Electoral Votes

The Coming GOP Battle Between Ted Cruz And Rand Paul: Neither Good For The Republican Party!

Ronald 6 Comments

It is now clear, after the CPAC convention, that the battle for the soul of the Republican Party is, most likely, to be between Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

Cruz represents the aggressive, in your face, bombastic image of the Tea Party, while Paul represents the libertarian, isolationist view of the same Tea Party.

Both hate the national government, and both want to cut domestic social spending, and have no desire to deal with the problems of the working class and the poor.

Both want to undermine the GOP establishment, and work against the idea of working with President Obama, and accepting that part of politics is negotiation and compromise.

Both men have very little ability to win a national election, as both are seen as extreme, and unable to take “Blue” states away from the Democrats.

Both appeal to those who want to put America back in the age of laissez faire of the Gilded Age, and want to assist the one percent who have become more wealthy and powerful at the expense of the middle class.

Cruz has a demagogic manner about him, reminding many of Joseph McCarthy in appearance and style, but he is seen as dangerous because despite his egotism, he is clearly very smart. However, he is willing to throw other Republicans “under the bus”, with his working against fellow Texas Senator John Cornyn, and also resisting Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as attacking past Republican Presidential nominees Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Cruz has no ethics when it comes to pursuing his own ambitions, and he is extremely vain and arrogant. Imagining him dealing with foreign leaders is an absolute horror!

Paul, on the other hand, supports the idea that businesses should be able to reject customers based on race, being critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He is a libertarian like his dad, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, and believes that philosophy is realistic in the 21st century. He would love to cut defense spending enough so that we would withdraw from many of our bases around the world , an appealing idea, but not a realistic one. He comes across as more a visionary than Cruz, more pleasant than Cruz, willing to give respect to the elder statesmen of the party, and work with Establishment Republicans in the Senate, while disagreeing with them. He seems, overall, not as bright and ambitious as Cruz is.

Both are horrible choices for President, and both would lose, but the feeling is that Cruz is more of a threat, although the belief is that he would crash and burn, once the election campaign was in full swing. It seems likely that Paul would do better in electoral votes, and would be more liked personally, but still could not win a national election.

The ultimate question is why the Republican Party seems incapable of finding a truly great Presidential candidate, although in the long run, that does not matter as the Electoral College math dooms them in 2016, as long as they continue to alienate many major voting groups.

So the decline of the GOP, by a massive electoral defeat in 2016, seems more likely as the clock ticks toward the election year!

The Presidential Election Of 2016–257 Democrats, 206 Republicans, Five States (75) Swing States!

Ronald 38 Comments

With Chris Christie, the New Jersey Governor, starting to lose public support due to the multiple scandals emerging in the past two weeks, the Republican Party is in crisis mode, as Christie was thought to have the best chance to defeat Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat in the Presidential Election of 2016.

In actual fact, Christie had no real chance to win, and it was highly unlikely that he could have emerged from the primaries and caucuses as the nominee of his party, in the first place.

The facts have been there all along: the Democrats are a lock to win the Presidency in 2016 and beyond, with their support from Hispanics-Latinos, African Americans, women, labor, young people, educated people who believe in science, and those who believe in the promotion of gay rights, including marriage, whether they are gay or lesbian or straight in their sexual orientation!

The Electoral College is a “fait accompli” for the Democrats, with a guaranteed 257 electoral votes to 206 for the Republicans! Only five states are truly in play, and the Democrats won all five in 2008 and 2012, and are likely to win most, if not all of these five states, in 2016!

These states are:

Florida 29 electoral votes
Ohio 18 electoral votes
Virginia 13 electoral votes
Colorado 9 electoral vote
Nevada 6 electoral votes

This is a grand total of 75 electoral votes in dispute!

So If the Democrats win Florida, or Ohio, or Virginia, they win the Presidency!

If they win Colorado and Nevada together, with none of the other three, they win the Presidency!

To believe that the Democratic nominee will not win the small number of 13 electoral votes needed to win the required number of 270, requires one to be in hallucination!

Face the facts: The Democrats will win the White House in 2016, no matter who is their nominee, and since any likely candidate will be white, not African American as Barack Obama is, just makes the job of winning somewhat easier!

Of course, if the Democratic nominee wins all five of the above states in contention, then that person wins 332 electoral votes to 206 for the Republican nominee.

This is precisely the electoral vote in 2012!

And realize that Texas (38), Georgia (16). and North Carolina (15) all are moving toward the likelihood of Democrats winning their electoral vote by 2020, if not 2016, and North Carolina having gone for Barack Obama in 2008, if not in 2012!

So were these states to switch, not likely but possible in 2016, the electoral vote in 2016 could be as high as 401-137!

