SailBlogs
Bookmark and Share

Profile
Who: Kimball Corson. Text and Photos not disclaimed or that are obviously not mine are copyright (c) Kimball Corson 2004-2013
Port: Lake Pleasant, AZ
View Complete Profile »
 
 
 
 
SailBlogs Friends
Trim 
 
On Why Republicans Are So Despicable
Kimball Corson
11/15/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

On Why Republicans Are So Despicable

Although tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP are the lowest they have been in 60 years and although the income distribution is very badly skewed in favor of the rich, the Republicans' position on dealing with the fiscal cliff is 1) no tax increases on singles earning over $200,000 a year (99th percentile) or couples earning over $250,000 (93.5th percentile), 2) find some tax loop holes and close them, and 3) cut the hell out of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other entitlements. That so many Republicans call themselves Christians is despicable. Better by far to be an atheist with compassion.

Obama wants taxes increased on singles earning over $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000, but agrees that Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other entitlement should be cut. So he is not much better.

Heartless rats the bunch of them.

Obama Won with Non-Whites and Women
Kimball Corson
11/15/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

Obama Won with Non-Whites and Women

While 12 percent of Mitt Romney's vote was non-white, 45 percent of Barack Obama's vote was non-white. It is easy to conclude that the failure of the Romney campaign rested with the Republican Party's failure to adapt to changing demographics. But that's nothing new, nor is it the whole story.

What Republicans did not expect was for women to turn against them. The president garnered 54 percent of the female vote compared with 44 percent for Romney. Guess those women didn't like Republicans tinkering with their vaginas.

The married women split was reasonably close: Romney: 53 percent; Obama: 46 percent. The split with single women strongly favored Obama: Obama: 67 percent; Romney: 31 percent.

The reasons single women favored Obama were not the demeaning FOX gleaned insults of them [By replacing breadwinners with Uncle Sam. By replacing fathers with AFDC. By doing to the black family what 400 years of bondage couldn't], but rather, according to polls, reaction to a campaign season punctuated by offensive and biologically illiterate statements from Republican candidates about rape and pregnancy.

Pollsters said the newly identified electoral bloc of unmarried women additionally voted for Obama for bringing the country through the recession and for Obama's support for healthcare, equal pay, Planned Parenthood, NPR and abortion. Again, vagina tinkering led the way for single women opposition.

On Non-Ideological Economic Policy and Advance Planning: The Swedish Example
Kimball Corson
11/15/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

On Non-Ideological Economic Policy and Advance Planning: The Swedish Example

The coalition government, under some pressure from the opposition Social Democrats to get the slowing economy moving again, before even bigger economic problems and doldrums develop, is doing several things in anticipation, in a most undogmatic, intelligent fashion.

One, it is adopting the supply side position of cutting its corporate tax rate next year to 22 percent (from 26.3 since 2009 and from 28 percent before that) -- all to attract business investment, create new jobs and prevent companies from leaving the Nordic region's biggest economy. More than half of the cost of the lower company taxes (half = 8 billion kroner) will be financed by reduced deduction allowances on internal corporate interest rate payments. Other loopholes are targeted as well to further cover the loss. No Laffer curve nonsense here.

The current average European Union corporate tax rate is 23.4 percent, so this cut will take Sweden from the high side to the low side on corporate tax rates. The top marginal personal income-tax rate of 57% will stay the same.

But, secondly, the government is also going to address economic demand side conditions as well. It will spend about 23 billion kronor on new initiatives next year including increased deficit spending on research and development, investments in roads and railways, and programs to reduce youth unemployment to boost the potential of the economy.

To finance the initiatives, the four-party government coalition is also going to slow up on its debt reduction efforts of the last several years, after reducing Sweden's debt ratio every year since 2009, to 35.6 percent of GDP this year. That figure compares with an average burden of 91.8 percent in the 17-member euro area in 2012. There is some room for deficit spending here and that is what the government is going to do, but it will not explain the matter so. The Swedes are well postured.

The multi-sided effort by the coalition government appears to be a balanced stimulus/supply side attack on a slowing economy in a world of significant slowing economic growth, by addressing supply side conditions with lower corporate taxes and demand side conditions with increased deficit spending.

The Swedish lack of economic dogmatism is truly refreshing. Try something like this is the US and the Democrats will howl about cutting corporate taxes and the Republicans will scream about running a stimulus deficit. Of course, we are not as well positioned for the later as the Swedes are, but that is just part of being smart about things and planning in advance.

