Texas voting, Likely vs Registered voters

In the past I have talked about how Texas is primed to flip from Republican stronghold to Liberal territory, mainly based on the growth of Hispanic population, along with long term trends such as senior citizens slowly dying and younger voters turning more liberal.

Recently (early September 1-11, of 2016), there was a poll done by Texas Lyceum, that has some interesting results.  As always, they do a lot of questions, and several different analytical methods.

The one they concentrated on was the "likely Voters, who do you prefer out of the four candidates",  There, Clinton came in at 32% vs Trump's 39%.  Johnson got 9% and Stein got 3%.   Trumps minute lead of 7% is ridiculous for a GOP candidate in Texas.  For comparison purposes, in 2012, the actual poll results were: 4,555,799 votes for Romney (57.2%), 3,294,440 votes for Obama (41.4%), 8,110 votes for Johnson (1.1%) and 24,450 votes for Stein  (0.3%).

Yes, Johnson and Stein - the candidates for the Libertarian and Green party - ran in 2012, just as they are running in 2016.

But that is not the whole story.  First, note that the poll is likely voter, not registered voter, not actual voters.

Likely voter is something that the POLLING company determines.   Good polling companies base it on answers to questions such as 1) Did you vote in the last presidential election? 2) Did you vote in the last non-presidential election. 3) Did you know where people in your district have to go to vote? 4) Rate your chances of voting.     Not-so-good polling companies try to do calculations such as x% of Democrats voted last time, so x% will vote this time. 

Second, note that lots of people will give their 'real preference' in a poll, but when it comes down to actual voting in the election, they will not vote for a third party candidate unless that candidate has over 20% of the votes in the polls.  That is, they only vote for a third candidate if they think they have a real shot.

Digging deeper into the polls, we find some more interesting answers, rather than the heavily biased "likely voters, out of four".

First, let's do the Clinton Vs Trump vs Johnson vs Stein, all registered voters.  That makes it 30% Trump, 29% Clinton, 10% Johnson, 3% Stein.  That's a big deal for Democrats.  Johnson and Stein stay about the same, Trump loses a lot, Clinton loses a moderate amount (those losses are 'undecided', not surprising in unlikely voters).  But most importantly it means a LOT of the people that are unlikely voters do not like Trump.   A heavy get out the vote effort from the Democrats in Texas could easily take the state.


Now lets' ignore the people that got less than 2% the last time they ran.

Likely Voters - 42% Trump, 36% Clinton.  not much difference there, Trump still wins by 6% rather than 7%.

But Registered Voters: 35% Trump, 39% Clinton.   Here we have a huge win for Clinton.  She finally beats Trump.

The problem is, that involves the registered voters that are unlikely to vote.  The Democrats really need a HUGE Get Out The Vote program to take Texas back.

Also note, a similar thing happens For the US Congress and Texas state representatives elections, although not quite that extreme (i.e. 31% dem vs 32% rep among registered voters).

The Democrats need to create a new, superior get out the vote program in Texas.  It should be the single most important priority for the DNC.  It has to do so in direct opposition to the GOP's attempts to stop people from voting in Texas.

It probably needs to be lead by a charismatic Hispanic Texan born Democrat.

Future of the Republican and Democratic parties..

It's up for grabs.

The problems with both parties are rather obvious - and dramatically different.

The Republican party is imploding.  It can't win a Presidential election, even when their competitor is Hillary Clinton - someone they have been gunning for more than 20 years.  Hillary is likely to win this election with the highest unfavorables ever.   That's how bad the GOP is doing - they can't beat a woman that nobody likes.

Why?  Because they over-promised to a small, motivated group and totally failed to deliver.   There is a fatal flaw in GOP strategy - cultivating a fanatical base that is far more radical than the US in general.  While that will help them win congressional districts and state representatives, allowing them to gerrymander at will, it pisses off the majority of the population, so they have no chance to win the Presidential race which means no Supreme Court Judges.  Most likely, sometime in the next 8 years, gerrymandering will be outlawed, by a 5:4 supreme court vote.  After that, the GOP in it's current form is dead.   Even without that issue, it will fall apart.

Currently, they have created a constant revolution in the lower ranks against the party leaders.  T Party candidates like Cruz get overthrown by Trump radicals objecting to the T party 'insiders'.  And two years from now, some new group will continue the process, throwing out the Trumpers and replacing them with some other new, radical group.

This dooms the dying Republican party to become an 'also ran' party.   When I say "dying" I mean it literally.  Every year their base will die off, while the Democrats increases.  More young, more black, more Hispanic, more Muslim, and more gay voters while the old, white, straight, male, Christian voters that used to dominate politics become an endangered species. They have already lost the majority of the population, they maintain their congressional majority via gerrymandering, which has limits and will be outlawed.

Which leaves the REAL dispute about the future of our country in the hands of the Democrats.  Hence the fight between the Conservative Democrats - aka Hillary Clinton - and the Liberal Democrats, aka Bernie Sanders.

That split isn't going away, it's going to get worse.   While the GOP descends into a death spiral, the Democratic party is likely to bifurcate into two parties - the Conservative Dems and the Liberal Dems.

This won't happen as long as the GOP is around to unite us.  We despise the elitist strategy of the GOP, catering to the politically motivated rather than giving the majority what they want.   As such, the Democratic party has attracted everyone that can't stand their "obey us way or be a traitor" philosophy.    But we are a disparate group with big differences.  We can only stay together as long as the big GOP unite us against them.

Is it possible for the GOP to save themselves?  Unlikely.  The quite truth is that Hillary Clinton was the candidate THEY should have put forward.  She occupies the real 'center-right' that they claim to represent, while being female and connecting to minorities.    The GOP's attempt to demonize the conservative branch of the Democrat party has made it impossible for them to regain their rightful place as the center-right party.

As they try to be a far right party (while claiming to be a center-right one), they slowly bleed voters to the Democrats.  The real question is what will happen after it's gone too far.  I see 10 years as the max.   If Hillary Clinton wins two consecutive terms and we get a third Democrat President after Hillary, that's
it.  By then either the GOP will implode or the SCOTUS will have outlaw gerrymandering, killing the GOP.   Once that happens, the GOP's bubble will pop faster than any stock market bubble.

For maybe six month the Democrats will relish their power - then the infighting will go from shouting "Hillary" over the Bernie Brothers chanting whatever they chant to outright revolt.   The Democratic party will split, Bernie and his successors will split off to form the first truly Liberal party we have had since Jimmie Carter, while Hillary and her successors will split of to form a real center-right party.  Only the far right nut-bags will remain with the GOP, making them a 3rd party, akin to the Libertarians.

Is there any way to stop the Democrat party from splitting after the GOP dies?  I doubt it.   Honestly, it may be for the best - the Bernie people do not like the Hillary people, and they deserve a political party of their own.  Then maybe we can have real political change in America.

But please note, the Democratic party will only split AFTER the GOP is dead.   But that shouldn't be long now, they are about to get their asses handed to them on a platter. 2020 is the real question - will Hillary (or Kaine, Hillary is getting old) be able to get re-elected.

With the right economy (a short recession in 2017, followed by three years of improvement), we will get a solid 16 years of Democrat ruling the white house and own the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

The only question will be how liberal the ruling party ends up.   Most likely it will be the conservative Democrats still in charge, but perhaps we can get enough liberal ideas to rejuvenate our government.

The Advantages of Outsiders

Job interview for an 'outsider'.

----------

Hi, my name is Donald and I would like to apply for the job of CEO of your company.  Here is my resume.

- I notice you have never been a CEO before.   What makes you think your experience as Mayor in anyway prepared you to run a business?  Running a business is not the same as being a politician.

Well, they are both managerial positions, I'm sure I can pick up anything I need on the job.  Besides, I have to be better than your last guy - he ran the business into bankruptcy FOUR times.  And look at the IRS scandal - how could engage in such unusual tax practices?  I have never declared bankruptcy and have no tax scandals at all.  That's not the kind of man I am -  I would never take those particular tax risks. Especially when I have such cool, new innovative ideas that the IRS has never heard of before.

- True, but you ran a city that was given a set budget and never had to file taxes.  Basically I have to take your word that your new tax strategies are legal.  

Perhaps, but notice my main competitor, Hillary, has been severely yelled at by the IRS and her tax issues were declared faulty, even if she was not sentenced for any crime because they had no evidence of intent.  The IRS has never yelled at me for any of my tax strategies.


- But the reason you have never failed is because you have no experience.  You can't get away with claiming your methods are better if you've never tried them.  I'd have to be a complete idiot to trust someone that has no experience actually implementing their program, simply because they have never failed. 

