll wrestle with at one level or another for the rest of my life. An old timer took me aside and said, you know, if you live long enough, you’re fonna fail at something. And I failed. I failed very publicly. But, you know, in the light of failure, you know, I guess you have a choice to make. This sermon, this Sunday, he said: Do the events of your life define or refine your life? And so, in the wake of my failure, you sort of push through to finish your term. I went down to our family farm, about an hour south of here, and I had an awfully quiet and very spiritual year. And to a degree I refined it. I wallowed in it. I struggled with it. And you go through this incredible soul-searching. You probably do more soul-searching on the way down than on the way up.

Well, of course you do! This string of Dale Carnegie blather got Sanford some mild applause.

One can only presume he’s being sarcastic with his parenthetical saying the Sanford scandal has been largely forgotten. Otherwise, he must be living on another planet.

But that last line of his post is the most preposterous. “Mild” applause. See, Weigel and company would prefer that Elizabeth Colbert-Busch face a weak, relatively unknown candidate (especially outside of Charleston County, and the congressional district spreads over five counties, from the upper reaches of Berkeley County down to near the Georgia line at Beaufort). But even they know that it is extremely unlikely that Bostic could win, so when it comes down to the one issue they can use against Sanford, they are desperate to hide the deep reservoir of forgiveness that Sanford has from Lowcountry voters, stemming not just from his past political record of service to them but in his humble approach to them since his fall.

How odd that local media (no cheering section for Sanford) found it worthy to note the rousing, loud, approving sustained applause that Sanford’s answer generated:

Sanford gets rousing applause for answer to trust question. #sc01debate

— Sujata Jain (@SujataLive5) March 29, 2013

Sanford speaks on failure and soul-searching. References a sermon from @seacoastchurch. Followed by loud applause. #WCBD #News2 #sc01debate

— Courtney Clark (@cclarknews) March 29, 2013

Even operatives from the Bostic camp noted their surprise at the applause.

Career strategy for ambitious Republicans: Move to South Carolina, have affair in Argentina, run for Congress, be applauded in debate.

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 29, 2013

There you have it. Four short paragraphs and two quotes, and Weigel gets it all wrong. Well, except for his assessment that Sanford outdebated Bostic. The rest is pure hackery and lies.

So if you read other similar tales of Sanford not giving it his all to reach out to voters or not getting a good reception in response, be very, very skeptical. Check to see if it’s written by anyone that knows South Carolina, the Lowcountry and its people. If not, they may just be weaving you a fairy tale to suit their political purposes.

Update 3/29/12 8:15pm: David Weigel has conceded that he made errors in his Slate article and says that he will make corrections. The Slate post currently reflects a very small, but still very wrong update, which Weigel tweeted to me that he had made “earlier” but took a long time to show up.

@prupaine Corrected that earlier today, took a while to show up.

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) March 29, 2013

The current state of the Slate post:

In it, you’ll note that in the original post, he merely ripped out the second sentence that had said Sanford hadn’t shown up: “Mark Sanford hadn’t bothered to attend every primary debate.” As a result, his post now begins by only referring to Sanford as “he,” without saying who “he” is. [And he left in the sentence saying Bostic went to all of them.]

In his italicized update, Weigel says “Bostic, too, skipped forums,” still directly implying Sanford missed some (I’ve asked him to name which ones, as I am unaware of any). His clever wording also implies that Bostic showed up more often than not. He went to one, and skipped all the rest until last night.

Parts of my conversation with @DaveWeigel:

@prupaine We’re illustrating why I shouldn’t base coverage on livestreams then write in a hurry.

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) March 29, 2013

@prupaine But why do you think I’m for Bostic? Probably no reporter is rooting for Sanford to lose the runoff.

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) March 29, 2013

@prupaine I’ll deal with it in the post. Your item is pretty clear on what I missed.

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) March 29, 2013

@prupaine You ascribe an opinion to me that I don’t hold. I wrote just yesterday about how lame Bostic’s campaign is.

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) March 29, 2013

@prupaine Thanks for pointing it out. I haven’t been to SC this cycle b/c every DC reporter and his sister has written the Sanford story

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) March 29, 2013

@prupaine What jumped out to me from the debate was Sanford’s adroit answer to the only question that could lose him the race.

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) March 29, 2013

@daveweigel he’s been asked it probably hundreds of times. to my ear, his answer is always thoughtful, reflective, not canned. sincere.

