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.

Winner takes all and the people lose

"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".

Another way to nominate a President

If you're unhappy with most of the "frontrunners", you can make your voice heard on Americans Elect.

Current front runners on Americans Elect include Buddy Roemer, Dennis Ross, Trey Gowdy, Allen West, Ron Paul, Steve Stivers, Garry Johnson, Mike Pompeo, and Ann Buerkle. All of these are tagged as Republicans. This might signify that many who consider themselves Republicans may be very dissatisfied with the current version of the Republican Party.

I didn't go past the first nine listed alphabetically (all starting with A), but there are probably a hundred or more people nominated so far. The top five tracked are Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, and Gary Johnson.

Campaign contributions

On the Facebook page of the Coffee Party was an item "Ask every candidate running for office: who are your corporate sponsors?"

When I looked at the item 1,076 people liked the item and 113 commented. One of the comments was where do you find this as public information. Open Secrets is one web site that tracks this information from the Federal Elections Commission.

For example, Pres. Obama's campaign has raised over $89 million and 71% is from individual contributors. His one associated outside group is the Super PAC Priorities USA Action. The biggest contributor to that is Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks Animation, at two million, the next two are at $500,000 each, and then the others' contributions diminish quickly to $500, one of these being an executive of Solyndra.

On the other hand, Ron Paul has raised less than $13 million with 96% from individual contributors. He has two outside groups associated with his campaign: The Super PAC Revolution PAC and Nevadans for Liberty. The latter has spent $1,553 campaigning against Democrats. According to the former's website, it has raised over $125,000 and boldly states "No contribution limits!"

I think I may look a bit more into Americans Elect.   I do have to check on their financing:) And if that doesn't work, I can always vote for Wright In. But who should his running mate be?

Ron Paul for President? Listen carefully

We heard an interview yesterday on NPR with Ron Paul, a libertarian candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.  He sounded very sincere and reasonable and made some important points contrary to current political "wisdom".  But then I realized his underlying assumption, which makes him a bad choice for governing a complex nation.

He assumes that this country was founded to promote individual liberty.  I think those who wrote the Constitution would disagree.  Their idea was to have the liberty to govern ourselves rather than be governed by a foreign power.  Personal liberties were an afterthought.  Even then, many of these signers went on to curtail "personal liberties".  Like George Washington leading the troops against a tax rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion.  Like the "Alien and Sedition Act" signed by John Adams.