Look, do you want to go with someone that's had proven problems, even if they didn't get arrested, or do you want to go with someone that has no experience at all, so can't possibly have proven problems? It's that simple.


- The thing is, you have no experience, so even if you honestly and truly believe your plane will work, because you have no experience, your own opinion about your plan is worthless.   It's like asking a first time pilot how well he thinks he is going to do - he doesn't know how hard it is.  Tell you what, tell me your plan, and I will have it looked over by tax experts.

Oh, I can't do that.  If I tell anyone the plan, our competitors will hear about it and take steps to prevent it from happening.


 - Then talk about something that isn't a secret, or give me an example of how you would fix another company problem.

I'll get back to you on that later.   Look, your company doesn't work.  I, being an outsider, can at least try something new.

- But our company DOES work - we have a real profit.  Yes, it could be better, but we are still looked up to by most of the outside world.

Trust me, ignore the statistics that show your company's doing well both economically and lower workplace accidents.  Doesn't it FEEL like your company is doing poorly?  So shouldn't you try something new?

- But the math says our feeling is wrong,  and it's not just something new it's untested with WILD claims.  I'm sorry, but we can't go with someone with no experience, no record, simply because our other main choice has made some mistakes in the past.  Frankly, Donald, even if we feel bad about our economy and safety, things are going OK.  It looks like we will hire Hillary.

OK, so when do I start?  And when should we talk about salary?

- Goodbye and good luck with your search.

Where are you going?   What's going on?

-----------------
Outsiders are a great idea for the Senate and Congress.  They have experienced colleagues there that can ensure we don't screw things up too badly, and for that same reason, they need that innovation.

But Presidents are different.   He is the top guy, no one can really tell him no, as he appoints his own men.  That particular job needs someone with real experience in politics.  Business is too different, among other things we encourage businesses to fail, while we want a more conservative approach to government.

As such no sane person truly wants an 'outsider' to be President.  We need someone that has at least spent a couple of years in a political job - congress, senate, governorship, or at least mayor of a large city.  That gives him the back ground necessary to judge his own ideas, as well a record for us to judge him (or her) on.

How Hillary is going to rig the US election

Donald Trump claimed 'someone' is planning on rigging the 2016 election.  I have a big announcement.

He is right - Hillary and the Democrats are planning on doing it.  I even know how they are planning on doing it.  It's a very simple plan, and very hard to stop them.

What she is going to do is get people that have no business voting to vote for her.

You know the types - the Hispanic Americans, the gay Americans, the black Americans, the disabled Americans, American Reporters, Muslim Americans, Seventh Day Adventist Americans, Asian Americans, American women, American veterans that were once POWs, American Gold star families, American Fireman, etc.

You know  - all the people that good, god fearing, white, male Republicans fear, that's who Hillary is secretly talking to.  

Hillary is going to get all of these people, and convince them to secretly vote for her.  That's her plan on how to 'rig the election'.

How dare these people vote?   How DARE they!  

Of course, please note that all these people that Donald and his followers fear - they have one thing in common with each other (besides hating Donald Trump for some unknown reason).  Something Donald forgot.

They are all Americans.

How should we talk about political opponents?

Politicians  love to insult their opponents.  Watching Trump and his pawns use words like "stupid", "evil", "crooked", and "liars" proves the point.

That is not helpful - not to society as a whole, nor to their election chances.  Why not?  Because while it engages the faithful, it does not convince the independents and worse, it enrages the victims of that name calling.

Because that's what it is, just name calling.  Even when it's true, (yes, both sides - Democrats and Republicans - have stupid, crooked liars working for them), it in no way convince any real independent to vote for them.

Frankly, it's like a small child calling another child 'poopy head' - it doesn't convince an adult they are right, it just makes you look childish and pisses of the independent.  Pure Insults (where the character and nature of the activity is by definition wrong/evil), are LESS effective than claims of excess (where you imply that "it's OK to do this a little, but that is just way too much.")

So, if those kinds of insults don't work, what does?

Here are a few words to call your opponent, that actually increase your political chances, rather than just make your base happy:

Paranoid
Partisan
Cheap
In the pocket of big...
Racist
Politically Correct
Religious Fanatic
Virulent Atheist
Callous
Reckless
overly trusting
Asleep at the wheel/negligent
Arrogant

For example, I could call Donald Trump a callous, arrogant paranoid, partisan, racist.   Or the GOP could use other words on that list to describe Hillary.

The advantages of these words, are clear I am avoiding ascribing an evil motivation, and instead describing character flaws.  I make no claim that Donald Trump wants to do evil, just that he will make major mistakes because he doesn't know better.   You can be all of those things and STILL get into heaven.

Why is this important?

1)   When you attack motivation, you are making a claim that is both very hard to prove and unlikely for you to have any real evidence of it.  If you did, you would be pressing charges, rather than having to convince people not to vote for them.  No one is going to vote Madoff (an actual crook) into the White House.  If they were really that bad, they would be in Jail, rather than have convinced many good people to vote for them.   Everyone knows you have no real evidence of the crooked/evil/bad motivation, and your words get dismissed as just a partisan attack.

2)  They can explain how they got other people to vote for them without insulting the character of their supporters.  It's OK for me to like someone that's reckless - that person may have done a lot of good work even if they are reckless.  Similarly, the focus ceases to be on the nature, but instead on the extremeness, i.e. you can be religious but still decide not to vote for a religious fanatic.

3)  They don't involve assumptions that ONLY your own people make.  Almost everyone thinks that being reckless is wrong, and they also think that being paranoid is wrong.   It's not like claiming that they are horrible spendthrifts.


Calling Hillary "crooked" will not convince anyone not to vote for her.  Only people that dislike her will believe you.  It's not convincing.   It won't affect her supporters, and doesn't do much to the independents.  If she really were crooked, the FBI would have arrested her, and they didn't.

But if you call her ignorant of proper security procedures, quite a few Democrats would agree with you, and you might convince independents to vote against her.

Similarly, calling Trump evil won't do anything to any Republicans or independents. But if you bring up the fact that he never EVER admits he or anyone working for him was wrong - whether you are talking about plagiarized speeches, stopping all Muslim from entering the country, whether Hispanics and women vote for him - then you make independents question whether they can trust him and remind Republicans that he is not what the party wants.

Why Donal Trump is not buying TV Ads.

I have no inner knowledge of the Trump Campaign, but I suspect I have figured out why he hasn't bought any TV ads.

I predict he won't buy any for all of July and August.

The reason is simple - it's too early. 

Yes, politicians have traditionally come out blazing.  But honestly we all know that political polls this early don't matter.  People don't make up their mind yet.  You can spend millions every month, get good polls, then lose it all in the last month.


The election is Tuesday, November 8th.   That is more than 100 days away.  A lot happens in 100 days.  People forget about the current scandals and new ones happen.  People die.  People turn 18.  


I think Trump looked at that fact and said "Hell, I can play the media via twitter and press releases, I don't need any advertisements yet."  Throw in a dash of PAC spending and all he wants to do is wait.

Till September comes along.  Sometime in September, expect to see a fusillade of pro-Trump ads.  Hopefully Hillary will still have enough cash to fight back.  

That's my theory and I am sticking by it.

Why poliiticans lie.

How do you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.  How do you tell when a politician is telling the truth?  When he's confessing.

All politicians lie - on both sides.   Republicans can point at Hillary and Obama etc, Democrats can point at all the Bushs, Cheney, Trump, etc.

If they lie so much, why do we keep electing them?   Because we DEMAND they do.  It's our own damn fault. Some of the more honest ones try to avoid lying simply by changing the subject.

Why do we demand they lie? Three very specific reasons.

1.  We give them no win situations, often set it up with contradictory goals.
2.  We punish them more for admitting they were wrong than we do for being wrong.  The worst example of this is when we punish them for changing their mind.  Lying goes unpunished, while admitting an error gets you thrown under the bus.
3.  We demand certainty and the use of hyperbole to prove sincerity.

No win situations are a common situation, often intentionally set up as traps - that's how we get the contradictory goals in the first place.   A good example of this was the Cash for Clunkers program.  in 2009, the US set up a program to give large incentives for people to trade old older cars (25 years+) in for newer vehicles.    It was originally designed to help fight pollution and to limit oil use, as the fuel requirements were for a vehicle of >22 mph for the newer cars and <18 mph for the older ones.  That's basically a 22% improvement.  The cars were disabled to prevent them being resold/re used.