— Prudence Paine (@PruPaine) March 29, 2013

I’ll update more later as Weigel updates his post at Slate.

By the way, the “Peanut Butter Jelly Time” song is by Chip-man & The Buckwheat Boyz and is available for purchase at iTunes and Amazon.

Therefore, the Prudence Paine Papers introduces a new category: Economics With Prudence.

Here we’ll provide quick takes on economics issues of the day and seek out the best economics learning tools available on the Internet. To maintain a free nation, we have to fully understand that government money doesn’t magically appear out of the air or a politician’s promises. It’s a real thing (even if the government does create mass amounts of it out of paper and ink) and it has real consequences that affect the lives of real citizens of all income-levels.

To set the starting point, let’s mark where we are economically as a country with a tidbit from a National Review Online column by Mark Steyn, titled “The Edge of the Abyss”:

In the course of his first term, Obama increased the federal debt by just shy of $6 trillion and in return grew the economy by $905 billion. So, as Lance Roberts at Street Talk Live pointed out, in order to generate every dollar of economic growth the United States had to borrow about five dollars and 60 cents. There’s no one out there on the planet — whether it’s “the rich” or the Chinese — who can afford to carry on bankrolling that rate of return. According to one CBO analysis, U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as the rest of the world is prepared to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. We already know the answer to that: In order to avoid the public humiliation of a failed bond auction, the U.S. Treasury sells 70 percent of the debt it issues to the Federal Reserve — which is to say the left hand of the U.S. government is borrowing money from the right hand of the U.S. government. It’s government as a Nigerian e-mail scam, with Ben Bernanke playing the role of the dictator’s widow with $4 trillion under her bed that she’s willing to wire to Timmy Geithner as soon as he sends her his bank-account details.

If that’s all a bit too technical, here’s the gist: There’s nothing holding the joint up.

The situation is dire.

Before we can solve the problem, we have to understand the problem. We’ll try to provide that information in as simple a manner as possible. No math degrees required.

If you’d like to sign up to receive an email when new Economics With Prudence posts are added, please fill out the contact form below and we’ll put you on the mailing list.

If you have a question about economics that you would like to have answered, you can post it in the comments section, or submit it directly by filling out the contact form.

[contact-form]

UPDATE: The final electoral vote total of 2012 (not counting faithless electors or unexpectedly discovered warehouses stuffed with ballots) is 332 for Barack Obama and 206 for Mitt Romney. The closest entry in the #JustABlogger Electoral Votes Contest was submitted by Alex Moff (@alexmoff) with 305 for Obama and 233 for Romney. Congratulations, Alex. You may pick your prize.

@nvendor

@prupaine Predict 52.2 R – 47.0 O bit.ly/TE4xFV

— Mickey Heins (@nvendor) November 4, 2012

@nvendor Electoral Vote Map

@skepticalsports

Here’s my contest entry (NOT a prediction) for @prupaine (Obama 50.5 Romney 48.51): twitter.com/skepticalsport…

— Benjamin Morris (@skepticalsports) November 4, 2012

  @jimmiebjr, also seen at The Sundries Shack 

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV-O 217, R 321 twitter.com/jimmiebjr/stat… — Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) November 4, 2012

@prupaine Crud. I have no idea. How about R-53.5%, O-46.5%? — Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) November 4, 2012

  @gradualdazzle

@prupaine Let’s try this again and see if I can follow directions properly! Pop vote R 51 – O 47 twitter.com/gradualdazzle/…

— Gradual Dazzle (@gradualdazzle) November 5, 2012

(resubmitted to fix unallocated Michigan on the map)   @irishspy, also seen at Public Secrets

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV R=326 O=212 PV R=52 O=47 twitter.com/irishspy/statu… — Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) November 4, 2012

  @GayPatriot see his “Bruce’s Final Electoral Map Prediction” at GayPatriot.org.

