Mitt Campaigns and Spends More in Swing States
Energy Independence in the United States
The backdrop of the upcoming presidential elections in the United States has enabled the American electorate to hear the candidates' opinions on the issues, one of them being energy policy. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that energy independence is important. Such independence would protect the United States from the risk of energy supplies from abroad encountering disruptions.
The concensus on building a more energy independent country has been around for years, transcending entire administrations and congresses. Contrary to expectation, however, is that petroleum imports are much higher today than they were 40 years ago. Of all petroleum products consumed in this country, 60% of them come from abroad, compared to 40 years ago when roughly 38% of petroleum products came from foreign suppliers.
This graphic from Slate Magazine illustrates the growing trend of importing oil products since 1973, along with the goals of three different presidents to develop greater energy self reliance. Ultimately what it depicts is the failure in the present day to meet any of these goals. Any conversation between the presidential candidates on energy independence might be unlikely to see significant followup action.
This graphic from Slate Magazine illustrates the growing trend of importing oil products since 1973, along with the goals of three different presidents to develop greater energy self reliance. Ultimately what it depicts is the failure in the present day to meet any of these goals. Any conversation between the presidential candidates on energy independence might be unlikely to see significant followup action.
2012 Convention Exposes Corruption of GOP, Romney Campaign
Found in the backpages of the mainstream press, a profound act of blatant tyranny in our elections occurred yesterday at the Republican National Convention. My goal is to explain the event using a simple analogy the complex corruption miring the hands of both the GOP and the Romney campaign.
Imagine if you will for a moment a NCAA football team trying to qualify for a bowl game. Let's furthermore pretend that the rules say that in order to qualify to play in a bowl game, you must have at least 5 wins. Your team works extra hard against pundits who claimed your team was so bad you wouldn't even win 1 game. Some of the games played--most notably one game played in Maine, but others as well--you were clearly the winner but the NCAA told you you lost the game because they didn't like the outcome. The NCAA's decision so outraged the Governor of Maine, he actually boycotted the games despite personal invitation to attend.
And all this notwithstanding, by some miracle grace of God your team wins SIX games! It serves as an amazing victory for the team and reason for celebration. Yet just in the act of winning the last win at the completion of the season, the NCAA votes to up the ante to EIGHT games in order to qualify. Thus has been the treatment yesterday at the convention with those within the GOP who support nominating at the convention someone other than Mitt Romney. Here is evidence of the 225 votes cast at the RNC yesterday for someone other than Romney: video tally count
The problem facing the GOP is not only is this corrupt, but illegal. While the GOP is a private organization, it received $18 Million in taxpayer funds for the purpose of holding a fair convention. Changing the rules at the final moment from 5 states to 8 states is antithetical to the democratic process and should disqualify the GOP from being considered a venue promoting fair, democratic process. Just as the birth certificate issue clouded the validity of Obama's election in the minds of many, the abrupt rule change now clouds the Romney victory. That is, how can Romney legitimately now claim to be the GOP nominee when the rules were changed at the last minute to disallow the nomination of another candidate at convention? Would we allow a last minute change in the voting process? What if we changed election rules at the last minute in 2000 and tell Bush that we were no longer counting electoral college but popular vote? The nation would be in outrage.
In an article of interest, US News quoted one of the Maine delegates as saying:
Romney has been negligent in standing for freedom. Most likely through his heavy-handed campaign, he has been complicit in the disenfranchisement of the non-Romney delegates, although when questioned by Fox News' Ben Swann, he claimed ignorance. Ignorance-at-best is hardly a trait we can afford from a country quagmired in debt and a far cry from the leadership Romney professes.
Both the RNC and candidate Romney have lost the moral highground. There can be no long-term victory for them when this happens. Indeed it reminisces of the salt works scene from the movie Ghandi. The beating of those in favor of someone besides Romney has gone on and on. The bodies of the wounded have been carried off and whatever moral ascendancy the GOP held was lost today. The tyranny at the GOP convention yesterday will be remembered always.
Imagine if you will for a moment a NCAA football team trying to qualify for a bowl game. Let's furthermore pretend that the rules say that in order to qualify to play in a bowl game, you must have at least 5 wins. Your team works extra hard against pundits who claimed your team was so bad you wouldn't even win 1 game. Some of the games played--most notably one game played in Maine, but others as well--you were clearly the winner but the NCAA told you you lost the game because they didn't like the outcome. The NCAA's decision so outraged the Governor of Maine, he actually boycotted the games despite personal invitation to attend.
And all this notwithstanding, by some miracle grace of God your team wins SIX games! It serves as an amazing victory for the team and reason for celebration. Yet just in the act of winning the last win at the completion of the season, the NCAA votes to up the ante to EIGHT games in order to qualify. Thus has been the treatment yesterday at the convention with those within the GOP who support nominating at the convention someone other than Mitt Romney. Here is evidence of the 225 votes cast at the RNC yesterday for someone other than Romney: video tally count
The problem facing the GOP is not only is this corrupt, but illegal. While the GOP is a private organization, it received $18 Million in taxpayer funds for the purpose of holding a fair convention. Changing the rules at the final moment from 5 states to 8 states is antithetical to the democratic process and should disqualify the GOP from being considered a venue promoting fair, democratic process. Just as the birth certificate issue clouded the validity of Obama's election in the minds of many, the abrupt rule change now clouds the Romney victory. That is, how can Romney legitimately now claim to be the GOP nominee when the rules were changed at the last minute to disallow the nomination of another candidate at convention? Would we allow a last minute change in the voting process? What if we changed election rules at the last minute in 2000 and tell Bush that we were no longer counting electoral college but popular vote? The nation would be in outrage.
In an article of interest, US News quoted one of the Maine delegates as saying:
"We would have probably stood in line and voted for Romney in November, but not if he's going to do this for us," he says. "Not if he's going to disenfranchise the voters of the state of Maine. If you're going to do that, I will not stand with this party. This is ridiculous. These people were elected by the state and they're not allowed to be on the floor."This video highlights the contention, including the shouts to seat the Maine delegation. Does the Romney campaign and Mitt Romney himself really believe that using the tyranny of the majority to squelch dissent and disenfranchisement is the means to victory? Can there be freedom or Constitutional government when the rights of the minority are disrupted?
Romney has been negligent in standing for freedom. Most likely through his heavy-handed campaign, he has been complicit in the disenfranchisement of the non-Romney delegates, although when questioned by Fox News' Ben Swann, he claimed ignorance. Ignorance-at-best is hardly a trait we can afford from a country quagmired in debt and a far cry from the leadership Romney professes.
Both the RNC and candidate Romney have lost the moral highground. There can be no long-term victory for them when this happens. Indeed it reminisces of the salt works scene from the movie Ghandi. The beating of those in favor of someone besides Romney has gone on and on. The bodies of the wounded have been carried off and whatever moral ascendancy the GOP held was lost today. The tyranny at the GOP convention yesterday will be remembered always.
