Understanding the primaries may be a bit difficult for some. The primaries used to be put on and paid for by the different parties and in some states that is still true. But now, most states pay for the primaries to be held.
You can't vote for the local Sheriff in the Democratic primary and the County Judge in the Republican primary. When you go to vote you are either registered as one party or the other . . . or Independent, Green, Libertarian or one of the many other parties or in some states, there is no party registration and they will ask you what ballot you want. Arkansas, where I live, is one of those states. In states where they have open Primaries you can vote in any political party and I'll explain how that may be good for everyone.
In an open primary, even though you may be a registered Republican you can vote in a Democratic primary. The Republicans did that in South Carolina in 2010 and a fellow the Republicans paid money to in order to run him against Jim DeMint was put on the ballot. His name was Alvin Greene. The Republicans voted, in mass, in the Democratic primary for Alvin Greene who defeated the guy that could have defeated DeMint. Greene became the nominee but he was retarded and couldn't even make a speech. So Jim DeMint beat Greene in the General election 63% to 19% with 8% going to another candidate and 10% undecided.
I'll attempt to fill you in on the upcoming Primaries state by state. This is Feb. 19, 2012 and the next GOP Primary will be on Feb. 28.
February 28, 2012:
1. Arizona has a closed primary system and to get a ballot you must be a registered party voter.
2. Michigan is an open primary state so that Democrats can vote in the Republican primary but then you have to vote only in the Republican primary, no cross voting.
March 3, 2012:
1. Washington has a system that is similar to the California system of "Top Two." The top two vote getters have to run against each other.
March 6, 2010, "Super Tuesday":
1. Alaska Republicans have a closed CAUCUS system and you must be a registered Republican for 30 days to participate.
2. Idaho Republicans have a closed CAUCUS system.
3. Georgia has a semi-closed PRIMARY system; you must be registered in the party to vote.
4. Massachusetts has a semi-closed PRIMARY system.
5. North Dakota has a closed CAUCUS system.
6. Ohio has a closed PRIMARY system but there is no party registration and a voter can be challenged as not being affiliated. (I'm not sure what this means. If you live in Ohio, let me know)
7. Oklahoma has a closed PRIMARY system.
8. Tennessee has a closed PRIMARY system but you can change parties on the day of election then back the next day.
9. Vermont has an open PRIMARY system.
10. Virginia has an open PRIMARY system but the Republicans in Vermont require you sign a "Loyalty Oath" to the Republicans.
March 6-10, 2012:
1. Wyoming has a closed CAUCUS system but you can change party affiliation any day.
March 10, 2012:
1. Kansas has a closed PRIMARY system but allows "unaffiliated" voters to participate.
March 13, 2012:
1. Alabama has an open PRIMARY system. Anyone can vote on any ballot.
2. Hawaii has an open CAUCUS system with not party affiliation.
3. Mississippi has an open PRIMARY system, but you must support the nominee? (Not sure how that is enforced)
I'll have information on the rest of the primaries in the next post.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Doing The Math, the GOP Primaries so far
I keep seeing the GOP primaries and the percentages for each of the contestants and wonder if anyone else notes the real problem.
For instance, in Iowa Santorum won with 24.6%. That means that 75.4% preferred someone else, and that was for the winner! Three quarters of those involved didn't like Santorum and he was the winner.
Now, let's go on to the next one, that would be New Hampshire. In N.H. Romney received 39.3% and won but that just means that 60.7% voted against him, and he was the winner.
How about South Carolina? Gingrich won S.C. with 40.4% of the vote which means that 59.6 preferred someone else.
Let's stop here for a second and observe that there have been no repeats in the winners and the average winner only received 34.8% of the votes, which again means that 65.2% of the voters didn't like the winner . . . on average.
Now we will be seeing what happens to the numbers when the list shortens to just 4 contestants.
At the end of January, everyone went to Florida, which seems like a good place to go on January 31. There we had a repeat, Romney. He got 46.4% of the votes and 53.6% went for someone else and this was without the dilution of having 7 people in the race.
Next, we went to the Nevada caucuses on February 4. There Romney won with the first ever 50.0% majority.
On Feb. 7, we had the three caucuses in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota. Rick Santorum won all three by 55.2%, 40.3% and 44.8% respectively. That was the highest percentage(55.2%) so far and it was in Missouri where no delegates were at stake.
In Maine on February 11, Romney won again but by only 39.2%. Again, lots of folks voted another way.
So far, on average, the winner of the various GOP primaries have won with only 42.2% on average. That means the vast majority of participants voted for someone other than the winner.
What you have just seen is only a small part of the real story. The number of actual voters is the big story. Normally about 25% of the voters participating in the general election for President show up for the primaries/caucuses. But this time only 17.7% showed up in Iowa and NO PREFERENCE beat out two of the participants. In Maine, less than 2% of the normal number of voters from 2008 showed up to vote in the primaries.
I just don't see a lot of enthusiasm for any of the GOP roster.
Sources:
Associated Press via Google
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/
For instance, in Iowa Santorum won with 24.6%. That means that 75.4% preferred someone else, and that was for the winner! Three quarters of those involved didn't like Santorum and he was the winner.
Now, let's go on to the next one, that would be New Hampshire. In N.H. Romney received 39.3% and won but that just means that 60.7% voted against him, and he was the winner.
How about South Carolina? Gingrich won S.C. with 40.4% of the vote which means that 59.6 preferred someone else.
Let's stop here for a second and observe that there have been no repeats in the winners and the average winner only received 34.8% of the votes, which again means that 65.2% of the voters didn't like the winner . . . on average.
