Winning candidates, be humble!

Most of the election results are in, and once again the "largest party" came in first.  The "largest party" is the party of no-shows, the eligible voters who chose to stay away.  The turn out figures are estimated to be around 60 percent.  In order to come in "first", a candidate would have to have about two-thirds of the votes cast.  Few, if any, have received this level of support.

Well, maybe in pockets here and there.  For example, Obama may have received 75 percent of the votes in Boston, but throughout the country, he received just over half the votes.

Some claim can be made that the Hurricane Sandy lowered the vote in New York and New Jersey, but  Sandy can't account for 19 percent fewer votes in Arizona and 25 percent fewer in Alaska.  Voter ID laws may have had some effect, but not that big in Alaska.

What would be interesting to know is how many 2008 Obama supporters stayed away because Obama didn't do all they wanted and how many Tea Partiers stayed away because Romney wasn't "pure" enough.

At least at the top of ballot, both Romney and Obama are acting humble.  Their speeches this morning were filled with gracious remarks.  Let's hope that these attitudes are shown by those down the ranks.

A couple of Middle East surprises

When I wrote "Muslims do speak out" I mentioned some newspapers including The Daily Star of Lebanon.  I scanned the headlines and read a story or two.

One story was that the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that Syrian rebels have about 50 Stinger missiles.  Stinger missiles were used quite effectively by Afghani fighters against Soviet helicopters.  I wondered when some would be available to the rebels in Syria against the aerial attacks by the government.  I didn't see any mention of the missiles actually being used.  But Lavrov voiced concerns about the missiles being used against civilian aircraft.  Given the shifting mix of fighters, this should concern all countries.

The other surprise was an ad near the bottom of a page - an ad for Mitt Romney for President sponsored by www.MittRomney.com/Minnesota!  We're being tracked!!

Never, ever use never and ever - a note to Mitt Romney

I noticed that an ad at the top of "Citizens or soldiers, which do we want" is for Mitt Romney, probably because I quote from The American Conservative".  (You may see a different ad.)

The ad boldly repeats Romney's assertion, "I will never apologize for America."  I am afraid of leaders who assert, "My country, always right!"  I'm sorry, Mr. Romney, but history is full of aggressive acts by American governments where others were pushed aside for American "interests".

I guess Romney would not apologize for the atrocities against Native Americans that have been admitted by other presidents.  Note: the measure was introduced into the U.S. Senate by Sam Brownback, R-KS with the words: “to officially apologize for the past ill-conceived policies by the US Government toward the Native Peoples of this land and re-affirm our commitment toward healing our nation’s wounds and working toward establishing better relationships rooted in reconciliation.”  See http://nativevotewa.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/president-obama-signs-native-american-apology-resolution/.

I guess he would not apologize for the internment of Japanese-Americans as did his hero, Ronald Reagan.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment.

I guess he would not apologize for an American sniper using the Qu'ran for target practice as did his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.  See "Real conservatives can say they're sorry", Nicholaus Mills, CNN, 2012-09-20.

I guess he would not apologize for the atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in the Philipines (see "Revolt in the Ranks" written by a conservative).

I guess he would not apologize for all the meddling in other countries' affairs that we would not tolerate if done by other countries to us.

More "real" names of political parties

Given Romney's false statements, maybe he's a Republicon.  Given that Democrats often don't seem to be what many vote for, maybe they should be called Lemoncrats.

Pessimistic quote of the day: responsibility for business success or failure

A small BBQ chain in Richmond went out of business.  Mitt Romney used it as an example of how the Obama administration is bad for business.  He ignores that another BBQ in Richmond is quite successful, but Romney won't give the Obama credit for its success.

"Mr. Romney’s take on Bill’s seems perfectly representative of his general outlook. If a business succeeds, the government can’t share the credit. If it fails, it’s the government’s fault."

See "Bad Barbecue? Blame Obama", Juliet Lapados, New York Times, 2012-11-02.

I still don't believe the polls

… and I don't really have any well-based predictions of my own.