President Obama and Mitt Romney Locked in a Tight Battle For America's Next President
With the 2012 presidential election only months away, Gallup’s Election 2012 Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney pits the two candidates in a tight race – so tight, in fact, that the two are in a statistical tie. Registered voters were asked: “Suppose the presidential election were held today. If Barack Obama were the Democratic Party’s candidate and Mitt Romney were the Republican Party’s candidate, who would you vote for Barack Obama, the Democrat or Mitt Romney, the Republican?” Undecided voters were asked which candidate they leaned towards, and their responses were incorporated into the results. If the election were held today, Gallup's results (with the margin of error falling at ±3%) indicate that the result is too close to call.
Richy Rich: Income Inequality Infographics
Over the past year we have heard the media frequently use the term "99%." It's a figure that Occupy Wall Street has been quick to employ to find common ground with the masses. It's also a phrase that pundits have used to comment on the platforms of this year's presidential candidates. But The Atlantic features a new way of looking at the 99% / 1% divide, by depicting incomes along a stacked bar chart that resembles the world's tallest building, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai.
The interesting chart comes from Scott Winship and is published on the Brookings Institution's website in an article about inequality within the top 1%. The differences are striking. If we take the poorest person in the top 1% of US incomes and put him on the 160th floor, then we would find the poorest person in the top 10% living on the 35th floor. Or, to put it another way, the disparity in earnings for these two individuals can be represented as a difference in 125 stories. On the other hand, consider the median household income. The poorest person in the top 50% of earners is separated from the poorest person in the top 10% by a mere 22 floors. The top one hundredth of incomes is separated from the poorest of the top 1% by 150 floors. By contrast, the difference between the poorest individuals in the top 1% and those in the 2% is 67 floors
Nearly 1 in 5 Americans Would Not Vote for a Mormon President
According to Gallup’s Frank Newport, the American public has not altered its views on the possibility of a Mormon president for the past 44 years. When asked if they would vote for their party's candidate if they were Mormon, 18 percent of respondents said they would not. That response varies only slightly from the 17% who responded similarly in 1968. Additionally, of those who know Romney’s faith, 9% said they would not vote for a Mormon. On the other hand, 29% of those who are unaware of Romney’s faith would not vote for a Mormon. With Mitt Romney ramping up his campaign for the upcoming presidential elections, it will be interesting to see how the electorate, which has never seen a Mormon major-party nominee, will respond. 41% of Americans Identify as "Pro-Choice"
Gallup’s survey of Americans regarding their views on abortion has revealed an interesting trend. Whereas in 1995, 56% of Americans identified as “pro-choice” and only 33% identified as “pro-life,” today, the percentages have almost completely flip-flopped. Gallup reports that, currently, 50% of Americans regard themselves as “pro-life,” while only 41% are “pro-choice.” That said, American’s views on the legality of abortion do not represent their self-identifications. 52% believe that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. On the other hand, the more polarizing views that abortion should be legal under any circumstances or illegal in all cases garnered only 25% and 20% of Americans’ opinions respectively.
SSDAN Director Dr. William H. Frey Points to Minorities as Key Factor in 2012 Presidential Election
On May 1st, SSDAN Director Dr. William H. Frey released a report for the Brookings Institution citing what he believes to be a key factor in the upcoming presidential election: the minority vote. The first aspect Dr. Frey highlights is the disparity between eligible voters and the total minority population. For every 100 Hispanic residents in America, only 44 are eligible to vote, whereas for every 100 white residents, 78 are eligible to vote.
Additionally, Dr. Frey points to the greatly increased voter turnout rate among minorities in 2008 compared to 2004. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all experienced an increase in voter turnout between 2004 and 2008, but what makes this trend significant is the fact that minorities overwhelmingly vote in favor of the Democratic candidate.
Finally, Dr. Frey emphasizes the idea that "minorities will account for a slightly larger share of eligible voters than in 2008. At the same time, white support for the Republican candidate may be greater than in 2008. Which dynamic will prevail?" To answer this key question, Dr. Frey illustrates three different scenarios, each taking into account different assumptions of white and minority voting patterns.
In the first scenario, Dr. Frey conducts a simulation based on the 2008 turnout and margins for whites and minorities. In this scenario, President Obama would win the election handily, garnering 358 electoral votes to Governor Romney's 180 (270 is needed to win).
The second scenario applies the 2004 turnout and margins for whites and minorities to the simulation. In this situation, Governor Romney wins a neck and neck election, receiving 286 electoral votes to President Obama's 252.
Lastly, Dr. Frey generates a third scenario, which takes into account the 2004 turnouts and margins for whites, and the 2008 turnouts and margins for minorities. In this final scenario, President Obama receives 292 electoral votes to Governor Romney's 246.
In the full report, Dr. Frey details the historical voting patterns of minorities, and he provides a more in depth look at what to expect for the minority influence on the 2012 election. Finally, for more information on historical voting patterns among various demographics, SSDAN recently released a brief detailing voter turnout in the past half-century.
A Look at the Top 1% Shows Shift to Finance, Stability Within its Ranks and High Political Engagement
The Economist took a look at the top one percent and "the changing complexion of America’s rich." It highlighted Mitt Romney as a reflection of this change, because "the wealthiest 1% of Americans not only get more of the pie," but also because "they are increasingly creatures of finance." There have been wealthy presidential candidates before, but Romney represents "the first candidate from the world of high-octane finance."
The Economist writes of the shift to finance, "According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and two others, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares that have changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined (see chart). The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under 8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is even more pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979." A graphic from the New York Times also focuses on the occupational distribution of the top one percent.
Also indicative of the shift to finance, it appears that the wealthiest of the wealthy are now employed in financial occupations, a change from years past. "[Steve] Kaplan [of the University of Chicago] and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers, corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporate executives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investors earned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives of companies in the S&P 500 stock index combined."
What does a household in the top one percent make? "The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data." But The Economist notes, "The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008." Of course, income is not the only measurement of wealth: "Measured by net worth, rather than income, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23% from 2007."
The Economist cites Mr. Kaplan, who argues that the move to finance largely accounts for the growth in the wealth gap. "Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplan notes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007, only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated (see chart). The trend is even more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in 2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009."
Research indicates that inequality in the U.S., as measured by the share of total income that goes to the top one percent of earners, has grown faster than in other countries. The Economist surmises that among other factors, this development could be resulting from "the relatively large role of the financial sector in English-speaking countries...[as] even more of the top 1% work in finance in Britain than in America."
Chances are that if you are born wealthy, you are likely to retain your wealth as an adult: "Membership in America’s 1% is relatively stable; three-quarters of the households in the percentile one year will still be there the next. Although the proportion shrinks over time, one study found that the vast majority of the top 1% were still in the richest 10% a decade later." The reason for this is fairly straight-forward: "rich parents tend to produce rich kids." Their children go to college and graduate institutions at a disproportionately high rate; "According to Gallup, 72% of the 1% have a college degree, and half have a postgraduate degree; those are two to three times the proportion of the other 99%." Numbers also indicate, "The 1% are more likely to be married and to have children."