But it was sold to congress and to the American people in part as an economic boost for the car industry.  That would be the secondary goal.  Guess what - it was a lie to convince republicans (pro business, anti-pollution prevention) to vote for it.  And as it was a lie, it had no real economic benefit.   If you check the wiki page, the first thing they talk about is the economic effect - basically null.  But the environmental effect was real - average mph per clunker was 15.8, new cares averaged 25.4, a 61% improvement.  This was a clear win from the point of view of environmentalists, but from a political viewpoint it was a guaranteed no win situation.  Goal posts were ignored, and people attacked the issue on the 'goals' declared by the opponents of the bill, rather than the goals of the proponents.


Politician being punished for admitting they were wrong is very common - they get accused of being a flip-flopper.    George Bush made that wonderful, humble quality into an insult they used to great effect against Kerry.   But we never punished George Bush at all for begin wrong about weapons of Mass Destruction, for being wrong about torture, etc. etc.  The weird thing is the goal of an argument is to CONVINCE someone to change their minds.  Changing their minds is the DESIRED end result, not a bad thing.  Losing an argument does not make you a worse politician, it means you are not perfect and are not an arrogant asshole that refuses to admit you are not perfect (talking to you Trump).

Certainty is practically a requirement.  We never accept "I don't want to raise taxes, and won't do so unless the circumstances warrant it".  Instead we demand "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES".  Then we slam the honest man for admitting that a recession hit as soon as G. H.  W.  Bush took over after Reagan, so he had to raise taxes.   He never should have had to say say that lie, we made him do it.


We get the politicians we deserve, not the ones we want.   Given our future - Hillary or Donald, that means we deserve to go to bed without dinner.   Hillary was pushed into making extreme statements about her innocence  - all of which she clearly believed, even if she was also clearly wrong.  Donald has discovered the simplest way to get votes is to ignore the truth and instead speak to what people WANT to hear in the most extreme way possible, thereby guaranteeing he will lie.   He can never admit he was wrong, whether it is about a judge or a Jewish star.

Hopefully we at least deserve someone that knows what is possible, even if she doesn't know how to get there, rather than someone that knows what he wants, and doesn't care if it is possible or not.

How the GOP could win back the Black vote.

Sixty years ago, the black vote went to the GOP.   Back then there were a lot of southern, racists Democrats.  In the 1960's Lyndon B Johnson turned that around, signed a Civil Rights Act and turned everything around - now blacks are among the most reliable voters for the Democrats.

The GOP keeps pushing their same, current philosophy and tries to convince people that it will help the blacks more than the Democrats.

It will never work.  That strategy has been tried and failed so many times, it has become my go-to example of Albert Einstein's definition of INSANITY ("Trying the same thing and expecting different results").

So, how could the GOP win back the black vote?  Yes, it is possible to do without abandoning their ideals.

They could do it by doing the following:

1)  Carry through on their false claim of fiscal responsibility and 'freedom from oppressive government' by massively reducing budgets for small and local government police mismanagement.   Note the "mis" in that sentence.

• Make it illegal to ever hold a person in jail for failure to pay a fine less than $5000.  Many poor people, a distressing number of whom are black, end up in jail, costing local governments hundreds of dollars per day, for failing to pay fines that are less than the government paid to arrest, adjudicate and hold in prison.    Stop that stupid crap and sentence them to community service, not time in jail.  (Note, this will also put a stop to abusive debt law suits.)
• Make it legal to fire any police officer or guard whose action - even if legal - causes the city to lose more than $100k  via a lawsuit.   If the police officer wants to fight the charges, they can pay to defend themselves.   Business fire idiots that get them sued, so should the government.
• Pass a law that any deal made with a prosecutor to prevent the government being sued is null and void.   Prosecutors have no business protecting the city from being sued, it is their job to prosecute the guilty - EVEN IF THE GUILTY ARE POLICEMEN.  They are not their to save money by letting the guilty go free, it doesn't matter if the guilty are cops or burglars, doing that is directly the opposite of their job.
• Have the GOP actively push for 'community policing' by requiring that all new hires and promotions of  police officers must be hired from within the community they serve.  Right now, police are about 30% less white than the communities they serve.  They want to police an area they have to live among them.

2)  Demand equal rights for black gun owners.  If a black man is arrested for using a gun that does not kill or wound an innocent, have the NRA/GOP pay for their defense.  Go all out defending their rights, something they do not do now.

3)  Stop insisting on using Sales Tax to fund local governments, it affects the poor far too much.  Instead, eliminate sales tax and use a state Property Taxes.   Property Taxes are shared equally by the rich and the poor - as rental prices go up when property taxes do.  Yes, that means property taxes (and rents) will go up a lot.  Not important.

4)  Speaking of property tax, insist that each school district gets the same amount of money per student enrolled.

5)  Start calling out racism and prejudice among their own.  Idiots doing things like "Make America White Again"  (actual billboard used by a Republican in 2016) should be literally kicked out of the Republican party.

If the GOP took these steps, ten years from now, they would have a whole bunch of new, darker republicans.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

Why Democrats are Better for the Economy.

Thirty years ago the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility.  They were for smaller government at the time when government was huge.

Then Ronald Reagan came along and they took over the government.  They got rid of the the excesses the Democrats had at that time created and limited government.  Yes, those spending cuts were modest - because the excesses the Democrats had created were modest.


The problem was the GOP saw a winning strategy and went with it long after it stopped winning.   And stayed with it for from 1981 all the way to 2016.  That's 25 years.   The problem with cutting the fat is that if you keep doing it for almost thirty years, YOU RUN OUT OF FAT.   Picture the blind butcher, who started out trimming the fat, but has now moved on to the muscle and in some cases is now carving the bone.   That's what the Republican Party is doing.

Yes, there may be some fat left on out shrunken, anorexic government, but only a pro-ana idiot with a microscope could find it.


How do you tell that we cut enough?   Simple, you look at Kansas.   Kansas is what happens when you keep on cutting taxes - you turn a $600 mill surplus into almost a $700  million deficit, get below average job growth (even the Kansas GOP can't kill the economy that Obama gave to our country), bankrupt school districts, and (Source).




You can only cut so long, before you hit bone.   They hit bone in Kansas and need to stop cutting.

Part of the issue is that the GOP gave up on actually reducing spending, and is now just cutting taxes - just like they try to do in the Federal Budget.   That doesn't work, no matter how much it did (or did not) work in the past, increased efficiency only gets you so far.

How do you tell if you have cut to the fat or the bone?  You compare with other countries.  First of all, note that the US outspends the next nine other countries when it comes to the military. It was the next ten before Obama - thanks Obama - but he cut us back some and convinced other countries to help out in the middle east.  Keeping that in mind, you can check the general list.

Let's look at per person spending (all data from Wikipedia). 


The World spends on average $2376.  But the bigger, first world countries (20 largest economies) spend on average $16,110.   The US spends only $11,041, #15 out of the top 20.  If we wanted to spend less than South Korea (moving us down to #16), we would have to drop to $4,556.  And we all know one of the reasons why South Korea's spending is so low.


This nice graph demonstrates the Federal net outlays a a percent of GDP since 1929.
Click here for this nice graph

It is typified by 4 things.  

1. A general trend up from 3% to about 20% now.  
2. A large spike up above 40's for World War II
3. A general decline starting in the 1980's (Ronald Reagan) and getting significant in the 1990's (Bill Clinton's incredible economy that kept going and going)
4. The HUGE spike that stated with George Bush (took up back above Ronald Reagan at it's worst) and that Obama almost entirely fixed.  Almost, but not entirely.

Yes, we aren't all the way down to Clinton at his best, but  we are already below Reagan at his best.

But more than 70% of the US budget is on Military, Social Security, and Health Care.   The only place the GOP is willing to cut that HAS enough money left to actually reduce costs is the Health Care sector.  But more than half of the healthcare spending goes to Seniors - Medicare again.  The biggest cut would be the $371 Billion we are expected to spend on Medicaid in 2016. (Source).
 
The only way to really reduce spending is to cut Medicaid to the bone (or cut everything else we fund).   That is why we haven't done it.

The real problem is that government actually DOES work.  People that join the military really do act as a deterrent, preventing other countries from attacking us.  People in education really do educate our students, allowing them to get better jobs and make more money.  Health care and Senior care really do let people take risks without having to save up money for unforeseen health issues and aging.   The police actually DO stop criminals, encouraging honest economic activity. 

Which means we have 3 choices on how to reduce taxes.

1) Eliminate neccessary services, cutting long term taxes in the future, for temporary gains that get eaten up IN ONE YEAR - as proven by Kansas.