Neither side in the US understands much well, especially the idea of an output gap that has run for years in the US and costs us almost $10 billion dollars a day. We are economically not too swift, as this story shows. We react late and not well.

What Republicans Don’t Want You to Know
Kimball Corson
11/15/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

1) The Deficit Has Grown Mostly Because Of
The Recession, not Obama

The deficit has ballooned not because of specific spending measures, but because of the recession. The deficit more than doubled between 2008 and 2009, as the economy was in free fall, since laid-off workers paid less in taxes and needed more benefits. The deficit then shrank in 2010 and 2011.

2) The Stimulus Program Cost Much Less Than Bush's Wars and Tax Cuts

Republicans frequently have blamed the $787 billion stimulus for the national debt, but, when all government spending is taken into account, the stimulus frankly wasn't that big. In contrast, the U.S. will have spent nearly $4 trillion on wars in the Middle East by the time those conflicts end, according to a recent report by Brown University.The Bush tax cuts have cost nearly $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

3) The Deficit Grew Under George W. Bush

When George W. Bush took office, the federal government was running a surplus of $86 billion. When he left, that had turned into a $642 billion deficit.

4) The Deficit Is Shrinking Now

Last year's federal budget deficit was 12 percent lower than in 2009, according to the Office of Management and Budget.The deficit is projected to shrink even more over the next several years, especially if growth picks up. That is the key, growth.

5) Investors Are Paying the US To Borrow Their Money

The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is actually negative, according to the Treasury Department. Investors are even paying the US to borrow from them when they buy 30-year Treasury bonds, when adjusted for inflation.

6) Investors in Debt Are Not Running Away

Conservative commentators have been warning for years that investors will run away from Treasury bonds because of the national debt. So far it's not happening. Interest rates on Treasury bonds continue to hover at historic lows.

7) Obamacare Actually Reduces The Deficit

Republicans have blasted the Affordable Care Act as "budget-busting." But health care reform actually reduces the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

8) The U.S. Is Borrowing Much Less From China

The U.S. government is borrowing much less from foreign countries than before the recession, according to government data cited by Paul Krugman. That is because the U.S. private sector is financing our deficits with domestic borrowing.

9) We Spend Too Much On Defense

Defense spending constituted 20 percent of federal spending last year, or $718 billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This adds up to 41 percent of the world's defense spending, according to Bloomberg TV anchor Adam Johnson. Mitt Romney has vowed to not cut defense spending if elected president.

10) Republican Really Want Large Deficits

The federal budget deficit ballooned under Ronald Reagan, and rising deficits are what the Republicans want. Here is why. Some Republican thinkers have proposed "starving the beast": that is, cutting taxes in order to use larger deficits to justify big spending cuts later. Since Republicans ultimately want lower taxes and a smaller government, what better way is there to cut spending than to make it look urgent and necessary by yelling about the big deficits?

(From HuffPo with modifications)

So What is Wrong with Obama?
Kimball Corson
11/11/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

So What Is Wrong With Obama?

Obama has been a huge disappointment. To me, at least. First, his impact on our civil liberties under the pretext of the war on terrorism and the threat of civil unrest has been huge, although he swore under oath to uphold our laws and the Constitution.

Obama has supported and pushed for -

1) The 'National Emergency Centers Establishment Act' which, as amended and expanded by executive order, authorizes the readying and use of FEMA and military facilities for the detainment and control of large groups of civilian internees, including mostly American citizens;

2) Programs for the training and equipping of medium sized and large local police forces with military equipment to act as trained military police in regard to civilian populations, with such equipment including drones for some police departments which are intended to be used domestically and which are armable (under various executive orders and surplus and new equipment programs);

3) The Patriot Act, which by law gives the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States, and in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. It also gives government the authority to demand that a business hand over records that may contain private financial or business information that is not pertinent to an ongoing investigation (harassing "fishing expeditions).

4) The National Defense Authorization Act which suspends the right of habeas corpus and allows indefinite detention of anyone without trial, including American citizens, who the government thinks might be involved, directly or indirectly, with some terrorist activity.