@prupaine #JustABlogger realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/pr… — Bruce Carroll (@GayPatriot) November 4, 2012

GayPatriot Electoral Vote Map

  @CaringGop

.@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 137, R 401 PV–O 44.24% R 53.01% twitter.com/CaringGOP/stat… — Caring GOP (@CaringGOP) November 4, 2012

    @alexmoff

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV-O 305, R 233 PV- O 51.1%, R 48.1% twitter.com/alexmoff/statu… — Alex Moff (@alexmoff) November 5, 2012

@meadabawdy

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 231, R 307 twitpic.com/bafeh2 PV–O 46.93% R 51.83% — Michael McDonald (@ginabawdy) November 5, 2012

Meadabawdy’s Electoral Vote Map

@beautiflywings also seen at A Diva’s View

@prupaine I would like to enter my map into your contest. *fingers crossed* twitter.com/beautiflywings… — Sparkles (@beautiflywings) November 5, 2012

@AblativMeatshld

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV – O 227 R 311 twitpic.com/baflrq PV – O 46.09% R 52.21% — AblativMeatshld (@AblativMeatshld) November 5, 2012

Ablativ’s Electoral Vote Map

@akonsen also seen at BrainShavings.com

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 216, R 322 PV–O 46.01% R 53.99% twitter.com/akonsen/status… — Alo Konsen (@akonsen) November 5, 2012

by email (8:20pm 11/4/12): Matt Dawson (@SaintRPh) also seen at the MorlockRevolt and funny Mittstache

@SaintRPh’s Electoral Vote Map

@Serr8d also seen at Serr8d’s Cutting Edge

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–0 223 : R 315 — PV–0 47.3% : R 52.7 Cheers! twitpic.com/baftdq — Serr8d (@Serr8d) November 5, 2012

Serr8d’s Electoral Vote Map

@StickeeNotes

@prupaine Popular vote R53-O47 lockerz.com/s/258960009 — Harold Stickeehands (@StickeeNotes) November 5, 2012

Stickee’s Electoral Vote Map

@BurroughsJoseph

@prupaine Romney 51.72%, Obama 47.15%; Romney wins with 301 EV, upside is PA +20;PA is a stretch but could happen. — Joseph A. Burroughs (@BurroughsJoseph) November 5, 2012

@prupaine attached .. it is some 3 weeks old .. i have never wavered twitter.com/BurroughsJosep… — Joseph A. Burroughs (@BurroughsJoseph) November 5, 2012

by email (10:24pm 11/4/12): @Hale_Razor also seen at RedState“355-183 with Romney getting 54.8% of the popular vote”

@Hale_Razor’s Electoral Vote Map

Robert Ezell Jr. @futuredeadguy

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV – O 201, R 337. PV – O 45.29, R 53.47twitpic.com/bagylt — Robert Ezell Jr. (@futuredeadguy) November 5, 2012

@futuredeadguy’s Electoral Vote Map

Aaron Worthing @AaronWorthing as seen at AllergicToBull

Here’s my bold prediction. 316-222 Romney wins. @prupaine 270towin.com/2012_election_… — Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) November 5, 2012

I’ll be specific.Mitt 51%.O will get 47% because God has a sarcastic sense of humor. @prupaine — Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) November 5, 2012

@AaronWorthing Electoral Vote Map

  @rdbrewer4 as seen at AceOfSpades

@prupaineHere’s mine! twitter.com/rdbrewer4/stat… — rdbrewer (@rdbrewer4) November 5, 2012

@prupaineOh, tiebreaker?52 to 47 — rdbrewer (@rdbrewer4) November 5, 2012

@MooseOfReason as seen at MooseOfReason.com

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 246 R 292 twitpic.com/bahf0b PV–O 47% R 52% — Jeff (@MooseOfReason) November 5, 2012

Moose of Reason’s Electoral Vote Map

Ali Akbar (@ali) as seen at his fan page on Facebook

.@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 253, R 285 ||| PV–O 48.2% R 51.3% twitter.com/ali/status/265… — Ali A. Akbar (@ali) November 5, 2012

  @blue_prop

@prupaine#JustABlogger Contest Entry:EV–O 236, R 302 PV- O 47 R 52 twitter.com/blue_prop/stat… — blue (@blue_prop) November 5, 2012

  The Eye of Shannon Poe (@shannonpoe)

@prupaine #JustABlogger twitpic.com/bahmkk — The Eye (@ShannonPoe) November 5, 2012

Shannon Poe’s Electoral Vote Map

@prupaine #JustABlogger EV O – 219 / R – 319 PV O 47% R 53% (Got nothing, got nothing to lose) — The Eye (@ShannonPoe) November 5, 2012

  Michi I. (@michi83)

@prupaine Contest Entry: PV: R-51.2% O-47.3% twitter.com/michi83/status… — Michi I. (@michi83) November 5, 2012

  Pete (@maxpeppertree)

@prupaine Romney 51-47%/ Romney 295-243 EV. — Pete (@maxpeppertree) November 5, 2012

