The Case for Voting Third-Party, and Why It’s Not Throwing Your Vote Away

It seems to be a popular idea right now that a vote for a third party, like Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson, is either throwing your vote away, or a vote for Hillary. I’d like to present the case for why a vote for a third party isn’t throwing your vote away, and in fact, is actually a wise choice.
This election is about more than who will be the next POTUS. I think we can all agree that no one wants either candidate to win. There are some who optimistically point out that a third party candidate just might mean blocking Clinton or Trump from reaching the needed 270 electoral votes, sending the race to the House and Senate to decide for us. (I have nothing against this happening. In fact, I like it and not-so-secretly hope it happens, just for the historic nature of the event. I honestly don’t know who the House would pick in that event, so I’m cautiously optimistic.)
The reason I encourage everyone to “vote their conscience” is because the president is only one person, one job. If you vote for Trump, you send the message to the House and Senate that you support his platform. If you do support him, that’s great. Maybe you’ll win. But if you vote for Trump, and you don’t actually support his platform, you still have sent a message to the rest of the lawmakers that you support that platform. Is that a message you really want to send?
Or would you prefer to send a message to those other parties that actually represents your beliefs? Your one vote may not be all that significant in the big picture. But in that smaller picture, the one that breaks down demographics and geography, and shows what people in your district or demographic believe, you have the chance to send a loud message.
Over the weekend, as Trump was flailing about in the wake of his own misogyny, Paul Ryan held a phone call with other party members. He allegedly released them from any obligation to support Trump. He told them to “do what’s best for you and your district.” I read that loud and clear as the right time for me to stand up and make sure that my representative and senator know what matters to me.
I can’t control the outcome of the presidency. But I can make sure that the legislative branch and the media know just how many people are not represented by the mainstream candidates. Because that is the first true step to reform- when people stand up and make their voices heard.
Several third party candidates have been disruptors and effective change agents. Whether or not you agree with his politics, Ralph Nader has very successfully managed to get his platform noticed while running as a third party. Gary Johnson has effectively raised awareness of the Libertarian platform (which is about more than legalizing pot). Theodore Roosevelt was another very notable and effective third party candidate.
Your vote matters because it sends a message about the direction you want this country to go in. I for one do not want anyone to ever get the idea I support Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I want to send the message that I believe in immigration reform that allows for a kinder, gentler approach on the path to citizenship. I want to make it clear that I welcome refugees with welcome arms. (And that I believe every statistic Donald Trump, Fox News, and Breitbart has ever offered about refugees to be 100% fiction.) I believe in a strong military, and even stronger cybersecurity. (And let’s not forget that when asked about cybersecurity, Donald Trump’s answer was about how his 10 yr old son uses lots of apps.) I am okay with higher taxes, because higher taxes mean more money for education, welfare, and the military. (I am taxed at a much higher rate than anyone else reading this because I am a single, with a decent income, and no dependents, and no mortgage.) I support Hillary Clinton in her efforts to reform higher education tuition. I absolutely do not want to build a wall between the US and Mexico. I believe strongly in providing foreign aid. (Something I am sure will disappear under Trump.) And I am modern and smart enough to know that abortion is an important topic, but also one already decided by the Supreme Court. In other words, I don’t care what current candidates’ views are on the subject.
Because we will not be happy with either candidate winning the White House, it is more important than ever to send the message to the world what it is you believe in. Make sure your local representatives know what you think, and will represent your views in Congress.
Are you loyal to a party name? Loyal to the candidate that fronts that name? Or are you loyal to your personal beliefs? Which message do you want to send to the world?

10 Ideas to Make Politics Less Rotten

Freakonomics Radio: 10 Ideas to Make Politics Less Rotten

In my dreamworld, every person in the United States would listen to this. (I'm far too Libertarian to say "every person would be required.") It's just too good. It's too right. It's in every possible way completely needed. People need a better education about how the politics in the United States works from an unbiased and actually educated and experienced source. And this podcast episode does a great job of breaking it down and explaining things in just the right now. (In my humble opinion.)

Ever heard of the Seattle idea of "Democracy Dollars?" Personally, I love it. (And you can bet that if we had that system at the federal level, there is no way Trump or Hillary would be our current candidates.)

No cheering at debates? Please and thank you! Listen, I've been one of the staffers sent to a debate to make as much noise as possible. I know how completely rigged those audiences are.

And Howard Dean is spot on (never thought I'd say that) about the Electoral College.

Go listen to it. It's great. It's interesting. And it just might open your mind.


Let's Connect! https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride http://twitter.com/erinannie https://instagram.com/erinannie17 https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

My Predictions

It is still incredibly early in the game, but just for fun, here are my 2016 Presidential Election Predictions-

• Bernie Sanders will gain in momentum until the first real televised debate. He's fun, he's shocking, etc, but really, he's not presidential material. Once people see him on stage next to other candidates and realize he's radical, but not relate-able, he will dwindle off. 
• Hillary Clinton will always have deep pockets, so she will stay in the race. She won't exit until the Democrats produce a viable candidate who beats on a Super Tuesday in the primaries. I expect she will easily win Iowa and New Hampshire though. 
• I predict that sooner or later Joe Biden will enter the race, but not until Clinton has suffered an extreme blow that he (and Obama) can safely claim no relationship to. (Said blow, which is inevitable, since she gets them all the time, will not hurt her campaign, because said blows never do hurt Clintons somehow.) I do expect he will be a very likable candidate. 
• Carly Fiorina will continue to rise in the polls. 
• At the next major GOP debate, everyone will try to beat Fiorina, and be the anti-Donald, by being The Donald (with stunning sound bytes). 
• Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, and Rand Paul will survive till January/Iowa/South Carolina. The others will drop out due to lack of funds in the meantime. 
• There are too many GOP candidates to predict which ones will emerge as the real leaders. My hope, at this juncture, is that it will be Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush. 
• The Democrats will eventually produce a few more candidates. 
• Bobby Jindal will be considered a VP candidate for the GOP
• We will be subjected to multiple news articles about the potential of another Bush/Clinton showdown. This will not change the actual likelihood of a Bush/Clinton showdown. 
• Iowa and New Hampshire will continue to be unfairly represented in campaigns. But the swing states will get a lot more time and attention. Ethanol will be discussed ad nauseum, because Iowa corn farmers like it, even though it's not good for the overall country. 
• I do think Jeb Bush will go far, but I can't see him winning the national election. But I do see him lasting at least 2-3 Super Tuesdays. 
• Bernie Sanders will break off and go third party. It will be an extreme, left wing third party, with the support of Ralph Nader. 