2)  Keep current services and pray that our economy gets better, reducing the need for social services.

3) INCREASE spending on certain services that we KNOW have solid return on investment.  Things like half-way housing for the insane who currently end up in prison - something that costs a lot more than a half-way house.  Things like education for at risk students - children of homeless, drug addicts, and criminals - that are almost 50% likely to go to prison - with the plan of turning them into honest, tax paying citizens.

We need a President that ...

People love to talk about what we need in a President.  Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are right but irrelevant.

What do I mean by right but irrelevant?  I mean they are referencing a quality that everyone has - often in an attempt to insult their opponent.  "We need a president that ....wears clothing/breathes/talks English."

Lets discuss some of the qualities and which are right, wrong, and irrelevant.  I am going to start with the irrelevant ones, because frankly, they are the most interesting.

• Strong Willed
• Good Leader 
• Makes the Right Decisions
• Willing to Take Risks

These skills are necessary but irrelevant for one major reason - you can't win a Primary unless you already have all of them.   For at least the last century, the US Presidency has been so valuable a prize, that the best men of a large, successful country (and not enough women, go Hillary!) have fought over it toe to toe.   No matter what the other party says, a weak person can not win a national primary - it's too nasty a gauntlet.   Whether it's your competition claiming you aren't an American citizen, claiming you had a black child out of wedlock, or calling up voters past midnight and pretending to work for your opponent, the US Presidency is not for the weak.

Similarly, making it past the Primaries, requires that you be a good leader, make the right decisions and willing to take risks.   All of these qualities are more than tested long before you make it to the General Election.  Yes one candidate may be slightly stronger than the other, but in the most extreme example, we are talking the difference between an 9 and 10, which isn't worth mentioning.

But people love to claim they have these qualities, implying their opponent doesn't.  It's easy to claim a winning move took no courage, was not their idea, was an obvious decision, and not a high risk.  Similarly, it's easy to claim a losing move was done out fear, after being pushed, a wrong decision, and was clearly far too risky.   Then they claim that they wouldn't do such a thing - or they claim they never would have been put into that position in the first place.  This is all bravado and lies.   All serious Presidential Candidates have been strong people, good leaders, made good decisions, and were willing to take risks.

Next are the qualities people think you need, but are not important for a President.

• Religious/Good Christian/Morale/"Character"
• Honest/Trustworthy
• Charismatic  (more than the top 10%)
• Intelligence (smarter than the top 10%)

All of these categories are not necessary to being President.  This is not a 'christian country', it is a country that goes out of it's way to ensure religious freedom.   The President has to abide by a set of rules that normal humans do not.  They are routinely placed in a situation where they have to order people to their death - both their own citizens and enemies of the state.   I am not saying that morality or religion is a bad thing (they are some people's best qualities) - just that they are not necessary to be a good President.   He can cheat on his wife (Clinton, JFK), flash his dick to everyone (Johnson), win an election using dirty tricks (Nixon, JFK, Bush), and make deals with terrorists (Reagan).   Being Morale/Good Christian is not necessary to be a good President.

Similarly, superior honesty is not necessary.  The Presidency requires that we keep secrets and lie to other governments.  Hopefully they won't lie to the American people but often you can't lie to your enemy without at least misinforming your own people.   Past Presidents have lied to our enemies and it helped the country - that's pretty much the definition of a 'covert' operation.   Part of being good at keeping secrets is being a good liar.

Charismatic and intelligence are also not needed because we can hire people to that part of the job - as long as you are not totally obnoxious or an idiot.  A good speech writer and good advisers can take care of those parts of the job.

Religious/morale, Honest, Charismatic, Intelligent  - these are all good qualities, that people like, so they pretend they are necessary for the job.  But they don't substantially help a person be a better president.


That brings us to the qualities a good President needs, but aren't guaranteed by the process.   Failing to have these make you far less effective as a President, and you can win the Primary without them.

• Consensus builder.
• Finger on the Pulse
• Good Judge of Character
• Flexibility

Consensus Builder - as Obama demonstrated, and Trump is proving again, you do not have to be good at building a real consensus to get elected.  You can simply be better than the alternatives.  The problem is this limits your effectiveness tremendously.   Aside from one major piece of legislation - Obamacare - we didn't as much out of Obama as some hoped.  He was a good President, but not and  FDR, nor a Reagan.   Trump would be even worse.  He can't  get his own party' support, let alone the Democrats, who are most likely to rule the Senate (and the Supreme Court).   But to be an effective leader, you need more than just the White House, you need to convince at least some of your political opponents to support your bills.  Hillary is a lot better than Donald Trump when it comes to Consensus Building, she has won back the Black vote after losing it to Obama. 

Also Consensus building is NOT negotiating.  Ambassadors and Secretaries of State negotiate.   Presidents do not negotiate.   Negotiating means you strive for the best possible deal at all costs.    Consensus means you give up the best possible deal in order to keep everyone friendly.  You negotiate with your enemies, competitor, and clients.  You build a consensus with you wife and Congress.

Finger on the Pulse of the Nation is a strange one.   In truth, you do need it beat the Primary, but from the time you win the primary, the process does it's best to rip your hand off the pulse.  You get surrounded by advisers, spin doctors, security, cut off from the people.  It is extremely hard to maintain the sense of what 'regular' people are doing.  Without it, you come up with horrible ideas that everyone hates and don't understand why they hate them.   The ability to stay in touch with the common man is tough.  Let's be honest here, neither Hillary or the Donald have any idea how normal people live.  Trump says he does, but then he thinks he will win the Mexican and Women vote.  Honestly, he understands how a certain subset of the US (disaffected male non-hispanic white voters) work, but is clueless about the rest.  Lies - even self delusions - don't help you out here.

Good Judge of Character: the ability to pick the right people for the right job is key.  If you are smart enough and charismatic enough, then you don't need this skill to win the Primary.  But being President takes more work than winning the Primary - no one can do it alone.   You need to be able to pick the right people who will do their jobs well.    Again, neither Hillary nor Trump has a good record.  Trump has many bad calls when it comes to failed businesses, and Hillary has issues with the people she trusted for email security and for state security in Libya.

Which brings me to Flexibility.  You need to be willing to admit when you were wrong and change your opinion.  Why?  Because no one is right all the time.  If you were right all the time, that means you were unwilling to take risks.  If you don't take risks, you can never be wrong - but you will always be behind the times, leading from the rear.  It means not pushing for Gay Rights, not telling Gorbachev to "Take Down This Wall."  because you are afraid of being wrong.  The only way to take risks is to accept that occasionally you will be wrong.  Trump is good about walking mistakes back, but refuses to admit that what he originally said was wrong.  He lies about it - and that pisses off his opponents who know he is lying.   Hillary on the other hand, is more willing to admit she was wrong (despite being wrong less often than Trump).  She has admitted mistakes graciously.

Note, most of the other Republican candidates failed because they never had their Finger on ANYONE'S Pulse.  Trump at least knew what white males were thinking.  If Bernie Sanders had been more  Flexible and a better Consensus Builder, he would have been a better nominee.  If Trump could figure out what gay, black, Mexican women really want (and be willing to support it), or if Sanders found a way to walk back some of the socialism and compromise with conservatives, they would be far better candidates.

Right now, Hillary is the best we have.   She is good  at Consensus and is Flexible when it comes to the tough choices.   She needs to get better at judging other people's character and find some way to regain a sense of what other people want.

Don't compare Trump to Hitler - Trump is nicer than Hitler

Everyone loves to compare their political opponent to Hitler.   He is the 'go-to' bad guy.  Unarguably evil, unarguably a bad military and governmental leader - despite having significant public speaking skills, he makes for a powerful and therefor overused comparison.

Let me be very clear - Donald Trump is not Hitler.  There are several ways that Trump is better.   Hitler was stupider than Trump (Hitler dropped out of college and repeatedly screwed up good military strategy).   Few if any people will disagree when I say that Donald Trump is nicer than Hitler.  (Good T Shirt...) That statement is pretty clearly true.  A low bar, but Trump can make it over the bar.

But there IS a World War II leader that Trump is comparable too.  No, I am not going to compare Trump to other bad guys.  It's not Stalin or Mussolini.   It's Henri Petain, leader of Vichy France, the 'Lion of Verdun' that surrendered to Nazi Germany, and was later sentenced to death for his treason (sentence was commuted to life in prison).

The similarities are clear.  Petain was a bigot, that refused to help refugees based on things he had heard about their religion.   Previously he demanded a giant wall to keep invading murders out.