And if you're born wealthy, it's likely that you'll marry someone from a similar economic background. "The rich also increasingly marry people like themselves. Mr Bakija and his co-authors found that between 1979 and 2005, the share of spouses of the 1% who had blue-collar or 'miscellaneous' service-sector backgrounds declined slightly, from 7.9% to 6.4%. The share of spouses who worked in finance, property and law rose from 3.5% to 8.8%."
Individuals in the top one percent are likely to be politically active, and although their political preferences are somewhat "eclectic," they tend to lean toward the Republican party. "Politically, Gallup polls find that the 1% are more likely than the 99% to identify themselves as Republicans (33% to 28%) and less likely to be Democrats (26% to 33%)." They rate the budget deficit as their central concern, and unemployment as their second; the other 99 percent of Americans prioritize these concerns in the reverse order.
The Economist writes that individuals in the top one percent "are far more politically engaged than the average 99-percenters," citing a study which showed that "68% make campaign contributions, nearly half had contacted a member of Congress and a fifth had solicited contributions on behalf of a candidate."
How would individuals in the top one percent describe themselves? Often, it is difficult to locate an answer: "Most of the 1% prefer not to talk about their good fortune."
The Economist writes of the shift to finance, "According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and two others, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares that have changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined (see chart). The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under 8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is even more pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979." A graphic from the New York Times also focuses on the occupational distribution of the top one percent.
Also indicative of the shift to finance, it appears that the wealthiest of the wealthy are now employed in financial occupations, a change from years past. "[Steve] Kaplan [of the University of Chicago] and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers, corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporate executives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investors earned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives of companies in the S&P 500 stock index combined."
What does a household in the top one percent make? "The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data." But The Economist notes, "The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008." Of course, income is not the only measurement of wealth: "Measured by net worth, rather than income, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23% from 2007."
The Economist cites Mr. Kaplan, who argues that the move to finance largely accounts for the growth in the wealth gap. "Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplan notes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007, only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated (see chart). The trend is even more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in 2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009."
Chances are that if you are born wealthy, you are likely to retain your wealth as an adult: "Membership in America’s 1% is relatively stable; three-quarters of the households in the percentile one year will still be there the next. Although the proportion shrinks over time, one study found that the vast majority of the top 1% were still in the richest 10% a decade later." The reason for this is fairly straight-forward: "rich parents tend to produce rich kids." Their children go to college and graduate institutions at a disproportionately high rate; "According to Gallup, 72% of the 1% have a college degree, and half have a postgraduate degree; those are two to three times the proportion of the other 99%." Numbers also indicate, "The 1% are more likely to be married and to have children."
And if you're born wealthy, it's likely that you'll marry someone from a similar economic background. "The rich also increasingly marry people like themselves. Mr Bakija and his co-authors found that between 1979 and 2005, the share of spouses of the 1% who had blue-collar or 'miscellaneous' service-sector backgrounds declined slightly, from 7.9% to 6.4%. The share of spouses who worked in finance, property and law rose from 3.5% to 8.8%."
Individuals in the top one percent are likely to be politically active, and although their political preferences are somewhat "eclectic," they tend to lean toward the Republican party. "Politically, Gallup polls find that the 1% are more likely than the 99% to identify themselves as Republicans (33% to 28%) and less likely to be Democrats (26% to 33%)." They rate the budget deficit as their central concern, and unemployment as their second; the other 99 percent of Americans prioritize these concerns in the reverse order.
The Economist writes that individuals in the top one percent "are far more politically engaged than the average 99-percenters," citing a study which showed that "68% make campaign contributions, nearly half had contacted a member of Congress and a fifth had solicited contributions on behalf of a candidate."
How would individuals in the top one percent describe themselves? Often, it is difficult to locate an answer: "Most of the 1% prefer not to talk about their good fortune."
Negative Press Coverage Plagues Front-Runner Romney
According to the Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mitt Romney is receiving more negative press coverage than at any other point in the GOP race. Romney, who won the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, will compete against remaining GOP candidates in South Carolina's primary on Saturday.
According to Pew's analysis, this increase in negative coverage for Romney may reflect opponents' efforts to attack the current frontrunner through negative advertisements. In particular, negative discourse regarding Romney revolved around his career at Bain Capital. According to an article on the Politics and Government Blog of the New York Times, GOP candidate opponent Newt Gingrich described Romney's work at Bain as "rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company."
According to the same report, Ron Paul is currently receiving more positive coverage than any other candidate. Almost half of the coverage of Ron Paul over the past week has been positive; according to the report, Paul has been described in many press accounts as "having little chance of winning the nomination."
Of all GOP candidates, Rick Perry currently is criticized the most, with his negative coverage nearly double his positive coverage. Coverage of President Obama from January 9, 2012 to January, 15, 2012 included fewer positive mentions than any of the GOP candidates. Only 10% of coverage regarding Obama was positive. These data come from an analysis of more than 11,000 news websites and mentions on Twitter.
According to Pew's analysis, this increase in negative coverage for Romney may reflect opponents' efforts to attack the current frontrunner through negative advertisements. In particular, negative discourse regarding Romney revolved around his career at Bain Capital. According to an article on the Politics and Government Blog of the New York Times, GOP candidate opponent Newt Gingrich described Romney's work at Bain as "rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company."
According to the same report, Ron Paul is currently receiving more positive coverage than any other candidate. Almost half of the coverage of Ron Paul over the past week has been positive; according to the report, Paul has been described in many press accounts as "having little chance of winning the nomination."
Of all GOP candidates, Rick Perry currently is criticized the most, with his negative coverage nearly double his positive coverage. Coverage of President Obama from January 9, 2012 to January, 15, 2012 included fewer positive mentions than any of the GOP candidates. Only 10% of coverage regarding Obama was positive. These data come from an analysis of more than 11,000 news websites and mentions on Twitter.
Gingrich Surging in South Carolina
Nate Silver unequivocally answers a question he posed yesterday--does Newt Gingrich have momentum in South Carolina?--in his FiveThirtyEight blog post today: "Yes, Mr. Gingrich does have momentum — and a lot of it." He writes, "Six different South Carolina polls have been released so far today, and they show a split in their results." Three of them, automated polls by Rasmussen Reports, Public Policy Polling and InsiderAdvantage, "have Mr. Gingrich in the lead...by margins ranging from 2 points to 6 points."
The polls strongly indicate that Mr. Gingrich's performance at the Monday debate has contributed to his rise in the polls. Marist for NBC News, one of the more traditional polls conducted by live interviewers, "showed Mitt Romney leading by 10 percentage points." But when Marist "split its results," it appeared that the debate did indeed give Mr. Gingrich some momentum with South Carolina voters. Mr. Silver writes, "Mr. Romney’s lead was smaller — 5 points — in the post-debate sample." Further, the aforementioned automated polls that show Mr. Gingrich in the lead "were conducted on Wednesday, after the debate and the qualified endorsement Mr. Gingrich received from Sarah Palin."