Consider that our phone rings several times a day.  We don't answer and very few leave a message on the answering machine.  Those who do leave a message have some meaningful connection to us.  Given the approaching election, these "empty" calls are

1) Robo-calls for a candidate or a party
2) Person calls for a candidate or a party
3) Poll calls

Also consider that many people have cell phones but no land line.  Although some pollsters say they are calling both land lines and cell phones, many cell phone numbers are not in any directory.  My cell phone has few calls and the two recent unknown calls may have been misdials or random spamming.  Besides, I generally have it off.

Which way will those who are not reached by a poll lean?  I can't really say.  Will too many younger voters stay away because they didn't think Obama didn't do enough?  Are those who don't answer more likely to lean toward Obama?  As I write this yet another call came in that stopped after three rings.

How likely are those who respond to actually vote?  One of the questions is if the respondent is a likely voter.  Many people say they are likely voters because they are embarrassed to admit that they don't plan on voting.

I think the election will be determined by the balance of unhappy people, which group will stay away in larger numbers - Tea Party types who don't think Romney is "conservative" enough or "liberals" who don't think Obama did enough.  My inclination is that the latter will be the larger group.

I hope you, dear reader, will not be a stay-away on election day.  Please remind your friends to vote.

FEMA - A smart conservative speaks

FEMA does need reform, many states should look out for themselves, and the private sector can do things for disaster relief.  But instead of a broad brush attack on the Federal Government or a broad brush defense of business as usual, we need calm deliberation of the facts and of where the best resources are available.

See "How a Smart Conservative Would Reform FEMA", Jordan Weissman, The Atlantic, 2012-10-31.

Maybe Matt Mayer could be a catalyst for a "Real Republican" party?

"Moving" auto jobs from country to country

Mitt Romney's campaign has made a big deal of Jeep expanding its manufacturing in China, claiming Jeep is outsourcing jobs and blaming it on President Obama.  Is he also going to blame George W. Bush for all the outsourcing that was done between 2000 and 2008?

The fact is that Jeep is expanding its total manufacturing, including manufacturing Jeeps where they will be sold.

What does he think of Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, Subaru, Mitsubishi,  BMW, Mercedes-Benz,  and Volkswagen having factories in the U.S.?  Are they exporting jobs from their home countries?  Or expanding closer to their markets.  Maybe it's the shipping companies that should complain, all that trans-oceanic traffic that is lost and the associated jobs.

See "'Transplant' auto factories in USA turn 30 this year", James R. Healy, USA Today, 2012-04-03.

As Thomas Friedman wrote, "The World is Flat".

Mitt and FEMA, ideology trumps pragmatism and sympathy

See "A Big Storm Requires Big Government", New York Times, 2012-10-29.

I wonder how Mitt Romney thinks massive disaster relief by private corporations would work.  "Before we rescue from your roof, would you please give us your credit card number?"  "Before we spray your house with water as the forest fire gets closer, would you please give us your credit card number?"  "Before we give you information about the hurricane's path, would you please…"

Debates? What debates?

According to the newspapers, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their third and final debate last night, supposedly on foreign policy.  As with the previous two, I didn't bother watching.  What for?  See What do the debates prove?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-do-debates-prove.html and Netflix disappointed me
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/netflix-disappointed-me.html

From what little I read in newspapers, I didn't think it was worth watching.  I think the debates were summed up by two snippets from "Sparring Over Foreign Policy, Obama Goes on the Offense
", Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2012-10-22.

"For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists."

"Mr. Romney pinned the cascading crises around the world on Mr. Obama’s shoulders, saying the president had failed to live up to his promises from his 2008 campaign and left the country in a weaker position."

Baker and Cooper seem to say that whoever wins the election will follow essentially the same policies.  Maybe, maybe not.  However, I think the second quote is quite telling of Romney's attitude that the President of the U.S. should be emperor of the world and bring all these hot spots in line with U.S. "interests".  My usual question is who elected the President as "the leader of the free world"?  It certainly wasn't the people of Canada, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.  How can you claim to be for freedom and democracy if you anoint yourself as "the leader of the free world"?  Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor of France, and look what happened to him.  Look what's happening to our economy as we spend all this money on weapons and war without raising the taxes to pay for them.