@Maxpeppertree’s Electoral Vote Map

@speakez6

R-321 0-219%53.3-46.7 @prupaine twitter.com/speakez6/statu… — GENXR (@speakez6) November 5, 2012

  @Poor_Richard as seen at PoorRichardsNews.com

.@prupaine270towin.com/2012_election_…Obama:47%Romney: 51% Johnson 2% twitter.com/poor_richard/s… — Poor Richard (@poor_richard) November 5, 2012

  Dr. Schadenfreude (@PoliticsOfFear)

@prupaine #JustABlogger EV Obama 263, Romney 275. PV Obama 48.27%, Romney 50.68% twitter.com/PoliticsOfFear… — Dr. Schadenfreude (@PoliticsOfFear) November 5, 2012

  Truman North @TruPundit as seen on AceOfSpades

@prupaine #justablogger contest EV-O 223, EV-R 315 here: tinyurl.com/akfzjbg PV-O 47.4, PV-R 52.6 Final Prediction. — Truman North (@TruPundit) November 5, 2012

TruPundit’s Electoral Vote Map

John Lane (@jpl1988)

Alright @prupaine imgur.com/xDB7x #NotaBlogger, but 289 R/249 O w/NPV of 51 R/48 O Least sure of WI,PA,& IA R+2 in House & R+1 Senate — John Lane (@jpl1988) November 5, 2012

@jpl1988′s Electoral Vote Map

Jeff Cooper ‏(@jeffdotcooper)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 179 R 359PV-O 46.98 R 53.02 twitter.com/jeffdotcooper/… — Jeff Cooper (@jeffdotcooper) November 5, 2012

  Murray S Y Bessette @MSYBessette

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 206, R 332; PV-O 46.73, R 51.92 twitter.com/MSYBessette/st… — Murray S Y Bessette (@MSYBessette) November 5, 2012

  Chris Coon (‏@Coondawg68)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 243, R 295PV–O 48.1% R 51.9% twitter.com/Coondawg68/sta… — Chris Coon (@Coondawg68) November 5, 2012

  @lorien1973 also seen at Lorien1973.com

My 2012 Election Prediction bit.ly/R8Onlu #electoralprediction @prupaine PopVote R50.3%,O49.7%. — lorien1973 (@lorien1973) November 5, 2012

Lorien1973′s Electoral Vote Map

  Rod Dixon @1_whoisjohngalt

@prupaine Contest Entry: EV–O 175, R 363 h PV–O 48% R 52% twitter.com/1_whoisjohngal… — Rod Dixon (@1_whoisjohngalt) November 5, 2012

  @aknick

yfrog.com/0q2b5sj @prupaine here’s my SWAG at this thing. Wish me luck!!! — aknick (@aknick) November 5, 2012

@prupaine Oopsie. Let’s go 50.8%R and 47.9%O. #fingerscrossed — aknick (@aknick) November 5, 2012

Aknick’s Electoral Vote Map

  @TheMorningSpew also seen at TheMorningSpew.com

@prupaine#justablogger contest.EV O- 172R- 347Popular vote: O – 44.7% and R – 55.3%twitpic.com/bal5k7 — The Morning Spew (@TheMorningSpew) November 5, 2012

@morningspew’s Electoral Vote Map

  Tom Reynolds (@Beregond) also seen at BeregondsBar.com

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 263, R 275twitpic.com/balave PV–O 48.57% R 51.06%

— Tom Reynolds (@Beregond) November 5, 2012

Beregond’s Electoral Vote Map

@zakn as seen at AceOfSpades

@prupaine 49/47 Rom realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/pr…

— Zakn (@zakn) November 5, 2012

@zakn’s Electoral Vote Map

Chris Smith (@smitty_one_each) as seen at The Other McCain

@prupaine #JustABlogger EV Entry: Don’t Settle For Egg On Obama’s Face; Give It The Full Omelettetheothermccain.com/?p=83423 #TCOT

— Chris Smith (@smitty_one_each) November 5, 2012

Smitty’s Electoral Vote Map

Smitty tweeted to add the 8 unassigned electoral votes to Romney, awarding him a whopping 362 to Obama’s 176. And his post at TheOtherMcCain.com was updated to include his popular vote estimate of:

• Romney: 59%
• Obama: 39%
• Other: 2%

[Thanks for the post, Smitty!]
And @SissyWillis of Sisu decided to piggyback on Smitty’s entry. So if Smitty wins, Sissy will have to read the book prize of his choice over his shoulder.