The FiveThirtyEight forecast model suggests that Mr. Gingrich is, in fact, gaining significant momentum. According to Mr. Silver, "The model now shows a virtual tie in the race, with Mr. Gingrich projected to get 34 percent of the vote and Mr. Romney 33.6 percent and each candidate having about a 50 percent chance of winning."
Most of Mr. Gingrich's gain, however, does not appear to be connected to a drop in the polls for Mr. Romney. Mr. Silver notes, "Mr. Gingrich has gained ground in the polls more than Mr. Romney has lost it. Two days ago, our forecast had Mr. Gingrich with 22.6 percent of the vote, so he has gained about 11 points since then. Meanwhile, Mr. Romney’s projection has declined less than 3 points — to 33.6 percent from 36.1 percent — over the same interval."
So where is Mr. Gingrich getting his new projected votes? According to Mr. Silver, "Mr. Gingrich’s gains have come from Rick Santorum and Rick Perry (who dropped out of the race today and endorsed Mr. Gingrich), as well as from undecided voters." Mr. Silver does go on to acknowledge that automated polls, because they usually do not call cell phones and "also generally have lower response rates than traditional polls," may not be the best source.
For now, Mr. Silver anticipates that the Saturday primary could yield a number of different results. He writes: "Our research shows that high levels of volatility and disagreement in the polls make polling aggregation methods less reliable. In other words, the margin of error on the forecast is especially high, enough so that either Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich could emerge with a clear victory by the time that the vote takes place on Saturday."
The polls strongly indicate that Mr. Gingrich's performance at the Monday debate has contributed to his rise in the polls. Marist for NBC News, one of the more traditional polls conducted by live interviewers, "showed Mitt Romney leading by 10 percentage points." But when Marist "split its results," it appeared that the debate did indeed give Mr. Gingrich some momentum with South Carolina voters. Mr. Silver writes, "Mr. Romney’s lead was smaller — 5 points — in the post-debate sample." Further, the aforementioned automated polls that show Mr. Gingrich in the lead "were conducted on Wednesday, after the debate and the qualified endorsement Mr. Gingrich received from Sarah Palin."
Most of Mr. Gingrich's gain, however, does not appear to be connected to a drop in the polls for Mr. Romney. Mr. Silver notes, "Mr. Gingrich has gained ground in the polls more than Mr. Romney has lost it. Two days ago, our forecast had Mr. Gingrich with 22.6 percent of the vote, so he has gained about 11 points since then. Meanwhile, Mr. Romney’s projection has declined less than 3 points — to 33.6 percent from 36.1 percent — over the same interval."
So where is Mr. Gingrich getting his new projected votes? According to Mr. Silver, "Mr. Gingrich’s gains have come from Rick Santorum and Rick Perry (who dropped out of the race today and endorsed Mr. Gingrich), as well as from undecided voters." Mr. Silver does go on to acknowledge that automated polls, because they usually do not call cell phones and "also generally have lower response rates than traditional polls," may not be the best source.
For now, Mr. Silver anticipates that the Saturday primary could yield a number of different results. He writes: "Our research shows that high levels of volatility and disagreement in the polls make polling aggregation methods less reliable. In other words, the margin of error on the forecast is especially high, enough so that either Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich could emerge with a clear victory by the time that the vote takes place on Saturday."
Mormon Republicans Loyal to Romney; Atheist Republicans Disproportionately Go For Paul
According to Gallup, Republican and Republican-leaners of voting age who identify as Mormon are disproportionately likely to support Mitt Romney, while Ron Paul garners more support among atheist Republicans than he does among Republicans of all religious denominations. Romney collects 71 percent of the Mormon Republican vote, exceeding the 23 percent he scores among all Republicans, and Paul garners 19 percent of the atheist vote, more than the 10 percent of all Republicans who support him. Gallup surmises that Paul's support among atheist Republicans at least partly reflects "the youthful skew in Paul's support and the tendency for young Americans to have no formal religious identity."
But Republican voters do not always support the candidate who shares their religious denomination: "Catholic Republicans were no more likely than average to support the two Catholics in the GOP race, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum; Protestant Republicans did not disproportionately support any particular candidate." 26 percent of Republicans who identify as Catholic support Gingrich, less than the 28 percent of all Republicans who support him. And four percent support Santorum, only slightly more than the three percent of all Republicans who support him.
Similar to Catholic Republicans, Protestant Republicans "reflect the overall sample average in their candidate support." The three major Protestant candidates are Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann (who has just suspended her campaign). Paul only gets 10 percent of the Protestant vote, which matches his score among all Republicans; Perry gets eight percent of the Protestant vote, only one more percentage point than his support among all Republicans; and Bachmann scores seven percent of the Protestant vote, just surpassing the six percent of all Republicans who support her.
Although Romney attracts the vast majority of the Mormon Republican vote, Mormons represent a relatively small percentage of the voting population. Gallup writes: "Given that Mormons constitute about 2% of American adults and 4% of Republicans nationally, the more important factor may be any possible effect that Romney's faith has on the vote of highly religious non-Mormons, a much larger voting bloc. The current data show that highly religious Protestants do give Romney slightly lower support than he gets among all Republicans, although the five-point difference is not huge."
Similar to Catholic Republicans, Protestant Republicans "reflect the overall sample average in their candidate support." The three major Protestant candidates are Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann (who has just suspended her campaign). Paul only gets 10 percent of the Protestant vote, which matches his score among all Republicans; Perry gets eight percent of the Protestant vote, only one more percentage point than his support among all Republicans; and Bachmann scores seven percent of the Protestant vote, just surpassing the six percent of all Republicans who support her.
Iowa Caucus Takehome: Ron Paul Easily Defeats Obama
In studying the Iowa Caucus entrance polling, Ron Paul now has definitive proof of what he has been preaching all along as supported through numerous polls: he is the candidate who could best defeat Obama. In examining both the FoxNews and CNN entrance polling we find Dr. Paul doing well in areas where the GOP has struggled: young voters, urban areas, among the poor, and among people who aren't influenced by ads. (If Iowa had any measurable ethnicities we would find he does well among races, too!)
But most notably in the polling is the support among Independents for Rep. Paul: An outstanding 43% of independent voters--more than double any other candidate--voted for the good Congressman! One can only imagine what would happen in a general election when Dr. Paul wins the GOP nomination: not only would Obama be defeated but with this kind of support from Independents, it would be no contest. States typically off hands for any GOP candidate would come into play. I'm talking big time like Ronald Reagan time here: California, New York, Oregon, even Hawaii would have HUGE possibilities of turning Ron Paul Red. States Romney or Santorum can't even begin to waste a dime on. Ron Paul WON the California GOP straw poll. Paulians are everywhere. This isn't the Romney United States of New Hampshire and Utah. Ron Paul has NATIONAL support; he's a people's candidate loved by those who are defending us in the military and sacrifice their lives over our insipid provocations, symptomatic of a domineering American Empire consumed by a Military Industrial Complex.