Who creates jobs? Government or Corporations?

According to "The Myth of Job Creation", Editorial, New York Times, 2012-10-21, Obama and Romney agree that "government does not create jobs".  The New York Times disagrees, "Except that it does, millions of them — including teachers, police officers, firefighters, soldiers, sailors, astronauts, epidemiologists, antiterrorism agents, park rangers, diplomats, governors (Mr. Romney’s old job) and congressmen (like Paul Ryan)."

It is so hard to break the Norquist attitude that government is useless.  If government was so useless, why do so many corporations spend fortunes to get a government that will pass laws they favor?  If government was so useless, why do so many corporations seek government contracts?  If government was so useless, who would give corporations patents?  If government was so useless, who would adjudicate corporations billion-dollar suits against each other?

Who controls gasoline prices

As I watch the gasoline prices drop, I wonder if those who blamed Obama for an increase in prices are  giving him credit for the drop.  I doubt it, because the latter is just as unrealistic as the former.

"In the end, supply and demand is causing prices to moderate once again."
Sharon Epperson, CNBC, 2012-10-18 via Yahoo Finance.

In other words, free market proponents are all for free markets when markets work to their benefit, but they blame someone else when markets work to their detriment.

More on more appropriate party names

Given the number of misleading and untrue statements that Mitt Romney made in the first debate, given the Republicans claim of voter fraud, denial of climate change, and mischaracterizations of free markets, maybe the best name for their party is the Republicons.

Given how often the Democrats give in to many of the Republican charges against them, like soft on communism, soft on crime, and soft on terrorism, maybe the best name for their party is the Fraidycrats.

What do the debates prove?

I don't plan to watch the presidential debates tomorrow.  What will they prove?  Only how well either participant can answer questions in a couple of minutes.  This is not how a president governs.

A good president asks the right questions of the right people and then deliberates how to get others to act.  There may be a time for quick responses, but for the most part, the president engages in long term thinking.  This can take weeks of interviews and of deliberation.

The debates may actually be harmful to the governing of the country.  They encourage too much off the top of the head thinking with insufficient information.  What one says in the heat of the debate may be quite contrary to what one should do in practice.

A voice from the 47% who is now in the 53%

Moby, a DJ, singer-songwriter, and musician, wrote a heartfelt analysis about being in the 47%.  All the help he got helped him become quite well-off.  He did it with a rich "uncle" because he had no rich daddy.  See "Mitt Romney Does Not Have the Right to Dismiss Us", Huffington Post, 2012-09-23.

A bad omen for Obama?

"According to the latest NBC News/ Wall Street Journal survey … 50 percent of voters favor Barack Obama, while 45 percent plan to vote for Mitt Romney."  See "Could This Man Cost Romney the White House?", Lee Brodie, CNBC, 2012-09-20.

That may look favorable for Obama, but note that some voters "favor" him while others "plan to vote" for Romney.  Will all those who "favor" Obama actually show up and vote?  If history is any guide, there will be lots of no-shows on the Democratic side.

Which set of no-shows will give the election away?

I started this entry as a Quote of the Day entitled "Something very disgusting".  It was from hearing a radio interview with a man who called himself a Democrat.  He wouldn't vote for any Republican but he was unhappy with Obama.  He said, "I think I'll sit this election out."  Effectively, he's helping the party he doesn't want elected.  It's happened over and over again with Democratic voters, even when in a large majority, staying home on election day and "giving" the election to the Republicans.  I've never heard of major no-shows by Republicans.

With Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, there may be many Republicans who stay home on election day.  These would be some of the mainline Republicans who consider the Tea Party as too doctrinaire.  These would also be the RINOs who have been unhappy with the Republican move to more uncompromising stances on many issues.

I think the Democrats will "win" the no-show battle thus losing the election to the Republicans.

Why?  Because the Republicans have more "true believers" who feel the issues personally.  They "don't want our guns taken away", they "want government off our backs", they "know better how to spend our own money", and on and on.