@prupaine I second @smitty_one_each‘s entry!

— Sissy Willis (@SissyWillis) November 5, 2012

@JustKarl as seen at HotAir.com and its new expanded Greenroom

@prupaine old.rapidimg.org/images/QnHJM.j… O 49.5, R 48.5 #eeyore — Just Karl (@justkarl) November 5, 2012

@JustKarl’s Electoral Vote Map

@JustKarl tweeted that that electoral vote totals in his map are: 275-263. JackieLynn ‏(@princy_lyn) as seen at JakckieWellfonder.com

@prupaine EV–O 211, R 327PV–O 46.84% R 53.16% instagr.am/p/Rpzg4SKcWU/ #JustABlogger jackiewellfonder.com Thx Pru!! twitter.com/princy_lyn/sta… — JackieLynn(@princy_lyn) November 5, 2012

@MoxieMom

@prupaine Here’s my map:realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/pr…

— MoxieMom (@moxiemom) November 5, 2012

@MoxieMom’s Electoral Vote Map

@prupaine Oh, there were instructions?! I didn’t read! How about Romney 49.5, Obama 47.2

— MoxieMom (@moxiemom) November 5, 2012

UPDATE: When posting Moxie’s entry here, I noted that her map and totals has left some electoral votes unassigned, so I offered her the opportunity to correct it (even though beyond deadline, because I had done the same with other entries, and the delay was my fault)

@prupaine Whoops! 249 Obama, 289 Romney

— MoxieMom (@moxiemom) November 6, 2012

WJJ Hoge (@wjjhoge) as seen at Hogewash.com

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry EV-O223 R 315 wp.me/p1IUdy-2l8 PV-O 47% R 52% 3rdParties 1% Nate Silver 0

— WJJ Hoge (@wjjhoge) November 5, 2012

@wjjhoge’s Electoral Vote Map

@Saki_Knows

@prupaineHere’s my pick as of 11:04 EST 11/5/12 twitter.com/Saki_Knows/sta…

— Saki Knows (@Saki_Knows) November 5, 2012

**incomplete entry/awaiting Popular Vote percentages David Conard ‏(@conard3)

@prupaine bit.ly/VueWWA 51%- 48% Romney — David Conard (@conard3) November 5, 2012

David Conard’s Electoral Vote Map

@travispjohnson

.@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry EV: O-212 R-326 PV: O-44.37% R-54.63% twitpic.com/bam373 — Travis Johnson (@travispjohnson) November 5, 2012

@travispjohnson’s Electoral Vote Map

@RevOnlineDotCom as also seen at TheRevolutionary

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Enry: EV – O 224, R – 314;PV – O 53.40%, R 46.60% twitter.com/RevOnlineDotCo… — TheRevolutionary (@RevOnlineDotCom) November 5, 2012

  DiploMatt (@mdrache)

@prupaine JAB Electoral Contest: EV O-249/R-289 – img202.imageshack.us/img202/1966/sc… PV O-48.4/R-51.6 — DiploMatt (@mdrache) November 5, 2012

@mdrache’s Electoral Vote Map

@ajstone

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 243, R 295 –O 48% R 52% twitter.com/ajstone/status… — ajstone (@ajstone) November 5, 2012

  Ted Lehr (@ledtear)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 243, R 295 PV–O 41.89% R 57.82% twitter.com/ledtear/status… — Ted Lehr (@ledtear) November 5, 2012

Darin Jeffers (@Gabochan)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 243, R 295 PV–O 47.27% R 52.73% twitter.com/Gabochan/statu…

— Darin Jeffers (@Gabochan) November 5, 2012

@RocksEm

.@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 183, R 355PV–O 46.4% R 53.4% twitter.com/RocksEm/status…

— RocksEm (@RocksEm) November 5, 2012

Brian Willard (@bnhwillard)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV-R 275, O 263 twitpic.com/bam9zb PV-O 50.36% R 49.42% — Brian Willard (@bnhwillard) November 5, 2012

@bnhwillard’s Electoral Vote Map

S K (@nolesfan2011)

@prupaine#justablogger contest entry #obama 281 #romney 257 popular vote #Obama 50.12% Romney 48.5% twitter.com/nolesfan2011/s… — S K (@nolesfan2011) November 5, 2012