Harry Truman And Integration Of Armed Forces In 1948: True Beginning Of Modern Civil Rights Movement 65 Years Ago!

Ronald Leave a comment

On this day in 1948, 65 years ago, President Harry Truman, who had grown up in a traditional Southern Confederate home in Missouri, took a very courageous step, integrating the military by executive order, causing an uproar in the South and in the military itself, but standing by his decision that segregation and second class citizenship in the military must stop, particularly after the major contribution of African Americans during World War II.

This was the first Presidential action since Ulysses S. Grant promoted the Civil Rights Acts during his administration 75 years earlier.

It harmed Truman’s quest for a full term, spurring the creation of the States Rights party (Dixiecrats), and the candidacy of Strom Thurmond for President, and Thurmond won four Southern states and 39 electoral votes, the second best total ever until that time, but Truman pulled out a miraculous victory anyway!

Truman followed up the action on the military, by integrating Washington, DC, which had been ordered segregated by executive order of Woodrow Wilson in 1913!

What Truman did had an effect on the Supreme Court and future Presidents and Congresses, and the civil rights movement owes a lot to the courage and principle and decency of President Truman, who took a stand that could have defeated him, but that he knew was the right thing to do!

As California Turned “Blue”, Texas Will, Very Likely, As Well By 2020!

Ronald 10 Comments

It is hard to recall that California was for a long time strongly Republican in Presidential contests and in Congressional seats as well, but the decision of the Republican Party to work against the interests of Hispanic and Latino Americans under Governor Pete Wilson twenty years ago doomed the GOP in that state, to the point that there are hardly any Republicans in the Congressional delegation and a minority in both houses of the state legislature. Additionally, California is no longer a battle ground for the Presidential elections, and having 55 electoral votes is twenty percent of what is needed for winning the Presidency!

Once Hispanic and Latino Americans in Texas, the second largest state in population, become more active in voting, and as more young Hispanics and Latinos grow up to the age of voting, and realize the importance of fighting against the regressive attitudes of Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Congressional delegation and state legislature, the odds of the state electing a Democratic Governor and winning more Congressional seats, and turning “Blue” for the Presidential elections of the future, in the same manner as California, becomes much more likely. And 38 electoral votes, added to the 55 of California, gives future Democrats one third of all of the electoral votes needed to win the White House!

With rising stars such as State Senator Wendy Davis, who is leading the fight against a strict abortion law in the state legislature; and with the rise of Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio, and his brother, Congressman Joaquin Castro, the rise of the Hispanic and Latino participation, and that of the women who feel wronged by the extremist agenda of Rick Perry and the conservative Republican legislature, will eventually reverberate on elections over the next seven years!

So the GOP may have dominance in the Lone Star State right now, but the odds of it changing dramatically by 2020 and after is very high. The Democrats will be unlikely to win the state in the Presidential Election of 2016, but very likely to have a real opportunity to do so in the Presidential Election of 2020, and once that happens, the GOP will be on its death bed, at least in the sense of being able to count on the backing of the second largest state, and that will make the Republican Party a minority party for the long haul, if it indeed survives!

The Urgent Need For A Younger United States Senate

Ronald Leave a comment

The United States Senate, by its very nature, is an undemocratic body, as all states are equal in membership, two Senators per state, whether the population of California (38 million people) or Wyoming (575,000 people)!

So we have the ability of “small state” Senators to wield great power and influence, and stand in the way of what is best for the nation at large!

The filibuster is one such mechanism that can prevent progress and action, and helps to make the US Senate a body that, much more often, applies the brakes on legislation, rather than speed action on such legislation.

The Senate has become much more undemocratic than anyone ever envisioned in the 18th century, as no one could know that in 2013, eleven states would have the majority of electoral votes needed to elect the President, and that nine states would have a majority of the entire population of the United States!

Nothing can be done about this reality, and there are no term limits, and some Senators have served 30 or more years, with the record being Robert Byrd and his 52 years in the US Senate from West Virginia!

But more troubling than the lack of term limits is the reality of older Senators being dominant, wielding great power as heads of committees, or being ranking members of such committees, at an age when most Americans are either retired or cutting down work hours dramatically!

When Senator Frank Lautenberg, the oldest member of the Senate, died at age 89, Senator Diane Feinstein of California became the oldest member of the Senate, and became 80 years of age last weekend.

So at present, with Feinstein at age 80, there are 21 US Senators in their 70s, 35 in their 60s, 30 in their 50s, 12 in their 40s, and 1 in his 30s.

The idea that 57 Senators are over age 60, when most people are moving toward retirement, is alarming, and the Senate has become an institution out of touch with the typical American who is in the mid to late 30s on the average, but being represented by senior citizens who do not have the ability to adapt as readily to change as is required in the modern world of government!