5) The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act which authorizes the government to bring criminal charges against Americans engaged in peaceful, political protest anywhere in the country that the president or HS secretary decides should be temporarily off limits for that for whatever reason. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in any area so designated, even if the person does not know it is illegal to be there. It allows for the destruction of peaceable assembly, travel and free speech.

6) Executive orders under the Patriot Act which allow Homeland Security and the FBI spy on us by reviewing our posts and comments on social networks and to create dossiers on each of us who are "of interest."

Additionally, to my mind, Obama's misdeeds also include the following:

--leaving the very large defense budget intact.

--continuing the war in Afghanistan.

--not adequately protecting and fixing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

--not aggressively and highly progressively taxing the rich and taxing their profits earned off shore. (Indeed, Obama continued the Bush tax cuts, even though US government tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP or national income, are the lowest they have been in 60 years.)

--making the stimulus program too small and of too short a term.( It was also badly administered and run. Too much Democratic pork was involved and not all of the monies were even spent. Had the program been for $1.6 trillion with most spent on infrastructure in a longer term program as his economic advisers recommended instead of $800 billion, with half to tax cuts to please Republicans, it would have taken care of our long run employment program, put the economy squarely on its feet, gone far toward repairing the infrastructure and reduced the social safety net expenditures we are making now. Obama didn't even talk with those advisers. To my mind, this is Obama's biggest mistake.)

--helping the big banks but not homeowners and others with the TARP I and II bailout programs which were misconceived and badly administered.

--failing to address the problems created for the economy by the badly skewed distribution of income that has developed over the last forty years.

In truth, Obama is a moderate Republican presiding over an unprosperous, conflicted and declining nation that has swung too far to the right and misuses its riches. The US is no longer on the list of the ten most prosperous nations in the world, although it is the richest. We are badly run, hugely mismanaged and rife with silly dysfunctional ideologies and economic ignorance. Our thinking is much too regressivistic, but we cannot go back or backwards.

Bell, Buddhists and Our Notions of Reality (Part X)
Kimball Corson
11/09/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

Bell, Buddhists and Our Notions of Reality (Part X)

I am much less enthusiastic about the prospects of string theory than most physicists are. Let me explain why. It used to be that we thought things were made of atoms. In turn, atoms were made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Since then, physicists have discovered more particles than Carter has little liver pills, each with very specific characteristics as to weight, etc., which they do not at all understand as to why or how. We have a sea of particles, the characteristics of which are knowable, but then baffle them.

Then along comes string theory which essentially does two things. First, it tells us all those particles are really just composed of one or more tiny vibrating strings too small to see even with the strongest electron microscopes, each with many, many different characteristics which they also don't understand (sound familiar?). Secondly, they tell us the universe must exist in say eleven dimensions, but those beyond the three, or four with time, that we can see, must be infinitesimally small and twisted into unbelievably distorted shapes to fit their theories and tuck into the nooks and crevasses of our four dimensional world . We can't see those either.

I personally don't believe it. It strikes me as a bad design. If we perceive in only three or four dimensions, why can't the remaining eight or nine be full sized, more typical dimensions simply beyond our present perceptive abilities? The theory is too inelegant to be a major design. It steps on the toes of Occam's razor, too. Also, it does not square with our example of Teflon having a five dimensional complete crystalline structure: the other two dimensions aren't folded or twisted incredibly.

Alright so then, I have three problems straight away with string theory. First, by deciding all of the many particles the characteristics of which we didn't understand were each different and more multiple tiny strings, the characteristics of which we don't understand, I don't think we have advanced the ball very much, especially inasmuch as we are still discovering new particles.

Second, I simply don't believe the remaining eight or nine remaining dimensions have to be so tiny and folded into our three dimensions in odd, complex shapes. We have a lot of dark matter out there for example. I think we are missing something here.

Finally, inasmuch as everything is too tiny to be seen, how everything behaves is out of view, too, and there are few or no experiments we can use to prove or disprove much of anything.

I think the advances are too few and muddled to justify the optimism we observe. I will flesh these arguments out a bit so you better understand my concerns. You will pick up some physics and string theory along the way.

On the particles, we have gone from atoms made up of electrons, protons and neutrons to a whole world of particles we don't understand. Electrons, protons and neutrons turn out not to be the fundamental particles. We, the public, have been fed a dose of hooey, especially in primary and secondary school. Protons and neutrons are made up of three smaller particles called quarks we learned in 1968.

