"Santorum surges in the South" read a headline in today's Duluth News Tribune for an Associated Press story written by David Espo. The first sentence begins "A resurgent Rick Santorum swept primaries in Alabama and Mississippi Tuesday night…"
But what does "sweep" really mean? With partial returns in Alabama, "Santorum was pulling 35 percent of the vote…" That means that 65 percent of the vote went to other candidates. To me, a sweep would be 60 or even 70 percent of the vote. I did not see any turnout figures, but if we assume the turnout was 50 percent, if that, then Santorum had the support of less than 20 percent of the voters. That is a sweep?
With partial returns in Mississippi, Santorum had 33% of the vote. That means that 66% of the vote went to other candidates. That is a sweep?
I do wish election stories would include all this information instead of sweeping generalizations about a particular candidate "winning" with a "sweep" or a "landslide". If nothing else, it would give the "winners" a bit of humility instead of a feeling of a "mandate".
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Why the rich don't care about anything but lower taxes
If you are a U.S. citizen, imagine that when shares of Chinese companies became available in the U.S. that you managed to buy stocks in 20 Chinese companies. Five didn't do well and you sold them at a small loss, but 15 did quite well and a few are paying some nice dividends. Would you really care that much about the U.S. economy? The only thing about the U.S. economy you might care about is paying lower taxes.
This is precisely what many of the mega-rich are doing and thinking. As their investments become more global, they care less about investing in the U.S. Not just in stocks or expanding U.S. operations, but they could care even less about investing in U.S. infra-structure, including education.
They also complain about welfare, but they don't realize they are also on welfare. They complain about those who need assistance for food and shelter, but they ignore that they are getting assistance from the taxes paid by people in other countries. They don't need to pay for U.S. education because in China they can "hire 8,700 engineers in 15 days."
It is also amazing that many of them probably pay more in political contributions to support their agenda, including many diversionary tactics, than they would pay in taxes. And they are probably very happy to sow dissatisfaction among potential voters to further discourage voting.
For more on how the rich have subverted rational politics in the U.S., see "Why is the GOP Suddenly Turning Against College?", James Kwak, The Atlantic, 2012-02-12, via http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-gop-suddenly-turning-against-145105656.html.
This is precisely what many of the mega-rich are doing and thinking. As their investments become more global, they care less about investing in the U.S. Not just in stocks or expanding U.S. operations, but they could care even less about investing in U.S. infra-structure, including education.
They also complain about welfare, but they don't realize they are also on welfare. They complain about those who need assistance for food and shelter, but they ignore that they are getting assistance from the taxes paid by people in other countries. They don't need to pay for U.S. education because in China they can "hire 8,700 engineers in 15 days."
It is also amazing that many of them probably pay more in political contributions to support their agenda, including many diversionary tactics, than they would pay in taxes. And they are probably very happy to sow dissatisfaction among potential voters to further discourage voting.
For more on how the rich have subverted rational politics in the U.S., see "Why is the GOP Suddenly Turning Against College?", James Kwak, The Atlantic, 2012-02-12, via http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-gop-suddenly-turning-against-145105656.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)