Petain was an anti-Semite that went beyond preventing Jews from entering France, he also specifically removed protections originally granted to french Jews.  (source)  He was scared that the Jews would not be loyal to France - and instead would engage in acts of violence, perhaps try to take over France.  In truth, the Jews were just fleeing persecution.  Trump, like Petain, want's to block a group of refugees - Muslims in Trump's case - from entering the US.

Petain was one of the major forces behind the Maginot Line - a giant wall that was supposed to keep Germans out of France. (source)   But the Germans had  airplanes to fly over the wall.   It was also so big, that it had week spots - too expensive to build a strong wall that large.  Similarly, Trump want's to keep Mexican out because he thinks they are murders.   Petain at least was right about Germany, but Trump doesn't even have that going for him.  

Petain also married a woman 20 years younger than him, violated the Constitution of France, and ran the government along the lines of his previous profession (military) rather than using the normal political means.  Trump has married a woman 20 years younger than him, has been told by the military that they will not obey illegal orders to torture the family of enemy soldiers, and claims that he will run the government like his previous profession (business).

Donald Trump is nothing more than America's Henri Petain.   We can't afford to let Trump do to America, what Petain did to France.

We need to do better.  We need someone that does NOT simply try to offer up simple, obvious solutions to complex problem.  Because if the answer was simple, we would have already solved it.

Real life is complex and requires harder, more difficult solutions.   Simple solutions are simply wrong.  Walls haven't worked since the invention of the airplane.   Judging people - even for a short amount of time - on their religion is called prejudice, and history has shown that it is evil, not good.

In Defense of PACs

Political Action Committees are almost universally despised.

They allow politicians to avoid responsibility for 'their' advertisements, raise ridiculous amounts of money, and have a history of poor use of the funds.  (Some of them have been accused of diverting money raised for political speech into the hands of the people that run the PAC).

While all this is true, I have recently come to see certain benefits to PACs.  I'm not entirely sure (yet) that PAC's are not evil, but here are the ideas I have been mulling over.

1) PACS, while they may increase (or at least maintain) the big money in politics, put a wall up between the politicians and the money.   Which means large donations to PACs can not hide the kind of outright corrupt bribery made famous by Boss Tweed.   While the money may still be stolen for non-political speech, it will be stolen by the people running the PAC, not the politician.  The politicians may still be corrupt, but we have cut out at least one major method of them stealing from the people.

2)  Attack ads are not anything new, they have always been around.   While the PAC's do protect the politicians from blame, it also allows truly ethical people to run.   At one point in time a saintly man could NOT win an election because he could never get down and dirty enough to beat the devilish men willing to do or say anything.   Some people think this is why McCain lost the 2000 GOP Primary (Bush's people accused him, among other things of being the father of his adopted black child, while McCain said nothing that bad about Bush).  The existence of PACs allow a saintly man to run and still win, if only because his less saintly allies can act without his knowledge or permission.  


Let's assume that PACs are here to stay.  What can we do to make our elections fair while keeping the PACs.

1. Start actually enforcing strict "no cooperation" rules.   If you run a PAC, you can never talk to anyone connected to a political campaign you are funding.  Not on the phone, not in person.  Put in an exception for listening to public addresses (speeches, ads, etc.)
2. Require that only US citizens election may donate to a PACs.   Foreigners, and corporations (which may be secretly owned by foreigners) are not allowed to donate to a PAC - but they may of course independently pay for their own advertisements.  
3. Require the PAC to list on their website - WITHIN ONE DAY, any donation that exceeds $10,000 and whose name was on the check.  We can set this to some other limit, such as the cut off for the lowest possible tax bracket, currently about $9,000.  When you check your bank account on-line you see it that same day, no reason we can't do a similar rule using modern technology.  Free Speech is a legal right - but there is NO right to anonymous free speech.  
4. Make a "No Shouting" rule.   Limit spending by any one PAC to more than 1/2 as much the second candidate raised.   Money may be speech, but we don't let one person monopolize the conversation.  Both candidate's speech should be far more important than someone that isn't running.  Similarly, no person may contribute more than that same limit to PACS - so no one can give 1 billion to two PACs that proceed to each spend the maximum allowed.

If we enact these rules, PACs lose a lot of the problems we have with them.  No more will US politics be dominated by anonymous speech from the wealthy.

Obama's successes

Obama's successes are fairly well known (and despised by the GOP).

The death of Bin Laden, the passage (and sustance) of the Health Care bill, and the two Supreme Court Judges, and the destruction of DOMA

In addition, he dealt a near mortal blow to Fox News, by proving them oh so very, very wrong about his election.  


It is looking more and more to me like he will also get a win major immigration reform.

The reason he has won is that the GOP is dysfunctional.  They got caught up in the idea of beating the liberals at all costs, even at the cost of what's good for the country.

As such, they moved very far to the right, so as to avoid compromising in any way shape or form. 

The thing is, as much as this ensures that the President will be a Democrat for the foreseeable future (at least the next presidential election - the GOP continues to push candidates that have no chance of winning), it is bad for the country.

The US needs a loyal opposition, not just an opposition.  The entire concept of Democracy depends upon it.

We need a Republican Party to yell at the Democrats for letting the NSA invade privacy.  We need a Republican Party to yell at government agencies from time to time, just to keep them honest.

We need a Republican Party to ensure that we get the best possible Democratic candidate, and not just some schlub that knows the right people.

And honestly, the GOP needs us Democrats as well.  Without our shining example, they would continue to believe their favorite lies - chief among them is that Americans like the GOP's political philosophy.

But most importantly, the GOP needs as incentive to raise their game.  They need to forget about the Minor leagues (state governments) and get back into the Majors.  They need to focus upon the things that americans focus on.  

Instead of letting the Democrats steel Healthcare right out from under their presidential nominee and make it our issue, they could have made it their issue.  They failed.  They failed BIG time when it came to healthcare.


Honestly, what they really, truly need is for the GOP to take David Frum's advice.

Specifically, they need to get rid of their sacred cows, talk about income inequality, deal with environmental issues instead of deny them, accept Healthcare, and stop labeling Obama as the devil incarnate. 

Because quite frankly, at this point it is obvious to all Democrats and quite a few independents that Obama is a very good President and their attempts make them look as stupid and out of touch as a Holocaust denier.

What I want to hear from a Republican.

What would it take for a Republican to win my personal vote - without changing what it means to be a Republican?

Not all that much.  He can retain his personal beliefs - but he has to recognize that there are other viewpoints and be willing to let them exist.  So here is a fictional speech, that I wrote for a fictional "Abraham Reagan".  If any Republican is man enough to say something CLOSE to it, that man could win the Presidency.  But no one will, because they have become trapped by their own constiuencies as pets, rather than leaders.




"Hello and my name is Abraham Reagan.  I am a god fearing Christian man, from the Great State of Wyoming.   I believe, as my bible taught me, that abortion and gay marriage are wrong.  I know that is true because of my firm and unshakeable belief in Jesus.  But I also recognize that this country is not all Protestant.  We have freedom of religion.  There are Catholics, Jews, godless Atheists, Hindus and even damn Muslims.   They have the right to worship as they wish and that means we can not stop them from sinning.  We are not here to stop people from sinning, but instead to find a way to lead them to the righteous path.   As President, I will not support any attempt to ban abortion or  gay marriage.  The bible tells us not to kill and to go forth and multiply, both important instructions.  But when I chose to become a public servant, I realized that I must put my country above everything else, because I may have to sin to protect it.  Part of that sinning is to recognize that my opinions on abortion and gay marriage are inherently a part of my belief in Jesus, and that I can not force my religion on others.  Not in America.  That doesn't mean I have to pay for abortions, or give anyone special treatment.  But equal treatment is not special.

I believe that America is a great country that can not support every man woman and child that wants to come here.  I also know we need more manual laborers than can be found among our citizens.   As such, I offer ALL those that wish to work temporary green cards that will not count towards citizenship.   Every single person not charged with a crime that wishes to try and get a job here can get a temporary green card.  But they may have to pay a small fee to get that card - and a small tax to pay for the services they consume.   In addition, we will continue to offer the usual path to citizenship for all those we find worthy.

Energy means jobs.  And it is clear that natural gas is the clear winner for the next decade.  Fracking has proven it's value by providing us with cheap energy.  I will work to make fracking legal in all states - provided the frackers fully disclose to the EPA every chemical they use in the process.  We will continue to work on more energy sources that do not excessively pollute our environment, but for the immediate future, we will focus on fracking, at the expense of other, far more dangerous methods.