A proton consists of two up quarks and a down quark. (Don't ask me; I didn't name them. Actually the word quark is from a line in Joyce's Finnegan's Wake.) A neutron is made up of two down quarks and an up quark. An electron has an up quark and a down quark. But now we have two more major particles, a muon which is similar to an electron except it is about 200 times heavier, and a much heavier further relative of the electron called a tau. A muon is made up of a charm quark and a strange quark and the a tau has a top quark and a bottom quark. All of these particles have further associated particles called neutrinos which can penetrate anything and mostly come from solar radiation. A tau weighs 3,520 times as much as an electron. A top quark weighs 40,200 times as much as an up quark. Why as to all of this, we haven't a clue.

But then we also have the photon, the light particle; the hypothesized graviton for gravity; the gluon for the strong nuclear force; and the boson for the weak nuclear force. We are awash in particles we do not well understand. Why do they have the characteristics or differences they do? But there is a string behind every quark, it is thought. But why is replacing each of these particles with one or more strings, an advancement? The reason is doing so yields up a possible compatibility between micro quantum mechanics and macro general relativity, but why exactly eludes all, beyond the fact we now all deal in strings instead of all dealing with particles.

We deal now with strings we don't understand instead of particles we don't understand. Worse, strings are tinier and we can't see them whereas we could see some particles or trace their behavior. Such is progress we are told. One could argue physicists are simply trying to hang on to their grant money, but that is probably not fair.

About Money
Kimball Corson
11/09/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

About Money

In the beginning, after first barter and then multiple currencies became messy bores, with only one lawful currency (that of our government) issued, circulating and backed by say an exchange right to gold at the current price of gold, we can say that money is created as an IOU issued by the government, a credit note obligating the government to give gold in exchange if requested. The risk of the price of gold increasing is born by the government if the price of gold rises , by the IOU note bearer, if the price of gold falls. Now, if the price of gold is fixed for conversion purposes at say $35 per oz, who bears which risk is reversed. If you want the government to give you $35, bring it that much worth of gold.

Now, if only non-currency, demand deposits existed, and the sole bank almost costlessly creates new money for a loan, because it has the monopolistic/exclusive right to do that, and it establishes a demand deposit for a borrower in like amount, the interest earned on that money becomes the virtually free income of the bank. Recall, it cost nothing to create the demand deposit. The demand deposit is extinguished and the new money with it when the loan is repaid. The bank keeps the interest money, however, as income., under its "license to steal." The government has no position in the matter in this simple model. The bank is simply given a monopoly by the government which it exploits.

Now if currency dollars and demand deposit dollars suddenly have one to one convertibility, the government is suddenly obligated in gold for the new money created by the bank plus the currency in circulation (and, of course, for existing demand deposits). This is a big increase in the government's debt or obligation, but its gold stocks have not increased.

One way the government's obligation can be made much more manageable is to cut off convertibility to gold, have money become a fiat system, and back it with the "full faith and credit" of the government which means the government will accept it in payment of taxes. The exchange situation becomes one dollar for one dollar. It is no longer a governmental IOU or a credit. It is a tax coupon at best. However, being accustomed to using dollars and able to pay taxes with them, the public goes along with this great gold heist from it without batting an eye. So, between the bank and the government, the people have had both their interest payments and gold stolen from them, viewing all as separate entities. All they have left is fewer dollars and no gold.

Hell of a system. And we wonder why people don't like banks and government.

On the Antitrust Laws
Kimball Corson
11/08/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

The antitrust laws, at the hand of the Chicago School of Law and Economics, have devolved into fights involving only an occasional big boy or two where market share is evaluated much more than and in lieu of the actual dimensions of competition in the marketplace and how the various competitors in that marketplace interact competitively.

The analysis has been foreshortened into oblivion, essentially destroying it, along with the protection of smaller competitors ancillary to much competition.

Liberal Colleges Don't Produce Liberals
Kimball Corson
11/08/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

Liberal Colleges Don't Produce Liberals

The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003. They found that on average, students shifted somewhat to the left -- but that these changes were in line with shifts experienced by most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same period of time. In addition, they found that students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties.

Similarly, the political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Laura Stoker analyzed data from a survey that tracked the political attitudes of about 1,000 high school students through their college years and into middle age. Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place.

Also, for an ad hoc example, Yale is very liberal, but most of the dozens of graduates I have encountered over the years in person and on Facebook have been reactionary conservatives.