I don't know whether the Party will see this or not. We don't study out issues but go with whatever our favorite FoxNews commentator is. We don't read the Constitution we embrace; we don't think for ourselves. We pick one mass media and trust it like the Bible. We're busy and don't have time to truly study out and do our own homework. I know I've been there. We are changing. Slowly. We're getting that just because Romney spends the most money doesn't mean he's the best or most electable candidate.
And what is the Party going to do with people like me who won't vote for Romney because we have watched him and know his business experience isn't running a business and creating jobs or producing cars like his father: it's mergers and acquisitions. That's not the business skillset we need to run the country, we don't need to merge with Mexico or acquire Iraq! Remember being a "businessman" is NOT by itself any better than any other profession. Indeed, Romney can't even come up with a proposal to balance the budget his first year! Sounds to me like he needs to go back to Harvard and learn some business budgeting! And if Romney can't get our own party together, let alone appeal to independents, we're looking like another four years of Obama. Is not then a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama? Is that what we are trying to do as a Party to get Obama another 4 years by nominating Romney??? If indeed a vote for Romney helps Obama, then is it not only the right but the duty of every Republican to find someone else to whom to give their sacred vote and Romney's duty to bow out of the race and endorse someone who does have a plan to balance the budget their first year?
From a purely electability standpoint, Ron Paul is a GOP dream candidate and the only GOP candidate who could produce a landslide victory over Obama in 2012.
++++
Update 1/7: More interesting analysis http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/
Update 1/9: I'm telling you folks, if Republicans would just rally behind Ron Paul not only would we save the country, but Paul would be above 50% vs Obama and this election would be in the bag. Take a look as Paul scores 47% Percent of all Independents (CBS Poll) and yet thanks to the mass media is barely known and even less understood. If Republicans want a winner in 2012, the only hope is Ron Paul. Look, I understand some of you are going to have to hold your nose when you vote for Paul because you worry too much about the bomb in Iran, but read this: I love George Washington Except for his Foreign Policy by Michael Maharrey at the 10th Amendment Center and perhaps like myself and Michael you too will begin to see why Dr. Paul is much more right than wrong on foreign policy.
But most notably in the polling is the support among Independents for Rep. Paul: An outstanding 43% of independent voters--more than double any other candidate--voted for the good Congressman! One can only imagine what would happen in a general election when Dr. Paul wins the GOP nomination: not only would Obama be defeated but with this kind of support from Independents, it would be no contest. States typically off hands for any GOP candidate would come into play. I'm talking big time like Ronald Reagan time here: California, New York, Oregon, even Hawaii would have HUGE possibilities of turning Ron Paul Red. States Romney or Santorum can't even begin to waste a dime on. Ron Paul WON the California GOP straw poll. Paulians are everywhere. This isn't the Romney United States of New Hampshire and Utah. Ron Paul has NATIONAL support; he's a people's candidate loved by those who are defending us in the military and sacrifice their lives over our insipid provocations, symptomatic of a domineering American Empire consumed by a Military Industrial Complex.
I don't know whether the Party will see this or not. We don't study out issues but go with whatever our favorite FoxNews commentator is. We don't read the Constitution we embrace; we don't think for ourselves. We pick one mass media and trust it like the Bible. We're busy and don't have time to truly study out and do our own homework. I know I've been there. We are changing. Slowly. We're getting that just because Romney spends the most money doesn't mean he's the best or most electable candidate.
And what is the Party going to do with people like me who won't vote for Romney because we have watched him and know his business experience isn't running a business and creating jobs or producing cars like his father: it's mergers and acquisitions. That's not the business skillset we need to run the country, we don't need to merge with Mexico or acquire Iraq! Remember being a "businessman" is NOT by itself any better than any other profession. Indeed, Romney can't even come up with a proposal to balance the budget his first year! Sounds to me like he needs to go back to Harvard and learn some business budgeting! And if Romney can't get our own party together, let alone appeal to independents, we're looking like another four years of Obama. Is not then a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama? Is that what we are trying to do as a Party to get Obama another 4 years by nominating Romney??? If indeed a vote for Romney helps Obama, then is it not only the right but the duty of every Republican to find someone else to whom to give their sacred vote and Romney's duty to bow out of the race and endorse someone who does have a plan to balance the budget their first year?
From a purely electability standpoint, Ron Paul is a GOP dream candidate and the only GOP candidate who could produce a landslide victory over Obama in 2012.
++++
Update 1/7: More interesting analysis http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/
Update 1/9: I'm telling you folks, if Republicans would just rally behind Ron Paul not only would we save the country, but Paul would be above 50% vs Obama and this election would be in the bag. Take a look as Paul scores 47% Percent of all Independents (CBS Poll) and yet thanks to the mass media is barely known and even less understood. If Republicans want a winner in 2012, the only hope is Ron Paul. Look, I understand some of you are going to have to hold your nose when you vote for Paul because you worry too much about the bomb in Iran, but read this: I love George Washington Except for his Foreign Policy by Michael Maharrey at the 10th Amendment Center and perhaps like myself and Michael you too will begin to see why Dr. Paul is much more right than wrong on foreign policy.
Why a Conservative Mormon Cannot Support Romney
With the Iowa caucus just hours away, I thought I would elaborate on some of my feelings as to why as a Conservative, Utah Mormon I reject Romney as a candidate for POTUS.
(1) Romney equals Bush. During Bush's administration, Bush began some of our country's longest wars to deal with a situation in Afghanistan which should have only taken months. Credit Bush for the so-called "Bush Doctrine" in which we are supposed to preemptively strike on any nation we consider a threat. Bush imposed the unconstitutional federal mandate of No Child Left Behind, expanded Medicare through implementation of Part D, created a federal police force called the TSA, passed the Patriot Act in violation of our civil rights, and bailed out powerful wall street banks through TARP. Bush was a disaster to Conservatism and the Constitution. Looking back with the knowledge I have gained on political matters, I am ashamed I voted for the man.
Romney equals Bush as Romney has hired tons of old Bush staffers for his campaign. I hear Romney bashing Obama, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul but he never seems to criticize Bush. Perhaps he finds no fault with the Big-Government Bush agenda as his policies seem to mirror Bush's. He's even got Bush Sr's endorsement. Wow. I am SO thrilled. (NOT!)
(2) Romney has endorsed both Orrin Hatch's current bid to extend his senatorial dynasty and ex-Sen Bob Bennett in his failed quest at a fourth term. Here in Utah, it is clear Romney has courted the powerbroking establishment at the expense of Constitutional freedom.
(3) Romney appears comfortable at applying the Bush Doctrine in Iran. It seems illogical in a financially broke, war-weary nation that one would want to do a preemptive strike against Iran under the justification of stopping them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I grew up under the constant and real threat of thousands of warheads pointed at my nation and yet none of those in the original "evil empire" ever took preemptive strike. If we are so concerned about a nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable country, does this mean we also have to go to war against Pakistan and Syria?