@Whatwesettlefor

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: PV–O 46.4% R 53.6% | EV–O 227, R 311 twitter.com/Whatwesettlefo…

— Whatwesettlefor (@Whatwesettlefor) November 5, 2012

@PatriotWI

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 184, R 354 twitpic.com/bamiqg PV–O 41.01% R 50.75%

— PatriotWI (@PatriotWI) November 5, 2012

@patriotwi’s Electoral Vote Map

Melissia @ProudoftheUSA

Here is my entry @prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 223, R 315 PV–O 47.72% R 52.28% twitpic.com/bamqxm

— Melissia (@ProudoftheUSA) November 5, 2012

@proudoftheusa’s Electoral Vote Map

Paul Patané ‏@PaulPatane

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 207, R 331 twitpic.com/bamr1z PV–O 46.66% R 53.33%

— Paul Patané (@PaulPatane) November 5, 2012

@paulpatane’s Electoral Vote Map

Adam Baldwin (@adamsbaldwin) also seen at Breitbart.com’s Big Hollywood

Entry for @prupaine‘s #JustaBlogger Contest: twitter.com/adamsbaldwin/s…

— Adam Baldwin (@adamsbaldwin) November 5, 2012

@prupaine 52-47%

— Adam Baldwin (@adamsbaldwin) November 5, 2012

Luke Londo ‏(@llondo)

My entry for @prupaine‘s #JustABlogger Electoral Vote Contest: i1167.photobucket.com/albums/q629/ll… R281 – O257. Tiebreaker: R 51.34%, O 47.09%. — Luke Londo (@llondo) November 5, 2012

@llondo’s Electoral Vote Map

@sigtau22

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 237, R 301 PV–O 47.84% R 51.89% twitpic.com/ban1v7

— Sigtau22 (@sigtau22) November 5, 2012

@sigtau22′s Electoral Vote Map

@Strat77

@prupaine Pop Vote: RR 50.8%OB 46.7% Others 2.5% twitter.com/Strat77/status…

— Strat77 (@Strat77) November 5, 2012

@Politicklish also seen at Politicklish.com

#JustABlogger Contest Entry: Romney 301 – Obama 237 @prupaine #Election2012 @adamsbaldwin twitter.com/Politicklish/s…

— Politicklish (@Politicklish) November 5, 2012

@prupaine Romney 51.2% – Obama 48.1%

— Politicklish (@Politicklish) November 5, 2012

Billy Shears ‏(@Billy_Shears77)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 266, R 272 PV–O 46.6% R 51.1% J 3.3% twitter.com/Billy_Shears77…

— Billy Shears (@Billy_Shears77) November 5, 2012

Matthew Burden (‏@Blackfive) also seen at Blackfive.net

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 264, R 274. PV–O 48.52% R 51.48% twitter.com/Blackfive/stat…

— Matthew Burden (@Blackfive) November 5, 2012

Ryan Underdown (‏@Underdown)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 206, R 332PV–O 47.63% R 51.99% twitpic.com/banq2q

— Ryan Underdown (@Underdown) November 5, 2012

@underdown’s Electoral Vote Map

Melissa Clouthier ‏(@MelissaTweets) also seen at MelissaBlogs.com

Here’s the Emo Electoral map: bit.ly/VOBZqFcc: @prupaine

— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) November 5, 2012

@melissatweets’s Electoral Vote Map

@prupaine 51.4% Romney 47.1% Obama

— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) November 5, 2012

Justin Evans @skyfire163

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 206, R 332 twitpic.com/bans9o PV–O 47.83% R 51.92%

— Justin Evans (@skyfire163) November 5, 2012

@skyfire’s Electoral Vote Map

@liamkmac

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV-O 252, R 286, PV-O 48.75 R 51.25 twitter.com/liamkmac/statu…

— liamkmac (@liamkmac) November 5, 2012

Neo (@Neosexist) also seen at Neosexist.com (thanks for link!)