When it comes to Gun Control, I strongly believe you should hit what you aim at!    But we do not have to let every crazy person buy a gun.   We can either have a list of gun owners or a list of people that can't own guns.  I don't want the government to know who owns guns, so we must make a real list of people that are not allowed to own a gun.  If you are on this list, which by law shall not have more than 5% of the population on it, then owning or attempting to purchase or even hold a gun will be a felony.   When you purchase a gun, the buyer will by law have to check that list.  If they fail to check that list, then they will go to jail.  And yes, we will test them.

I believe in Healthcare.  Romenycare, oh, excuse me the liberals prefer we call it ObamaCare, is not perfect.  It needs to be reformed, but I will not eliminate it.   Chief Justice Roberts has declared it a valid tax, and I think there are far more pressing taxes that we have to lower than it.   But there are many portions of it that I do wish to drop, and you will be hearing more about that later.  Here's just a taste of the things I want to eliminate:   I won't let Obamacare's insurance be more generous that Medicare.  I will combine the second exchange type (Small Business Health Options Program) with the first (American Health Benefit).  There is no need to duplicate the work.   I will also end the Co-op's 3.8 billion program.   But again, I will be keeping most of Romneycare, whoops, I mean Obamacare.

Obama's short lived Big Government is over.  We need to go back to small government.  That means starting with the military.  One of the few things Obama did right was use more drones and less boots on the ground.  Drones are more efficient.  They save American lives, they save American money, and they save American training.   I won't entirely replace American soldiers with drones,  but recruitment will be half of what it once was, and the same goes for big ticket purchases.  I don't simply want anti-personal drones, I want anti-aircraft drones, and anti-submarine drones.   This technological boon will be at the cost of the heavy metal, but will save American lives as well as American money.

My plan is to shrink entitlement programs, not by eliminating them, but instead by making them more efficient and by reducing the number of Americans that need it.  Medicare is one of the cheapest ways to get healthcare in the US, but it is STILL more expensive than outside of the US.  Under my administration, we will negotiate prices not based just on what the healthcare companies tell us are 'normal', but by what they offer outside of the US.  This will lower our costs.   I will also reform Social Security, treating it more like an Annuity and allowing people to invest upto 10% of their social security 'annuity' in the market if they so choose.  If they do this, and they make a profit, they will keep half their profit, the rest goes to finance the system.  If they lose money, they still will get no less than 90% of their normal benefits.

When it comes to Taxes, once the budget is balanced, I will take half the surplus and distribute equally among every single tax payer, lowering taxes.   But that will not happen until we balance the budget and obtain a surplus.  Which I assure you will be done, THIS YEAR.  This will not reduce our total tax burden, but will be simplify certain things.  As a result, while some people's taxes may go up, most taxes should stay about the same or go down.

Finally, some among you think we can not get the votes of 47% of America.   I tell you you are wrong.   There is NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE whom I can not get to vote for me, given the chance to talk to them.  In fact, I'm going out to talk to ex President Obama shortly and I am going to do my best to get his endorsement.  Thank you and may God bless America."

Note I personally do not believe much of what I wrote above.  It assumes many things are true that I personally do not believe in.   It is not the speech I personally would give.  But it is a speech that could get me to vote Republican again.

How to Negotiate

The Republican House just submitted a laughable budget.   Note, Obama didn't do much better - both budgets lack specifics.  The Office of Management and Budget - OMB - decide not to judge how much either would save/cost because they didn't have enough detail.

But the GOP version was an insult, not an attempt at a real budget.   The GOP version included a total repeal of Obamacare 'to save money'.  This is like asking your boss for a raise and adding "Oh, and I want the legal right to sleep with your wife as well".

Please note that Republican House has passed other attempts to repeal Obamacare.  All of them went down in flames, never getting past the Senate, let a lone having to be vetoed by the President.

Not just once, multiple times.  How many times?

Here's a news story from July of last year, claiming 33 times.

Did they stop after 33?  No.  Note, that 33 includes attempts to repeal large sections of it, as opposed to the entire thing.   But we all know that the 'part' they try to repeal is core of it - the individual mandate.  


The point is that this has been before and failed so many times. So what's going on?  Are the Republicans morons?  Do they not know it won't work?   No.  They are passing symbolic votes to appeal to their base.  But they either don't know or don't care that doing so prevents a real budget from happening.

Here, let me explain how ANY negotiation works.


First, you don't start out with one goal.  That's for suckers.  Instead you start out with 3 goals,  then calculate 2 more, for a total of 5.


The three goals are, in order:

1. What you would be willing to take.  (barely doable)
2. What you expect to get.  (desirable)
3. What you reasonably could hope to get.  (dream offer)

Next you look at those three goals.  Figure out how much value is between them.  Call that your 'base units'.   If we were just talking about money (but very few negotiations are just about money), then it is easy.  I'll give you a pure money example.

Lets say you are looking for a new job.  Your current job pays 60k (welcome to the middle class).  There is no way you would change jobs, losing seniority, vacation days, 401K contributions, etc. for anything less than 66k.  So 66K is your 'willing to take' number.  Any lower and you don't change jobs.  You think you are easily worth 70k, and you can see someone desperate for you paying 75K.

Those are your numbers, 66, 70 and 75.


Next you have to figure out what a 'low ball' number your opponent might offer.  Anything less than that means they are not serious about hiring.    From your research, you find that people with no experience might work for 60k.   Anything less than that and your potential new employer is wasting your time.  They simply are not looking for someone.   If they even mention a number lower than 60k, forget about getting the job, walk away - they either don't know what they are doing, or are not serious about hiring someone of your caliber.

Now your numbers are 60 (low-ball), 66 (barely doable), 70 (desirable) 75 (dream pay).

All the numbers differ from between 4-6k.   So add on 5k, to your dream pay, and you get 80k.  If they ask you for a number before telling you anything else, that is the one you give.  It is higher than your dream pay and most likely will not be accepted. But who knows, you could get lucky.

You do not under any circumstance ask for 90k.  That is ridiculously too high and will get you laughed at and dismissed, just as if someone were to offer you 50k.  Asking for 90k (or trying to end Obama-Care) is the equivalent of saying "Oh, and in addition to the pay, I also want to sleep with your wife."

It is not an attempt to actually negotiate, it is an attempt to disrupt the negotiation (or prove you are a moron unsuited for the job.)


A good negotiator asks for the 80k, is countered with 60k, and meet at 70k.   Both sides demonstrate:

1. Knowledge of the value of the work
2. A desire for profit
3. A willingness to be reasonable
4. Good negotiating skills

Asking to repeal Obamacare (or just major parts of it), is the equivalent of asking to sleep with your new employers wife.  For God's sake it has the President's NAME in it. It's his legacy, the one thing that everyone will remember about him.  Both sides used it as a major plank in their 2012 election campaign and Obama won.

Frankly, I think Obama would be more willing to let Paul Ryan sleep with Michelle, than to repeal ObamaCare as part of the budget.   Fifty years from now, when they talk about President Obama it will be "First Black President, killed Osama Bin Laden, Reformed Health Care".  He isn't giving up that last statement.

Trying to include it's repeal proves the GOP is NOT serious at all about negotiating, instead they are just pontificating, playing to the base, and pretending to work.

The thing is America KNOWS what you are doing - all of America.  That includes Democrats, Republicans an Independents.

Anyone that is not already a died-in-the-wool Republican knows it is a lie, not real negotiation

And we will remember it in 2014 when the entire House goes up for re-election again - this time without the super-strong, just-gerrymandered election districts you built up last time.   You better pray to god the typical mid-cycle anti-incumbent-president effect counters your stupidity.  It doesn't always work that way.  Because that's the only thing that can save the GOP from yet another huge loss in 2014.

Voting Rights Act and SCOTUS

On Thursday, the Supreme Court Of The United States heard a ridiculous, totally unfounded challenge to the Voting Rights Act, section 5.   That part says that certain sections of the country must get pre-clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any voting law changes.  That would be Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and certain counties in other states (including some northern states)
(source)


It should be laughed out of court.

It won't be, because the court is full of conservative judicial activists.

The court's job is not to decide if a Law is a good idea.  It is to decide if a law is Constitutional.

The court keeps talking about whether it is a good law.

1. They ask if it is still necessary, given the great strides we have made in Civil Rights.  That's a question for Congress, not SCOTUS.  Even asking it is judicial activism. 
2. They ask if the southern states are still more prejudiced than the northern states.  Again, that's a question for Congress, not SCOTUS.  Even asking it is judicial activism.
3. They say the supporting data is 35 years old and now irrelevant.  Again, that is a question for Congress, not SCOTUS.  Even asking it is judicial activism.