The "true believers" among the Democrats are more empathetic to other people.  Their issues are helping the poor, protecting wetlands, reducing emissions, and so on.  They might not even experience any of these problems directly.  Because many people who lean Democratic don't feel as strongly on these issues, they are more likely to not show up at elections than the "true believers"

In other words, lukewarm Democrats far outnumber lukewarm Republicans, putting Democrats at a disadvantage when voters stay home.

Whatever your political leanings are, don't give elections away.  Show up and vote!

Foreign money in U.S. politics? Wait a minute!

John McCain has claimed that foreign money is slipping into the presidential campaign, mainly through Sheldon Adelson's SuperPAC.  McCain's argument is that Adelson owns three casinos in Macau and that profits from these casinos are going into his SuperPAC.  See "McCain says foreign money influencing US elections, sneaking in through SuperPACs", Associated Press, 2012-06-15.

Let's see, if I owned thousands of shares of Nokia, the Finnish cell phone maker, and thousands of shares of CTRIP, the Chinese online travel company (don't I wish), and donated to a campaign the equivalent of the dividends from these companies (if they were paying dividends), would that be Finnish or Chinese money influencing the campaign?  I don't think so.

Since Adelson's SuperPAC promotes Romney and attacks Obama, I would doubt that the Chinese government is telling Adelson where his Macau profits should go.  After all, Romney wants to have the "strongest defense" in the world.  Is it in the interest of the Chinese government to enter into an escalating arms race?  Maybe the interest of the Chinese military.  But does the Chinese military have that much control that it can direct where the profits of a foreign country go?

No, I think it is just a question of the absurdity of the "Citizens United" decision, which McCain doesn't like, and of the wish of Sheldon Adelson to defeat President Obama.

Maybe we should just call Sheldon Adelson the drunken sailor of politics.

The coming battle of the no-shows

The 2012 elections may be determined, not by who votes, but who does not vote.

If President Obama doesn't actively support gay marriage, many gay rights supporters might stay away.

If President Obama actively supports gay marriage, many who don't care for the issue might stay away.

Because Mitt Romney is a Mormon, many "conservatives" might stay away.

If Mitt Romney wavers on any of the "conservative" issues, "conservatives" might stay away.

If Mitt Romney strictly follows the "conservative" script, many RINOs might stay away.

Wherever you stand on the issues, don't give the election to the candidate with whom you disagree the most.  Show up and vote on November 6, 2012!

Remember: the 1% may have the money but the 99% have the votes!

Barack Obama may be our first majority president if…

I am in a bit of self back-patting remembering my blog entries in 2008 predicting the Great Recession and that Obama would be elected President.

I refer to the first in "I predicted the Great Recession", the original being "Free market is a construct, not reality", January 2008.

I predicted the second in "We now have a three-party system" in June 2008.

"I think that Obama will win in a landslide because he represents the future.  He will win because he will get more people voting than ever.  He will win because he has built a strong organization of average people rather than of Washington insiders.  He will win because he is a better speaker and thinker.  Finally, he will win because people do want change."

Once Obama was in office, too many people expected immediate results.  In 2012, many of these with high-hopes didn't even show up, giving many elections to the Republicans.

Now in April 2012, I am not so sure yet, but that could change by the summer.  However, I do think that if certain things happen, then Obama might not only be re-elected but he may be the first President in a long, long time to get not only a plurality of eligible voters, but a majority of eligible voters.

Those certain things are a very high Democratic turnout and a lower Republican turnout.

If the Democrats put as much energy, time, and money into getting people to show up in November as they do countering Republican campaign speeches and ads, they could get a record turnout.

If many Republicans think that Romney is not conservative enough or if they don't want to vote for a Mormon, many of these will probably not even vote in November.

If many independents think that Romney is too conservative, they may either stay away or vote for Obama.

For Obama to be the first majority President, we would need a 90% turnout in November 2012 with 60% of those who show up voting for Obama.  Sixty percent of ninety percent means that 54 percent of eligible voters voted for Obama.

The reality is probably that we will be lucky to have 70% turnout with 50% of those voting for Obama, something less than that for Romney, and a few voting for Ron Paul or some other third-party candidate.