. @prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 206, R 332PV–O 47.4% R 52.4%Go big or Go home. twitter.com/Neosexist/stat…

— Neo (@Neosexist) November 5, 2012

@IndelicatFlower

@prupaine OH YEAH I SAID OREGON. Tho we came up with the same number in the end. 313 R (52%), 225 O (47%) Enter me! twitter.com/IndelicatFlowe…

— Indelicate Flowers (@IndelicatFlower) November 5, 2012

@TRMirCat

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 232, R 306 yfrog.com/n87njnpPV–O 39% R 61%

— MirCat (@TRMirCat) November 5, 2012

TRmircat’s Electoral Vote Map

JammieWearingFool (@JammieWF) as seen at Jammie Wearing Fools

twitpic.com/bao5qc – @prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV R 296 – O 242; PV R 51.85% – O 47.47% twitpic.com/bao5qc

— JammieWearingFool (@JammieWF) November 5, 2012

@jammiewf’s Electoral Vote Map

Miké ‏@ThePantau

@prupaine #JustABlogger EV Contest entry: bit.ly/UdCuzd. 50.8% R, 48.2% O.

— Miké (@ThePantau) November 5, 2012

@thepantau’s Electoral Vote Map

Alexis Rose Bank ‏(@icanhasbailout)

@prupaine My wild ass guess of how this is going to turn out twitpic.com/bao8f9

— Alexis Rose Bank (@icanhasbailout) November 5, 2012

@icanhasbailout’s Electoral Vote Map w/numbers

@prupaine I’ll WAG the pop vote @ R49-O45

— Alexis Rose Bank (@icanhasbailout) November 5, 2012

Carl Bralick (‏@cbralick)

@prupaine here ya go! twitter.com/cbralick/statu…

— Carl Bralick (@cbralick) November 5, 2012

Note: Current map still contains unassigned electoral votes.

58% Romney 40% Obama

— Carl Bralick (@cbralick) November 6, 2012

Kent (@kentmontgomery1)

@prupaine Thx & YES! Will this pic suffice? Pop vote – Romney: 53% Obama: 47% twitter.com/kentmontgomery…

— Kent (@kentmontgomery1) November 5, 2012

@MuseumTwenty

.@prupaine #JustABlogger Official Contest Entry: R-418 (56%) O-120 (42%). Love that you are doing this. Thank you! twitter.com/MuseumTwenty/s…

— MuseumTwenty (@MuseumTwenty) November 5, 2012

raindog (@raindogtweets)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV–O 261, R 277, PV–O 49.8% R 49.2% twitter.com/raindogtweets/…

— raindog (@raindogtweets) November 6, 2012

(image error)

Electoral Vote Map

Carlos Hernandez (@SniperMarine)

@prupaine #JustABlogger Contest Entry: EV-O 237, R 295realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/pr…PV – O 48.3%, R 51.6%

— Carlos Hernandez (@SniperMarine) November 6, 2012

Due to unassigned states in first map, allowed to resubmit with correction:

Electoral Vote Map

Charles Simmins (@CharlesSimmins) also seen at NorthShoreJournal

@prupaine Prediction: twitpic.com/baoygj/full R-56% O-44%

— Charles Simmins (@CharlesSimmins) November 6, 2012

@charlessimmins’ Electoral Vote Map

@JoanOfArgghh as also seen at Primordial Slack

@prupaine Here’s my electoral map: goo.gl/PqWtn

— Impeach Obama NOW! (@JoanOfArgghh) November 6, 2012

@joanargghh’s Electoral Vote Map

@prupaine Hmmm. Popular vote: Romney 53, Obama 44

— Impeach Obama NOW! (@JoanOfArgghh) November 6, 2012

@Bears_Shadow

@prupaine See who I think wins the 2012 election on RealCearPolitics.com realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/pr…

— Bear’s Shadow (@Bears_Shadow) November 5, 2012

[As original map had unassigned votes, was permitted to resubmit corrected map, as well as missing popular vote estimate]

@bearshadow’s Electoral Vote Map

@prupaine fixed, 61% R, 37% O.

— Bear’s Shadow (@Bears_Shadow) November 6, 2012

That concludes all of the *prize-eligible* entries. We had 88 in total. After I vote, I will a few people that missed the deadline but wished to be included.

UPDATE: I forgot to move my own map over here!

My prediction was Obama getting 225 electoral votes and Romney 313, the popular vote being 47.57% for Obama and 52.16% for Romney.

@prupaine’s Electoral Vote Map

My great thanks to those that did a write-up of the contest at their sites:
Dan Riehl of RiehlWorldView.com
Smitty of TheOtherMcCain.com
RD Brewer of AceOfSpadesHQ

And the linkage was much appreciated from:
Stacy McCain of the eponymous TheOtherMcCain writing at the AmericanSpectator and, of course, TheOtherMcCain.
Jammie at JammieWearingFools

Thanks for sending your readers my way for the contest.