An Obama Win Will Give Us Four More Years of Ineffective Economic Policy
Kimball Corson
11/08/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

An Obama Win Will Give Us Four More Years of Ineffective Economic Policy

But at least it won't be affirmatively bad policy designed to line the pockets of plutocrats. But that is truly no real or a good recommendation. Meanwhile the output gap has been costing us big time -- about $8.5 billion a day, as I recall -- but inasmuch as it it is GDP we never got, for too many, it doesn't really seem we lost it, that is, according to conventional Republican thinking which rarely reaches to considering alternative economic scenarios well or at all.

It is ashame because it is costing us so dearly -- money right out of the pockets of all of us, especially the plutocrats, ironically enough.

We simply cannot do well with our ideologically ridden economic ignorance. I look at Sweden's supply side and demand side expansion program and the money they are putting behind it and I think, never in America. The Republicans would go ballistic over the stimulus component and the Democrats hit the sky over the corporate tax cut program. In the US, we are tied up in ideologies. Whereas the Swedes are engaged in sound economic analysis and putting their money where their mouth is.

Sweden does well. America does badly. Now we have the prospect of four more years of that, although we avoided a worse economic fate with Romney, but that is a poor recommendation.

Bell, Buddhism and Our Notions of Reality (Part IX comment)
Kimball Corson
11/08/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

Bell, Buddhism and Our Notions of Reality (Part IX comment)

There will be more in the physics sequence moving on to supersymmetry, string theory and then superstring theory, but I have much to learn first and then I have to figure out how to organize it, select out what is important and then try to explain that clearly and briefly, using no math or big polysyllabic words like mayonnaise.

It's a tall order, but I have decided to get on top of it. I am reading much fast and thinking about it.

Quality Higher Education and the Election Results
Kimball Corson
11/08/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

Quality Higher Education and the Election Results

When the popular vote is tallied, we can look at the those states that most strongly went for Romney and, with the simple assumption that Romney votes were not simply anti-Obama protest votes, we can determine those states which have been most brain washed and indoctrinated by economic ideology, especially that funded by Koch & Friends through the myriad and bogus think tanks and political action arms, especially inasmuch as most people concede the most important problem facing America is the economy.

It is a good chance to test for the success of the economic propaganda. Big Romney wins by state are required to filter out or counterbalance the other possible factors involved. By and large, however, aside from women's issues and race, this is really a one issue election.

Those states where the popular vote went strongly for Romney are Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. A key characteristic of each of those states is it lacks a great university or university system like California. To the extent such universities teach critical thinking, then many in the populations of states with or near great universities benefit and are more resistive to conservative, economic, political propaganda efforts.

Republicans have developed a strong proclivity -- derived in large part I think from the business community from which they draw many of their party members -- to misrepresent, lie and put out false data and information, especially on economic matters. These are the plutocrats at work politically and behind the scenes. A better educated population base is more resistive to their economic propaganda effort. Population members realize some markets need regulation, the rich just want tax breaks to feed their greed, and that trickledown economics is a lie and a hoax, for examples. Great universities inform not just their graduates, but those around those graduates and those universities.

States where the vote was close involve conservative, propagandized population bases but with educationally countervailing situations and elements. These states are North Carolina (Triangle Research Center), Florida (large well educated Jewish population), Ohio and Iowa (northern most southern states, but with multiple not bad universities), Virginia (where many well educated live who work in Washington), Nevada (Republican leaning gambling interests vs. liberal population base). These states support the same idea.

Liberal states, as I say, have many great universities or good university systems that benefit their populations. They buy into the propaganda far, far less.

Quality higher education is the key for strong Democratic victories in the various states. It prevents successful economic propaganda efforts. It is one reason Republicans are not strong supporters of education and want to gut Pell grants, the Department of Education and are no fans of the great universities which they view as much too liberal.

A good understanding of economic matters is all about better higher education.

Why Such Low Voter Turnout?
Kimball Corson
11/08/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

Why Such Low Voter Turnout?

A big drop in voter turnout occurred Tuesday's among both Republicans and Democrats. Why is the question. But first some background.