These Muslim countries are fighting against us in large part because we are in the midst of a 21st Century "crusade" against their lands. We occupy their countries and support dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak and in some cases like Iran overthrow democratically elected leaders to establish tyrants like the Shah. If we would leave them alone to worship as they please, there would be much abatement to the hostility towards us. Jews and Christians which have respected Muslim worship have lived at peace for centuries in both Shi'a and Sunni countries.
As a Mormon, we believe that we have the duty to spread the message of Jesus Christ to every nation and people of the world. We know through experience that in wartime the spreading of the message is inhibited to the point of impracticality. Why then does Romney insist on stirring up the Persians to wrath against us through the implied threat of preemptive strike? Surely peace is the message of Mormonism and of the Book of Mormon from which the name derives.
I cannot support Romney in his foreign warmongering policies against the Persian people.
In all I view Romney as a Rattlesnake versus Obama as an Inland Taipan; although the Taipan is much more toxic, you want to avoid being bitten by either and both require serious treatment afterwards. The want of Conservatism is for drastically smaller government, adherence to the Constitution, decreasing the laws of the land, relief from taxation, and paying down the debt. I am fully aware and convinced that, like Bush, at the end of his term a Romney presidency will have more pages of law, more taxation, more war, and less adherence to the Constitution. I cannot foresee any circumstance of me being able to vote in good conscience for Romney or Obama even when I am told by people who claim intellectual superiority that I must choose between these vipers.
(1) Romney equals Bush. During Bush's administration, Bush began some of our country's longest wars to deal with a situation in Afghanistan which should have only taken months. Credit Bush for the so-called "Bush Doctrine" in which we are supposed to preemptively strike on any nation we consider a threat. Bush imposed the unconstitutional federal mandate of No Child Left Behind, expanded Medicare through implementation of Part D, created a federal police force called the TSA, passed the Patriot Act in violation of our civil rights, and bailed out powerful wall street banks through TARP. Bush was a disaster to Conservatism and the Constitution. Looking back with the knowledge I have gained on political matters, I am ashamed I voted for the man.
Romney equals Bush as Romney has hired tons of old Bush staffers for his campaign. I hear Romney bashing Obama, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul but he never seems to criticize Bush. Perhaps he finds no fault with the Big-Government Bush agenda as his policies seem to mirror Bush's. He's even got Bush Sr's endorsement. Wow. I am SO thrilled. (NOT!)
(2) Romney has endorsed both Orrin Hatch's current bid to extend his senatorial dynasty and ex-Sen Bob Bennett in his failed quest at a fourth term. Here in Utah, it is clear Romney has courted the powerbroking establishment at the expense of Constitutional freedom.
(3) Romney appears comfortable at applying the Bush Doctrine in Iran. It seems illogical in a financially broke, war-weary nation that one would want to do a preemptive strike against Iran under the justification of stopping them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I grew up under the constant and real threat of thousands of warheads pointed at my nation and yet none of those in the original "evil empire" ever took preemptive strike. If we are so concerned about a nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable country, does this mean we also have to go to war against Pakistan and Syria?
These Muslim countries are fighting against us in large part because we are in the midst of a 21st Century "crusade" against their lands. We occupy their countries and support dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak and in some cases like Iran overthrow democratically elected leaders to establish tyrants like the Shah. If we would leave them alone to worship as they please, there would be much abatement to the hostility towards us. Jews and Christians which have respected Muslim worship have lived at peace for centuries in both Shi'a and Sunni countries.
As a Mormon, we believe that we have the duty to spread the message of Jesus Christ to every nation and people of the world. We know through experience that in wartime the spreading of the message is inhibited to the point of impracticality. Why then does Romney insist on stirring up the Persians to wrath against us through the implied threat of preemptive strike? Surely peace is the message of Mormonism and of the Book of Mormon from which the name derives.
I cannot support Romney in his foreign warmongering policies against the Persian people.
In all I view Romney as a Rattlesnake versus Obama as an Inland Taipan; although the Taipan is much more toxic, you want to avoid being bitten by either and both require serious treatment afterwards. The want of Conservatism is for drastically smaller government, adherence to the Constitution, decreasing the laws of the land, relief from taxation, and paying down the debt. I am fully aware and convinced that, like Bush, at the end of his term a Romney presidency will have more pages of law, more taxation, more war, and less adherence to the Constitution. I cannot foresee any circumstance of me being able to vote in good conscience for Romney or Obama even when I am told by people who claim intellectual superiority that I must choose between these vipers.
FiveThirtyEight: Gingrich Leads Five Plausible GOP Candidates in Iowa
In a recent FiveThirtyEight blog post, Nate Silver shared a preview of his polling-based forecasts for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, the official versions of which he plans to release in a few days. The statistical analysis is based on state-by-state polling; Silver writes that although more objective and subjective factors could be taken into account, "building a well-calibrated forecast from the polls is challenging enough given the uncertainties inherent in primary polling, and so that’s what we’ve decided to focus on rather than anything fancier."
The polling-based analysis for Iowa has Newt Gingrich projected to win 25.1% of the vote, followed by Ron Paul, with 20.7%; Mitt Romney (15.6%); Rick Perry (12.3%); and Michele Bachmann (11.4%); and both Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman Jr., who are projected to garner under 10 percent of the vote. In his blog post, Silver explains the three factors used to calculate the projections: a weighted polling average, which emphasizes more recent polling as being a better predictor of probable primary results; the reallocated average, "which takes undecided voters and allocates them among the viable candidates;" and a process Silver calls momentum, which "looks at the near-term trend in a candidate’s polling and assigns a small bonus or penalty based upon it."
Silver warns, however, that these projections "are not very precise, because primary polling is not very precise." He tries to quantify this uncertainty, providing both confidence intervals for each candidate's projections and their win probability, "which combines the vote projections and the uncertainty together to estimate how likely each candidate is to win the caucuses." Gingrich leads with an estimated 49.6% probability, followed by Paul, with 28.2%; Romney (10.6%); Perry (5.2%); and Bachmann (4.1%).
According to Silver's analysis, "Although Mr. Gingrich still has the lead, Iowa looks to be fairly wide open with as many as five plausible winners.
The polling-based analysis for Iowa has Newt Gingrich projected to win 25.1% of the vote, followed by Ron Paul, with 20.7%; Mitt Romney (15.6%); Rick Perry (12.3%); and Michele Bachmann (11.4%); and both Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman Jr., who are projected to garner under 10 percent of the vote. In his blog post, Silver explains the three factors used to calculate the projections: a weighted polling average, which emphasizes more recent polling as being a better predictor of probable primary results; the reallocated average, "which takes undecided voters and allocates them among the viable candidates;" and a process Silver calls momentum, which "looks at the near-term trend in a candidate’s polling and assigns a small bonus or penalty based upon it."