Now we will be seeing what happens to the numbers when the list shortens to just 4 contestants.
At the end of January, everyone went to Florida, which seems like a good place to go on January 31. There we had a repeat, Romney. He got 46.4% of the votes and 53.6% went for someone else and this was without the dilution of having 7 people in the race.
Next, we went to the Nevada caucuses on February 4. There Romney won with the first ever 50.0% majority.
On Feb. 7, we had the three caucuses in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota. Rick Santorum won all three by 55.2%, 40.3% and 44.8% respectively. That was the highest percentage(55.2%) so far and it was in Missouri where no delegates were at stake.
In Maine on February 11, Romney won again but by only 39.2%. Again, lots of folks voted another way.
So far, on average, the winner of the various GOP primaries have won with only 42.2% on average. That means the vast majority of participants voted for someone other than the winner.
What you have just seen is only a small part of the real story. The number of actual voters is the big story. Normally about 25% of the voters participating in the general election for President show up for the primaries/caucuses. But this time only 17.7% showed up in Iowa and NO PREFERENCE beat out two of the participants. In Maine, less than 2% of the normal number of voters from 2008 showed up to vote in the primaries.
I just don't see a lot of enthusiasm for any of the GOP roster.
Sources:
Associated Press via Google
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/
Who Came Up With This?
The other day I saw a Pontiac Aztec going along the highway. It occurred to me that it was a really ugly car . . . in my opinion. Then I said to myself, being a salesman, "Someone had to sell that car." Not just to the final consumer but to the execs at General Motors. Someone had to convince his boss that that was the greatest thing on four wheels. Then the boss had to convince his boss and so on up to the top before they committed financial resources to build the Aztec. What SALESMEN/WOMEN these people must have been.
Now, here comes this years crop of Republicans. They seem to have recently adopted an anti-contraceptives platform. "Let's be against contraception" they have decided. Now I wonder, "Who sold that idea to them? Must have been one hell of a salesman."
The only ones that seem to really be against any form of contraception are the only ones that don't/shouldn't need it . . . the Catholic Clergy.
The way to really turn the people against you is to come out against the one thing that most of us enjoy . . . male/female SEX. Among the Catholics, 98% use some sort of contraception. That leaves the 2% that are either clergy or they lie about it, or clergy that lie about it.
The one thing that could really do-in the Republicans is being against contraception or an easy way to pay for it.
Let's see what happens to it in the near future. Then let's see what they can come up with next to be against, maybe some other form of recreation, Face Book, Twitter, Bridge? Who knows what the desperate will come up with next? And, yes . . . that is what the GOP is . . . DESPERATE!
You gotta read the next post to find out how desperate they really are.
Now, here comes this years crop of Republicans. They seem to have recently adopted an anti-contraceptives platform. "Let's be against contraception" they have decided. Now I wonder, "Who sold that idea to them? Must have been one hell of a salesman."
The only ones that seem to really be against any form of contraception are the only ones that don't/shouldn't need it . . . the Catholic Clergy.
The way to really turn the people against you is to come out against the one thing that most of us enjoy . . . male/female SEX. Among the Catholics, 98% use some sort of contraception. That leaves the 2% that are either clergy or they lie about it, or clergy that lie about it.
The one thing that could really do-in the Republicans is being against contraception or an easy way to pay for it.
Let's see what happens to it in the near future. Then let's see what they can come up with next to be against, maybe some other form of recreation, Face Book, Twitter, Bridge? Who knows what the desperate will come up with next? And, yes . . . that is what the GOP is . . . DESPERATE!
You gotta read the next post to find out how desperate they really are.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
On A Recent Recess Appointment
The first recess appointment by a President was made by President George Washington in 1795 and that practice has continued since.
More recently, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.
Sources:
Henry B. Hogue; Richard S. Beth. "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (pdf). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A. Retrieved 4 January 2012
The question arises from the fact that the present “Do Nothing” Congress, with an approval rating in the single digits, had failed to approve a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after several months. Exposing the Republican’s desire to NOT have consumer’s finances protected from banks, loan associations or any other group out to cheat the public. The Republicans didn’t even want that bureau to exist so the best bet was for them to continue to filibuster any appointments to head it. To try to thwart any appointments, the Republicans did a pro forma opening of the Senate. They opened it and left it open with no business being done and no one there to perform any business or to give “Advise and Consent.” They had to do this every three days to make it work. President Obama appointed John Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anyway. The Republicans have objected ever since but none have taken him to court on it. More “Sound and fury . . . signifying nothing.”
On January 6th, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, stating that "The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."
Sources:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html
http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf
In case anyone is interested, President Barack Obama knows the Constitution, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
More recently, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.
Sources:
Henry B. Hogue; Richard S. Beth. "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (pdf). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A. Retrieved 4 January 2012
The question arises from the fact that the present “Do Nothing” Congress, with an approval rating in the single digits, had failed to approve a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after several months. Exposing the Republican’s desire to NOT have consumer’s finances protected from banks, loan associations or any other group out to cheat the public. The Republicans didn’t even want that bureau to exist so the best bet was for them to continue to filibuster any appointments to head it. To try to thwart any appointments, the Republicans did a pro forma opening of the Senate. They opened it and left it open with no business being done and no one there to perform any business or to give “Advise and Consent.” They had to do this every three days to make it work. President Obama appointed John Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anyway. The Republicans have objected ever since but none have taken him to court on it. More “Sound and fury . . . signifying nothing.”
On January 6th, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, stating that "The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."
Sources:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html
http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf
In case anyone is interested, President Barack Obama knows the Constitution, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)