Preliminary figures suggest fewer people voted this year than four years ago, when there was a record turn out. In most states, the numbers were even lower than in 2oo4. Early figures from every state but Iowa showed a smaller turnout than in 2008. The Associated Press' figures showed about 119.5 million people had voted in the White House race in 2012, but that number will increase a bit as more votes are counted. In 2008, 131 million people cast ballots for president, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Large drops came in Eastern Seaboard states still reeling from the devastation from Superstorm Sandy. About 12 percent fewer ballots had been counted in New York than in 2008. In New Jersey, it was more than 10 percent. Some voters were too busy with the aftermath of Sandy to vote.

In areas not affected by the storm, several factors are suggested for lower turnout. These include lack of voter enthusiasm because the 2012 race was one of the nastiest in recent memory, causing many voters to be turned off. Too, neither party was particularly enthused about their own candidate.

Stricter voting restrictions adopted in many states discouraged some from trying to vote. Also, long waits in line discouraged many from waiting or coming. Waits from three to six hours were not uncommon in some precincts.

Additionally, both Obama and Romney did not make voter turnout a top priority until late in their campaigns. They were busy targeting on undecided voters.

Finally, low voter turnout might have been because most see the economy as the major issue and felt neither candidate could do anything about it?

Republicans Are Painting Themselves into a Corner Longer Term
Kimball Corson
11/08/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

Republicans Are Painting Themselves into a Corner Longer Term

Blacks, Latinos, Youth, many Women, Jews, Native Americans - and the list goes on. All identify with the Democratic party. The demographic the Republicans only partially have is old WASP's and the Plutocrats and those groups overlap. Worse Republicans don't have a lock even on that group. There are too many liberal renegades.

So what happens when the older male WASP's die off? And we learned this go round that Plutocratic money, even in mega doses, cannot carry the day. Where does all this leave the Republican party? In a serious hole, I suggest and falling fast. Their future votes simply aren't there. Too, the aged WASP's and their conservative wives might figure it out someday that they are voting against their own best interests, in true red state fashion, and wake up to smell the Democratic roses. That could sink the sinking Republican party.

And what about the nut cases in the Republican party? Some moderate Republicans are leaving the party because they cannot any longer stand being associated with so many screwballs. These defections are another problem for the party. The sieve is leaking buckets full. Too, the nut cases persuade others to never to join the party. To become Democrat or, better yet, an independent instead.

If we had a Parliamentary style of government and a proportional voting system, the growing horde of independents would have representative political party and a much stronger voice. But now all they have is their swing vote and poor choices, as they see it.

This paints a very bleak picture for the Republican Party and few good directions in which it can turn without a radical makeover. I don't see that happening. I simply see Democrats doing better in national elections.

The population and therefore the electoral votes are predominately in the blue states. Obama had that huge advantage going in. The red states are more rural and less populated. They have much more poverty and worse educational systems. They have no great research universities in the top ten. They are home to the nut cases and the fundamentally religious. How can the Republicans pull off a major makeover in these circumstances?

The Republicans do have the Plutocrats, but for all their megabucks and propaganda, they just don't have the votes and a growing number of people see through them. Trickle down economics has proven to really be trickle up economics. Plutocrats desire for big tax cuts for themselves and their corporations then simply become transparent greed. The 1 percent against the 99 percent. There is no salvation for the Republicans in that. So where can they go?

The Republicans, I submit, have been busy sinking their own ship. They had better ready their life boats, I suggest. Their grand adventure is nearing an end. Time will do them in or they must confront the need for a radical makeover and find new leadership to do that.

I Was Correct that Obama Would Win By a Wide Margin
Kimball Corson
11/08/2012, Pago Pago, American Samoa

I Was Correct that Obama Would Win By a Wide Margin

The popular vote was closer than I thought it would be. The polls more correct than I thought they would be. For what all that was worth . . . very little.

On who would win -- where I focused my attention -- I was easily correct, Obama won the electoral college by a wide margin, 3 to 2, basically.

I focused on that question and the electoral college, and paid most attention to the bookies in Vegas and London, the computerized books in Europe and the Rand Corporation's American Life Panel -- all answering just that question "who would win."

The fact is the blue states have more electoral votes. It is almost that simple. That weighed heavily in my prediction on who would win. Too many people forgot that and the fact Obama would likely carry the blue states.

The Panel did better than the bookies and books which put the margin too close to 2 to 1 or, for better comparability, 4 to 2. The actual margin is 3 to 2.

 

Powered by SailBlogs