Obama Job Approval Rating Up; Romney Remains Main GOP Rival
A recent survey from Pew People and the Press shows that support for President Obama is up in November, and that Mitt Romney leads a group of GOP candidates about whom the public is not very excited. A majority of Americans (52%) express a favorable view of President Obama, compared with 45% of Americans who hold an unfavorable view. Americans do not hold GOP candidates in such high esteem: more Americans view Romney negatively than positively (42% unfavorable vs. 36% favorable); the same holds true for Newt Gingrich (48% vs. 31%), Herman Cain (50% vs. 29%) and Rick Perry (50% vs. 25%).
As was the case in October, however, the survey suggests that a race between Obama and Romney would run about even, with Romney's support among independents far exceeding Obama's. 49% of respondents say they would vote for Obama in a head-to-head race with Romney, while 47% say they would vote for Romney. Among independents, Romney is the clear winner, with only 41% saying they would vote for Obama, compared with 53% who choose Romney.
Although Obama's overall numbers are up, a majority of Americans (58%) disapprove of his handling of the economy. Only 35% of Americans say he is doing all he can for the economy, with 61% saying he could be doing more. This is a reversal from March 2009 results, when 60% of Americans said Obama was doing all he could, and only 30% said he could be doing more. Still, more respondents (48%) say that they have been hearing a mix of good and bad economic news--matching the 48% who say news is mostly bad--than in October, when 58% of respondents said economic news was mostly bad, as compared with only 39% who said there was a mix of good and bad news. Obama scores better in foreign policy (46% approve) and on his decision to remove all American combat troops from Iraq by the end of the year (75% approve).
Although the survey suggests that Romney would be a strong challenger to Obama in a head-to-head race, Republican voters remain largely unimpressed with the GOP field. Only 48% say Republican candidates are of excellent or fair quality, compared with 46% who rate the field as only fair or poor. Pew writes: "GOP voters’ ratings of the field have shown little improvement since May and are at least as low as ratings for Republican candidates at comparable points in the 2008 and 1996 campaigns."
One-Word Reactions To GOP Candidates Favor Herman Cain; Perry Draws the Most Ire
A recent survey that asked Americans to describe leading GOP leaders "in a single word" found that Herman Cain was viewed in the most favorable terms. Americans most frequently associated Cain with his proposed "9-9-9" tax plan, followed by his ties to business and 23 respondents who found him "interesting." Romney was most closely associated with his religion, Mormonism, and his work on health care, and Rick Perry was most often identified with his home state of Texas.While nearly as many (12%) respondents used positive words as negative words (14%) to describe Cain, a higher percentage of respondents used negative words and not positive ones to describe both Romney (21% versus 11%) and Perry (25% versus 6%). But while the negative continued to outweigh the positive for Perry when the respondent group was limited to Republicans and GOP-leaners, with 19% using a negative word and only 9% a positive one, both Cain and Romney received more positive than negative feedback among their party's political base. Still, the support for Romney (18% positive versus 15% negative) was less impressive than that for Cain (22% versus 5%).
In addition, the survey found that "many Americans are unable to come up with words to describe the three GOP candidates. Nearly half (46%) did not offer a one-word description of Cain, 44% did not offer a word to describe Perry and 37% did not have a one-word description of Romney." The survey was conducted by the Pew People & the Press and The Washington Post from October 13-16; its respondent population was 1,007 adults.NH cf
Great Men Pray: Is The LDS Church Advocating POTUS Candidates?
Imagine as a Mormon going to church this week and finding the image on the right, poster-sized on the framed, ward display case bulletin board. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Barack Obama--all US Presidents--are seen with their heads bowed, eyes closed, hovering angel-esque above a LDS ward congregation also intent on prayer. To the immediate right of the presidential portraits proclaims the caption: "Great Men Pray." In the youth classes, each youth is given a wallet-sized "Pass-along Card" with the same depiction as well.Would such a poster cause you pause to think about the neutrality of the political position of the church? Would you wonder why a poster of a sitting President who was actively campaigning for re-election decorated the same hallways as Jesus kneeling in Gethsemane or healing a leaper? Would you ponder the singularity of such an event when no such other depictions of US Presidents adorned the hallowed passageways?
Although the LDS church created no such poster and the image is a photoshop of my own hand, it is however based on a similar 1956 poster depicted then with President Eisenhower instead of President Obama. As in the case today with Obama, Eisenhower was running for re-election in 1956.
Elder Ezra T. Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve who was concurrently serving as Secretary of the Agriculture under President Eisenhower had this to say about the actual "Great Men Pray" poster (below) in the Sunday Morning (largest audience) Session of the October 1956 General Conference:
I was pleased, my brethren and sisters, as I read the report of the April conference and the remarks by Elder Mark E. Petersen, speaking as directed by the First Presidency, in announcing the series of new Church posters and cards for the benefit particularly of our young people, to note that one of them was going to be devoted to prayer. I wish there were time this morning to read the account of this particular card and poster on prayer. One will show the picture of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and President Eisenhower in the background, and then in the foreground a family group. At the top we will read: "Great Men Pray," and again at the bottom: "Be Honest with Yourself." (scriptures.byu.edu)
Mormon-themed Blogger Keepapitchinin puts into perspective the distribution and church emphasis on distribution of the original posters and wallet sized cards from the series of BHWY advertising directed at the youth: "Be Honest With Yourself: The Background." In fairness, at least the wallet cards attempted on the reverse side to explain the Presidential depiction of then current President Eisenhower by alluding to his time as a General in WWII:
By announcing the poster before the body of the church just a month before elections, could the poster have served as an over-zealous attempt by the church to influence its membership while staying technically neutral? Furthermore, the governorship for the state of Utah was in chaos in a tight three-way race with incumbent Gov. Lee running as a Republican-turned-independent against strong Democrat and Republican contenders. Both Lee and Republican Clyde both sought Eisenhower's endorsement, with Clyde (who would win) receiving a more current endorsement than Lee. The issue of Eisenhower appearing in the LDS "Great Men Pray" distributions was addressed in Chapter 17 of Gov. Lee's biography "Let Em Holler" (Digital version avail at Utah State History) where the author was apparently unawares of the October announcement, instead crediting a post-election December date. This raises the further question of did the "Great Men Pray" poster influence the outcome of a Utah gubernatorial election?Washington at Valley Forge — Lincoln before Gettysburg — Eisenhower on D Day — Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove — Jesus at Gethsemane and at Golgotha — all these have prayed (full text available h/t tinypineapple.com)
Bringing us to 2011, the issue of the involvement of the LDS into the political arena remains a poignant one for dedicated members such as myself. We are currently dealing with a church who wants to influence immigration bills and to even formally lobby and praise the state legislature when it passes bills it likes.
Now the question before us is how much will the church want to promote or influence its two Mormon Presidential candidates: Romney and Huntsman. Although I don't worry about the church overtly supporting either candidate, as it has recently and repeatedly reiterated its neutrality stance (The Blaze, June 29, 2011), I do worry about the more subtle--yet potentially equally as powerful "Great Men Pray" types of support or advocacy the church may want to exert both pre- and post-election.