There should be some kind of age limit, whereby a person cannot run for the Senate (a six year term) beyond the age of 69, meaning that person would leave the Senate no later than age 75!

Many would call this age discrimination, but the ability of government to deal with modern challenges would seem to demand such a limit, not that it is possible to believe that such a limit would be realistically possible to achieve any time soon, if ever!

Since very few Americans, even if retired, work full time at age 75, it would seem appropriate to establish such an age limit, more than limiting actual total terms of a US Senator.

But again, this is just a suggestion to consider, and unlikely to be reality at any point in the future, a sad situation, indeed!

Why Chris Christie Will NEVER Be President Of The United States!

Ronald Leave a comment

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has indicated he will run for reelection in 2013, an off year when only the New York City Mayoralty and Virginia Governorship compete for attention.

But with a new NYC Mayor and a new Virginia Governor to be selected, identity unknown, Chris Christie will be focused on more than usual, because he is a potential Presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2016. He already leads Marco Rubio, Condoleezza Rice, Jeb Bush, and Paul Ryan, respectively, in a public opinion poll on 2016.

There are those who think Chris Christie might be the next President of the United States, but this author and blogger will explain now why Christie is NOT going to be the next President, for many reasons, in no special order. So here goes!

Chris Christie could very well be defeated for reelection by the charismatic Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker. It should be a competitive race.

Even if Christie wins a second term, he will not become President because:

1, He is much too outspoken, controversial, opinionated, to become our President. He rubs many people wrong, comes across as a bully to many, is crude and rude, and would wear thin in a Presidential campaign, with plenty of documentary evidence already available as to his unpleasant, annoying personality!

2. If he were nominated, he would not even be guaranteed to win his home state of New Jersey, which tends Democratic in Presidential elections.

3. He would be unlikely to win any Northeastern or New England state, except maybe New Hampshire.

4. He would not be able to compete in the Pacific Coast states or Hawaii.

5. He would have a rough time carrying Virginia or Florida, which Barack Obama won twice.

6. He would have a difficult time winning the upper Midwest or Illinois, but with some chance of winning Ohio and Iowa.

7. He would be unlikely to win Hispanics and Latinos in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, and would likely lose those states.

8. Christie might win New Hampshire and Ohio, and Iowa, potentially, but that would give him only 28 more electoral votes than Mitt Romney, a total of only 234.

9. Christie’s handling of the Hurricane Sandy situation helped him at that point, but will be forgotten by 2016, and will hurt him among mainstream conservatives, angry that he cooperated with President Obama, and took attention off Mitt Romney.

10.Christie is unacceptable on “social issues’ for his party base, issues such as abortion rights, gun control and acceptance of gay rights, although opposing instituting gay marriage in in New Jersey.

11. Christie has no background or experience in foreign policy, and imagine his personality on the international scene, where with his big mouth, he could cause grief in diplomacy big time! A gruff bully, which Christie is, is not fit to be President of the United States, although it may please the anti foreign tendencies of his party, who think the world is inferior to American “exceptionalism”!

12. This final point is not said in jest or ridicule, or designed as an insult, but to believe that we are going to elect a President as large as William Howard Taft in modern times is to believe in miracles, as Christie is a terrible model for health and physical fitness, and that will be to his detriment, right or wrong, in a Presidential campaign!

So forget about Christie’s own delusions of grandeur, as he is NOT going to be President of the United States in 2017!

Barack Obama Second Term Victory More Impressive As Vote Count Continues

Ronald Leave a comment

The final vote count for the Presidential Election of 2012 is still being tallied, as absentee votes and overseas military votes are late in arriving and being included in the election results, and as a result, the Barack Obama victory over Mitt Romney is becoming ever more impressive.

What had been thought to be a close popular vote and percentage of vote victory is no longer close at all.

Latest numbers show Obama with about 64.5 million popular votes and 50.8 percent of the vote, with Mitt Romney having 60.3 million popular votes and 47.5 percent of the vote.

So Obama has about 4.2 million more popular votes and about 3.3 percent more percentage of the vote.

Of course, Obama also won 26 states and the District of Columbia, to Romney’s 24 states, and had 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206 electoral votes, and Obama won every “swing state”, and every state he won in 2008, except for Indiana and North Carolina.

And if one looks at the top ten states, with a majority of the American population, the only states won by Romney were Texas (Number 2), Georgia (Number 9), and North Carolina (Number 10).

And if one looks at the top 22 states, all with 5 million population or more, only seven states (Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri), were Republican states in 2012.