The Supreme Court has one job and the one question that goes with that job is:

IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?

They are not allowed to throw out laws because they think it is unnecessary
They are not allowed to throw out laws because they treat some states differently
They are not allowed to throw out laws because it is based on old, out-dated data.

They are allowed to throw out laws because it is unconstitional.


The Constitution of the the United Staes of America talks about voting right multiple times.  In fact there are two seperate amendments, any one of which allows Congress to make this law.  The relevant sections are underlined.


14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

15th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Also note that I have underlined the entire 15th amendment.  The sole purpose of this amendment is to allow Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act and to enforce it.

The Voting Rights act is constitutional. 

It may (or may not) be bad law, but it is definitely constitutional.  Overturning it would be outrageous Judicial Activiism.


P.S.  As a side note, the answers to those questions illegally raised by the Supreme Court are:

1. Yes it is still necessary.  States continue to attempt to gerrymander away/concentrate into one district minority votes.
2. Yes, parts of the US are still more prejudiced. Yes, it has been diluted - and then spread throughout the entire country.  But in Mississippi you still have black, gay mayoral candidates hunted down and killed in the street.  (source).  And no, the claim it is anti-gay, not anti-black doesn't make your prejudice any less a valid reason to have the Justice Department watch your slimy, corrupt laws.
3. While the supporting data is 35 years old, new supporting data, as shown by Florida's HUGE waiting time to vote for black districts with short waiting times in white districts, supports EXPANDING the Voting Rights Act, not eliminating it.

Some might say that the current anti=black legislation is not racist because they are trying to target liberals.   Yes, they are targeting black districts with schemes to undermine their voting rights, but only because they are liberals, which the GOP thinks makes it all right.

No it doesn't.   Banks are not allowed to refuse loans to black districts using they excuse that "most blacks are poor".  If you think most blacks are poor (or liberal), that doesn't make your racism legal.

The fact that 1) you can't get blacks to vote Republican, it itself an indication that the GOP is racist
2)  you then categorize all blacks as liberals is itself racist.

Racism is alive and well in the GOP.   Oh how the party of Lincoln has fallen.

Treasonous Republicans have Failed.

I have repeatedly talked about treasonous Republican plans to rig electoral voting systems.

The good news is that those plans have failed.  We have defeated the greatest internal threat to Democracy in my generation.

I am not exaggerating.  In the past 40 years, no one else has actively attempted to abandon the basic principle of democracy:  "most votes wins". 

Note, they are still trying to rig votes, but have listened to reason and are not trying to move from Democracy to Oligarchy.

Specifically, what they are doing is trying to switch from "majority wins all votes" (also called Winner Take All) to proportionate voting in the liberal states that have republican state majorities.  All this of course while keeping "majority wins all votes" for the conservative states.  (source)

This is not a big concern.  Yes, it is cheating.  Yes, it is unfair.  But the unfairness is really the actions of the winner take all states.  The system they propose, if used in all states, would in fact be fairer then the current one.    Not as fair as moving to the straight national public vote, but fairer than the current version.

The election rigging is caused not by their change but by the systematic change of just the Left and not the Right states.


But their attempts at election rigging are doomed to failure.

Their system depends on holding state majorities via gerrymandering,  whose effect slowly vanishes, as the gerrymandering effect slowly decreases over time.

Worse, the more they depend on gerrymandering, the more they put forth radical candidates, the more they turn away the general population as opposed to gaining ground.  The GOP is in a state of decline, being reinforced by their own actions.   Eventually they will lose the state houses.

But even if they don't lose the state houses, it still can't beat the Democrat's Presidential candidates, assuming we put forth a half way decent one.  Why?  Because the GOP is in a state of decline being reinforced by their own actions.

In the last presidential election, Obama, during a recession, won every single state that he could have, except for North Carolina (see my earlier post here).    Any state that was not a dyed in the wool, shoot the liberals, conservative state, the Democrats won.

Because the GOP is losing so badly, no minor change in the electoral college is going to help them out.  They lost by 126 electoral votes.  That means they need to change 63 electoral votes to win an election.  Picking up a few extra votes from states they lose by just a little won't help them out.

In order to gain enough votes, they need to win the swing states.  <b>Guess which states they are trying to change to proportionate voting?</b>   Yes, those very same swing states.

The GOP is envisioning a world that works almost exactly like the last election - with the GOP doing just a little bit better and having proportional votes from the last few states they lost push them over the edge.

So lets envision a 2012 world where things were a bit closer.   That is , if the GOP had won Ohio and Florida  They still would lose to Obama.  

Then lets say that the next three states - Pennsylvania (20), Colorado (9) and Virgina (13) were all super close.  Not counting those states, the Democrats have 243 electoral votes.  To win we need 270.

Pennsylvania is the main state considering going proportionate, but Virginia might as well (as they were the state most seriously contemplating treasonous district based voting).

The GOP is fantasizing about losing Colorado (democrats have 252), winning Virginia, then losing Pennsylvania but getting a minority share of Pennsylvania's vote.  That would leave the Democrats with 252+11=263 votes, and the Republicans win the Presidency!  Cue the GOP celebration.  If Pennsylvania was still a winner take all then 252+20=272 and the Democrats win.

But look at what happens if Virginia ALSO went proportionate.  That would give the Democrats 252 +11 +6 = 269 votes, it's a tie (and the the House decides).   We won't know what the House is in 2016 - the Democrats could very well in it.   Unless of course, the Democrats, seeing the situation in Pennsylvania and Virginia, move some PA and VA money to  Ohio and win it.  


But lets say ONLY Pennsylvania goes proportionate.  The Democrats see this and stop spending cash in Pennsylvania, instead put it all in Virginia and win Virginia, but lose Pennsylvania - but still get the proportionate votes.

Now the vote is 252 + Virginia's 13 = 265 + 9 from Pennsylvania = 274, Democrats win - because Pennsylvania went proportionate. Cue the GOP recriminations.

Going proportionate could very well backfire for the GOP.   By itself it is no where near enough to win an election, and the Democrats will shift their efforts to deal with whatever the GOP does.

What's far more important is the actual national votes - specifically in Ohio, Florida and North Carolina.

The way things are going, the GOP will lose all three.

The basic problem for the GOP is not that the Democrats are winning by a small margin in swing states.  Instead it is that the Democrats have far more states firmly under their control and they are BIG states, then the GOP does.  The Republicans won only four with more than 10 electoral votes by a margin of at least 10%.  The Democrats won seven states with more than 10 electoral votes by a margin of over 10%.  The GOP's biggest electoral state is Texas with 38 votes - and if the Liberals get their Hispanic act together, Texas may be in play in 2016.  The Democrats biggest electoral state is California with 55 votes, quickly followed by New York at 29. 

Keep in mind that the Democrats have a secret weapon they can use.   Specifically we can put North Carolina's Kay Hagan on the 2016 ticket - as either President or Vice President.

If the Democrats win North Carolina, then the GOP is extremely unlikely to win the election - it is the most conservative of the swing states. and the only one Obama lost.  If the Democrats put a campaign together that can win North Carolina, they will most likely win every other swing state.  

Gerrymandering and Treasonous Republicans

Recently the treasonous republicans (not all republicans are treasonous, but there are a few) are pushing the "Electoral College by Congressional District" plan as a means of ending Democracy  (government by majority vote) in the United States of America and moving to an Oligarchy (government by the few).  We will still be a Republic (government through representatives rather than direct control), just an Oligarchic Republic instead of a Democratic Republic.  That's Republicans for you - out to get rid of anything with a 'Democra" prefix.


There is an interesting article about this in The Nation

 They are doing this because they know they can't win the popular vote, so they want to rig the game.

 The traitorous Republican controlled states are:

Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin

Note none of them are talking about doing this in the Republican strongholds of Texas or Georgia.  They are not even willing to do it for the smaller republican states like Utah (which would only have given the Democrats one electoral vote because).

They only want to do this in the larger Democrat states that through gerrymandering are Republican controlled senates.

They point to Maine and Nebraska, saying that all they want to do is the copy those two states.

That is an outright lie.

There are major differences between Maine, Nebraska and those six states they want create illegal and unconstitutional methods.  Virginia is the state that is furthest along in their unconstitutional idea, so I will use it as an example.

First and foremost, Maine and Nebraska are designed to be legal, constitutional and FAIR.  Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to their congressional districts, plus two (for their senators). Maine has four total electoral votes and Nebraska has five.  Both states apply the two 'senatorial' electoral votes to the winner of the statewide election and give one vote to the winner of each congressional district.