Mormons as a group are in the tank for Romney and to a lesser extent Huntsman. Just today the Daily Herald revealed that Romney had secured support from 57 out of 80 Utah legislators, including 13 from Utah County. Mormons will support the Mormon POTUS candidates just like blacks supported Obama in 2010, if for no other reason than their perceived political advancement of their minority. For me I have a hard time supporting Romney who backed now ex-Sen. Bob Bennett in our grassroots push to replace him; and Huntsman is hard to swallow because he lied to his Democrat contender three years ago about his commitment to serve as Governor for his full 4-year term (themostsearched, May 2009). While I'd take either Mormon over Obama in a wink and am glad they are both in the race, I am more appreciative of the multiple better-principled contenders for the Republican nomination I have to choose from.
P.S.: For the die-hard Obama haters that can't imagine President Obama being a man of prayer, I derived the photoshop of Obama praying from this actual photo (White House Blog, Feb 2011) of Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast. I don't hate Obama; I just hate his policies, lies, and lack of leadership.
Survey Shows Little Excitement for Republican Candidates
In this report about the Republican candidates for the upcoming 2012 election, a survey was done to find out who the most popular candidate is so far. The results showed that there is no clear-cut favorite. Participants were first asked if they had heard of each candidate, and then asked if there was a good chance, some chance, or no chance that they would vote for them. The top three that people had heard of were Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich. Of those, 17% said there was a good chance that they would vote for Mitt Romney, 14% would vote for Sarah Palin, and only 9% would vote for Newt Gingrich. 23% said there was a good chance that they would vote for Herman Cain, but that is out of the 33% people had actually heard of him. When the same survey was analysed using only responses from republican voters, the results were similar, with Mitt Romney taking the lead.
Another part of the survey was about the traits that people like and dislike in presidential candidates. Almost half of the people surveyed are more likely to support a candidate that had served in the military. Other favorable qualities include having been a governor or a business executive. Most people are less likely to support candidates that have never held an elected office, and 61% would be less likely to support a candidate that does not believe in God. Traits that most people agree would make no difference in how they vote include being a woman, black, or hispanic, and having been divorced. Having used marijuana in the past, being Mormon, or being homosexual are also traits that many say would not sway their vote.
cf
2010: Starting the New Year Right with Senator Scott Brown
Had Enough Corruption Yet, Bay Staters?
How much corruption does it take for the good citizens of Massachusetts to say enough is enough? In 2009 the third consecutive Democratic Speaker of the House, Salvatore DiMasi, resigned and is currently on trial for a myriad of Federal corruption charges. Over in the State Senate it was even better with Senator Galluccio who can't stay sober and does the hit-and-run thing with a toothpaste excuse handy when he fails the breathalyzer, and 2008 former bribes-into-bra Senator Wilkerson who got handed a bunch more corruption charges.
Add to that it took his own death for Senator Ted Kennedy to release his dishonorable, dynastic stranglehold on the US Senate seat he seized for 46 awful years despite the wrongful death of his companion Mary Jo Kopechne.
Senate-appointee corruption
The culminating tragedy for the rest of America was the horrific way the corrupt legislature--the Massachusetts General Court--changed the rules on the appointment of US Senators to vacant seats to promote specific nominations to the seat. In 2004 when it appeared Republican Gov. Romney might replace Senator Kerry, at the specific urging of Senator Kennedy the General Court changed the rules to prohibit a Romney appointee. Yet when Kennedy suddenly died last August, the selfsame General Court rushed through restoration of the Governor-appointee process to give Democrat Governor Patrick the ability to appoint a crony, Paul Kirk. Even a 90-day request for the law to take effect by the GOP was denied. themostsearched vehemently denounces these actions by the Democrats as nothing short of evil, corrupt, political gerrymandering. Laws are designed to benefit the whole, not just Paul Kirk.
Yes Massachusetts, it is your Commonwealth, but we are watching. And when it comes to a Federal office, suffering. Were it not for this evil political gerrymandering we would not have had our Christmas ruined by needless debate and voting on unconstitutional healthcare scheme legislation.
Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley
How much corruption does it take for the good citizens of Massachusetts to say enough is enough? In 2009 the third consecutive Democratic Speaker of the House, Salvatore DiMasi, resigned and is currently on trial for a myriad of Federal corruption charges. Over in the State Senate it was even better with Senator Galluccio who can't stay sober and does the hit-and-run thing with a toothpaste excuse handy when he fails the breathalyzer, and 2008 former bribes-into-bra Senator Wilkerson who got handed a bunch more corruption charges.
Add to that it took his own death for Senator Ted Kennedy to release his dishonorable, dynastic stranglehold on the US Senate seat he seized for 46 awful years despite the wrongful death of his companion Mary Jo Kopechne.
Senate-appointee corruption
The culminating tragedy for the rest of America was the horrific way the corrupt legislature--the Massachusetts General Court--changed the rules on the appointment of US Senators to vacant seats to promote specific nominations to the seat. In 2004 when it appeared Republican Gov. Romney might replace Senator Kerry, at the specific urging of Senator Kennedy the General Court changed the rules to prohibit a Romney appointee. Yet when Kennedy suddenly died last August, the selfsame General Court rushed through restoration of the Governor-appointee process to give Democrat Governor Patrick the ability to appoint a crony, Paul Kirk. Even a 90-day request for the law to take effect by the GOP was denied. themostsearched vehemently denounces these actions by the Democrats as nothing short of evil, corrupt, political gerrymandering. Laws are designed to benefit the whole, not just Paul Kirk.
Yes Massachusetts, it is your Commonwealth, but we are watching. And when it comes to a Federal office, suffering. Were it not for this evil political gerrymandering we would not have had our Christmas ruined by needless debate and voting on unconstitutional healthcare scheme legislation.
Scott Brown vs. Martha CoakleyIn December, Massachusetts held their primaries and the two parties came up with two contrasting candidates. On the Democratic side they put forth Martha Coakley who embodies the Democratic spirit of corruption by having kept in jail Gerald Amirault to advance her political prowess (credit to Right Klik who is all over this.) The GOP put forth principled conservative state Senator Scott Brown who the worst he's done is way back when as a college student posed semi-nude in Cosmo. In our research of Senator Brown, a decorated Lt. Colonel in the MA National Guard, we find him and his Brown Brigade campaign worthy of our trust, endorsement, and a financial contribution. That he announced his candidacy for US Senate on 9/12 and spoken at tea party rallies (pictured above) further reveals his principles.
This race is a chance for Bay Staters to decide on Tuesday, January 19th, whether to for a principled conservative in Brown or a known corrupted in Coakley. themostsearched has had enough corruption and wants our country back to principles; citizens of the Commonwealth, do you? Minutemen of Massachusetts: arise and throw off the chains of despotic, dynastic tyranny which enslave you into taxation, regulation, and socialism! Vote for Brown!!