And of course, Obama won among African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, women, single women, Jews, Catholics, Gays and Lesbians, Asian Americans, young people, the Northeast states, the New England states, the Upper Midwest states, the Pacific Coast states, urban voters, secular voters, educated voters, suburban voters, environmentalists, labor voters, intellectual voters—-is this enough indication of his massive victory, with a reaffirmation that the American people had NOT made a mistake in 2008 in voting for the first African American President by voting for him again in 2012?

The Romney-Ryan Ticket As Seen By African Americans, Hispanics-Latinos And Women: Worst Since Polling Began!

Ronald 1 Comment

The Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan Presidential ticket is in deep trouble, as polls demonstrate the unbelievable gap that they face gaining support among African Americans, Hispanics-Latinos, and women.

In one poll, Barack Obama leads Romney 94-0 among African Americans! Did you see that, ZERO for Romney, a stunning figure!

In one poll, Barack Obama leads Romney 63-28 among Hispanics-Latinos, a 35 point gap!

And among women, Barack Obama, in a recent poll, leads 54-39 percent, a 15 point gap!!

With absolutely ZERO support among African Americans, 35 points behind among Hispanics-Latinos, and 15 points behind among women, the Romney-Ryan ticket is on the road to total disaster, as they are also behind among labor voters, Jews, young people, moderates, Independents, and also behind Obama in all “swing” or battleground states except North Carolina, and almost even in Colorado.

Although they will win more states in the “heartland”, and therefore more electoral votes than Barry Goldwater did in 1964, they are on the way to a worst defeat than any GOP loser—Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole or John McCain–since a half century ago!

Missouri, Bellwether State, MAY Decide Senate Balance And Presidential Race In 2012

Ronald Leave a comment

Missouri, the “Show Me” state, is also the ultimate bellwether of all states in the past century.

Since 1904, the state has ALWAYS gone to the winner of the Presidency EXCEPT twice. In 1956, it voted for Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower by about 4,000 votes, and the same vote margin occurred in 2008, with John McCain winning over Barack Obama.

Beyond the history of Missouri, the blunder of Todd Akin, the Tea Party and Republican nominee for the Senate talking about “legitimate rape”, has outraged not only his opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill and women across America, but also the Republican Establishment, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senator John Cornyn, head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, as well as Karl Rove, head of the American Crossroads SuperPAC that is raising hundred of billions of dollars for the Republican Congressional and Presidential campaign.

However, Mitt Romney has not shown the same willingness to demand that Akin withdraw from the Senate race, and that may be because his running mate, Paul Ryan, cosponsored legislation to deny abortion to rape victims, by supporting “personhood” language that would make fetuses defined as “persons’ before birth.

Additionally, social conservatives are backing Akin, demonstrating the split in the GOP between them and the Establishment Republicans who see electoral disaster ahead.

As a result, the Akin controversy could do the following in November:

Throw the state and its ten electoral votes to Barack Obama, possibly replacing Wisconsin’s ten electoral votes, with the assumption that Paul Ryan might be able to carry his home state for the Republican ticket. It would make the path to victory for Barack Obama a lot easier.

Help Claire McCaskill to retain her Senate seat, and in so doing, improve the chances of the Senate staying in control of the Democrats.

Have an effect nationally on the percentage of the women’s vote that would go Democratic in Congressional districts, possibly affecting the balance of seats in the House of Representatives, and assisting the opportunity of the Democrats to regain control of the chamber.

So this mess could be the decisive turning point of the 2012 election cycle, even If Akin ultimately gets out of the Missouri Senate race. The damage may have been done already, and no chance to reverse the damage!

Two Likelihoods Of 2012 Presidential Election Results

Ronald Leave a comment

When the Presidential Election of 2012 goes into the record books, two points will be noted that will be unique.

First, it now seems likely that Barack Obama will win re-election, and if that occurs, he will likely win with fewer electoral votes, even if he wins all of the states he won in 2008, since eight of those states lost electoral votes due to reapportionment, including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Iowa, a total loss of 10 electoral votes, with only Washington State, Nevada, and Florida gaining together 4 more electoral votes.

So IF Obama won every state he won in 2008, he would have 359 electoral votes, instead of 365, if he won one electoral vote in Nebraska, as last time, and if not, it would be a total of 358 electoral votes.

The fact that Obama would win re-election with fewer electoral votes would be the second time in history of such an event, with only Woodrow Wilson winning fewer electoral votes in 1916 than in 1912.

The other likelihood is that President Obama will have an opposition that raises more money than his campaign, the first time such an event has ever occurred, as the Republicans SuperPACS will likely raise a billion dollars or more, even higher than Obama hopes to gain in campaign funds, primarily from smaller contributors.

So 2012 will see two likelihoods that will set records, adding to the trivia of history!