BUT VIRGINIA IS NOT DOING THIS.   Instead, Virginia is giving their two 'senatorial' electoral votes to whoever wins the most congressional district, not to the winner of the popular vote.  This is in effect to add insult to injury.  This alone is illegal.  Districts don't vote, people do.  You don't give out the extra votes to the winner of the most districts, you give it to the winner of the most people.

Second, because of the small size of Maine and Nebraska, you can't gerrymander extra votes.   That is, you can't carve out 3 districts with 60% conservative votes, while creating one district with 90% Democrat.     The real question is not why is this wrong but why is it legal.  Mainly because both parties liked the certainty, and were willing to put up with the loss of one or two congressional districts when the other party happened to be in control of the state.

Virginia has 11 districts.  This allows for some major gerrymandering.  There are three Democrat districts in Virgina.  One of the Democrats won by over 80%, the other two by over 60%.  Of the eight Republican controlled districts, none won by more than 66% and only two won by over 60%.  The other six were all won by between 50 and 60%  The 80% democrat district (district 3)  touches districts one, two, four and seven, all of whom were won by less than 60%, is clearly gerrymandered, even if you want to argue about the other two democrat ones.

In a fair world, the Democrats should have won at least one additional congressional race in Virgina, probably three or four more.  Three more would have put them in the MAJORITY of Virgina.  Not surprisingly because Barack Obama won the statewide election in Virginia.  Virgiia has more Democrats than Republicans, the only reason the Republicans have more Virginia congressmen is gerrymandering.

Maine and Nebraska are not gerrymandered.


Third, and most important,  Maine and Nebraska have so few electoral votes that even if they were gerrymandered horrendous - it is impossible  to get the majority of their electoral votes without also getting the majority of their popular vote.

Because the two 'senatorial' electoral votes are  almost half of Nebraska's(and exactly half of Maine's) electoral vote, they can swing the majority to at least match the state's majority vote.

Not true in Virginia with it's 11 electoral districts.

Given the current congressional record history, Virginia would get 8 Republican District electoral votes, plus 3 Democrat District electoral votes.  Even if you use the Maine/Nebraska rules of two senatorial electoral votes to the popular winner (which the traitors in the GOP are not doing - they have zero ethics whatsoever), the net total would be 8 Republican Electoral votes vs 5 Democrat Electoral Votes.

Virginia's law would make that happen in every election until the GOP's old white population died out - or more likely was murdered in the armed revolution they are inciting.


Note, there has been exactly two cases in all of America's history where the guy that won the popular vote did not get the majority of the state's electoral vote.  The first was in 1860 - New Jersey decided to give the Republican Lincoln 4 electoral votes and 3 to Douglas despite the fact that Douglas beat Lincoln by more than 4,500 votes (source)  Exactly how the GOP convinced people to do this is unclear, the records are not around after 150 years.


One year later the civil war started - in main part because Lincoln was elected.   I am not saying that New Jersey's faithless act caused the war - just that it is a  very bad sign when we want to repeat it.

The second case in the 1960's when Kennedy was running against Nixon.  While Kennedy won popular vote in the state of Alabama, the state Democrats party did not like him.  So they put up 'unsworn' electors, who, while they were Democrats, then went and voted for Nixon.  Of the 11 electors - all democrats, only five voted for Kennedy.  (source)  Again, this was due to racial factors - the southerns hated the Civil Rights Act.

Note electors voting against the wishes of their constituents is in fact not at all uncommon prior to 1980. It happened ALL the time before Reagan.  After Reagan, it pretty much never happened again.  But it was a faithless act by the elector, not a state law that did this.

Oh, if you wondering why I keep saying "Unconstitutional", read the Constitution's 14th Amendment, section two:

"2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

The 'in any way abridged bit is what makes these 'electoral districts' schemes unconstitutional. By law, this reduces the basis of representation, i.e the congressional districts AND the electoral votes shall be reduced.

Virginia's has 13 electoral votes, at least 8 of which should go democrat.  Their scheme to reduce that to 3 is a clear reduction of 5 votes.  As such, Virginia should legally be punished by the removal of 3 congressional districts (for proposing an electoral vote scheme based on gerrymandering) and 5 electoral votes (the extra 2 electoral votes because they also wanted the senatorial votes to go to the highest electoral winner, as opposed to the popular vote winner.

Virginians should sue the state, under the 14th amendment to eliminate those 3 congressional and 5 electoral votes.

Ten Years from Now

Recently a complete lunatic that failed to predict the turnout and results of the 2012 election the actual day it happened (after studying the polls for years), came out with a ridiculous set of 10 year predictions.   Well, if any idiot can do it, this one can too!

Here are my predictions about the GOP:

First, over the next ten years the Republican party will slowly lose it's hold on local and congressional offices.  People age and they have seriously pissed off the younger generation, immigrants, and the demographics that are growing.

This will lead the Democratic party to grow complacent.  They will make mistakes and a new leader will arise in the GOP.

He will revolutionize them and re-invigorate the GOP.  He will still be the second place party, but they will pick up some momentum.  It might be a familiar name (Christie, Rubio, Jindal etc.), or it could be someone new.

I am not sure exactly what he will do, but I can tell you they will definitely abandon certain key GOP ideas. They will keep pro-life, and remain conservative.  But they will become a huge pro-latino party.  It's the only way they can retain any relevance.  That means immigration reform, led by the GOP.  Good bye racism, hello equality.

They will also have to give up the anti-gay agenda.   They will still be anti-gay, just not as openly.   They will never become pro-gay, but frankly they have lost the anti-gay battle, it's just a matter of time.  As for abortion, they will continue to press their anti-abortion agenda, winning in the state legislates while repeatedly losing in the courts, having their ridiculous anti-abortion laws overturned over time.

Guns - whatever happens this year will remain in place for the next ten.   If we can't get any changes now, we will not do so for a generation.  If we do, the NRA will use whatever gains done now as an excuse to stop more.


Taxes - the current GOP will continue with it's ridiculous plan of "cut the deficit while also cutting taxes."  But honestly, without total control this is meaningless.  Without the power to actually pass laws, it's just a way to wage a two-front war.  If they actually obtained power and achieve the Presidency (unlikely, but possible), then they would practically abandon one of those ideals while maintaining lip service.

Most likely they would abandon the idea of cutting taxes and let them go up.  Because they are smart enough to realize that if they cut services enough to affect the deficit without raising taxes their presidency would become one term.  Because the only ways to that would be radical changes in the social services that people LOVE or the military - which they are paranoid enough to keep.

Drugs are a strange issue.  I suspect that within ten years there will be some kind of law passed giving the states the right to legalize marijuana.  If the GOP is smart they will push this idea to the forefront, in part as a way to avoid legalizing it nationally.   If they are stupid, they will let the Democrats take this winning idea and run with it.  If they are REALLY stupid they will pull an ObamaCare - let a GOP governor create the idea, then abandon it when the Democrats agree.



If they are smart, the GOP will pick up the battles the Democrats have abandoned - specifically pro-web user rights.  If they bring just a dash of anti-Facebook to their platform, they can recruit some of the liberals that are pro-privacy liberals.

Who will this new wunder-kin Republican be?   They need either a northern republican like Chris Christie, or a non-white southern republican, like Rubio or Jindal  Better yet, a northern non-white republican - Colin Powell would make a great one.  Or a female version of him.

If you are a white southern male republican, you have no chance to win the Presidency.   Sorry Perry, Santorum, etc.  You never had a chance and you never will.  Not in the current demographics.

The Tea Party will slowly lose relevance, they are a distraction that inhibits the GOP on the national stage, while barely keeping them alive in the local elections.   The Libertarian/Ron Paul will slowly gain relevance at the cost of the Tea Party.  But they will not achieve real power.  They will never pick the President - if they win the primary, they would lose the general election.

The next Republican GOP President will not come from the existing GOP power structure, it will create a new one.  Rubio, Jindal or Christie could do it - but only by kicking the hell out of Fox first.  Because honestly, Fox is holding the GOP back.

Fox News is force for the status quo.  They  maintain the base, but at the same time retard growth.   A real GOP leadership would have to be be capable of getting them to shut the hell up.   They need someone that can kick Glenn Beck, or his equivalent off the air, not have their campaign destroyed by it.

Louisiana Governor 'Bobby' Jindal (his first name is too ethnic for Republicans to vote for), and Chris Christie have already made the first step in yelling at the current GOP.  But it's not too late for Rubio (or someone new) to step in and really take control.

Because the first step to taking control of the GOP is to crush their free independence, just like any stereotypical Drill Sergeant in any good army movie.  Then he can build them back up - in his new political image.