Let's Connect! https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride http://twitter.com/erinannie https://instagram.com/erinannie17 https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

I Will Keep the Faith. I Still Believe.

In my column for Meridian Magazine yesterday (Elections, Facebook, and the Throne of Thoughtless Stupor) I quoted Elder Neal A. Maxwell.   (For my non-Mormon friends, he was a much beloved leader in the Mormon Church who was known for not only his incredible knowledge and understanding of the scriptures, but his beautiful way with words. Check out this YouTube clip of him talking about Jesus Christ and the Universe. It's wonderful.)

 “The same God that placed that star in a precise orbit millennia before it appeared over Bethlehem in celebration of the birth of the Babe has given at least equal attention to placement of each of us in precise human orbits so that we may, if we will, illuminate the landscape of our individual lives, so that our light may not only lead others but warm them as well.”

I have often turned to this quote when I question what is the point of my life and why I have had to suffer through two bad economies and long periods of under/unemployment (the first after 2001 and again now). I said yesterday in my column, and I will try to say it again in my heart again today, that if the Lord can place a star over a stable, and that the placement of my life in this humanly orbit is no mistake, then I have no choice but to believe that something and someone as important as the President of the United States is not just the will of the people (because I must believe that all those people are here at this time and place as purposefully as my existence is), but who the POTUS is is the will of the Lord as well.

And so even though I am heartbroken and sad, and felt that much of my personal opportunities and happiness were tied up in the results of this election, I will accept the results and move on. And I will not cave in to the tendencies of so many to become a “doomsday prepper,” or moan and groan about what might happen next. I will wake up each day and remind myself that this is what the Lord has allowed, and continue on with the belief that He will never leave me without opportunities and choice.

There is a common belief in the firearms industry that firearms sell better under a democrat president. When people are afraid of losing their guns, they buy more of them. And you know what? Maybe the same holds true about many things in life. If people are afraid of where our country will go under this president, maybe they will fight harder to prevent those things from happening? Would they fight as hard under a Romney presidency? (Probably not.) Heed the battle call and join the fight. After all, it is no mistake that you were placed here in this orbit now.

It is my job to be happy and keep the faith no matter my circumstance. And if there is anything I have worked hard on these last 3 years it is finding joy in spite of difficulties. I will soldier on in God’s Army and choose to find joy, no matter what, and keep up my faith that the Lord will provide.

Ruminations on the FINAL Presidential Debate (can I get an amen?)!

I love the body language and presence in this picture!

Here's a little secret for you-

When it comes to foreign policy, I am not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat.  My personal foreign policies have never found a good political home and probably never will, unless Mother Theresa and General Schwartzkopf ever decide to form a party together.

I'm sure you want to know what my foreign policies are, so I'm going to tell you, in my roundabout sort of way. Have you ever read the book, The Ugly American? Well, to put it mildly, this 1960's novel had a profound effect on my political views. But it wasn't just the novel, it was traveling and volunteering in places like Haiti, Romania, and Cambodia and seeing scenes from the book play out in real life.

My political views on international affairs begin with humanitarian aid, and education. I give just as much weight and importance to issues such as sex trafficking and education in low-income countries as I do to sanctions against Iran. Educate and feed the poverty stricken countries now, and you'll improve the world economy and have more peaceful allies in the future. Putting a higher emphasis on bringing clean water and education to countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, and large portions of Africa, can help prevent regimes like Gaddafi's in the future. 

Want to create more American jobs? Send Americans overseas to work in third world countries!

Now, back to the debates-

One man had a record to prove and defend; the other had an opinion to defend. And the one with the opinion often had no choice but to give his opinion to journalists before he ever had all of the facts. Of course I say this assuming that a sitting president has far more intel and details about world affairs than a former governor who until recently got his information from the media.

In short, the debate could be summed up as such- Governor Mitt Romney wants the U.S. to play a stronger role in international and peacekeeping conflicts, and would spend more money on the military. President Barack Obama believes the U.S. plays a strong role in the world theater, and tried to show that his leadership is working, and that Romney’s ideas would not work. The problem is that the two men want the same outcome, but their plans to get there are barely different from the other’s.

Shh! I can hear all of you Romney supporters screaming at me from here! I know you hate to hear anyone suggest such a thing, but it’s the truth. Romney and Obama are not that different when it comes to foreign policy. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I kind of missed Ron Paul tonight. He would have at least brought some color and a different opinion to the table.

Both candidates are firmly against Iran getting a nuclear weapon. (But then, is there any candidate, other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants Iran to have an nuke?) Both favor sanctions against Iran, and want to form better allies in the fight against Iran. Romney tried to set himself apart by saying he would take a harder line than Obama, and would indict Iran’s president for inciting “genocide.” Whether or not that is actually a feasible or possible plan, I do not know. It sounds exciting and strong, but may not actually play out well at the United Nations.

The facts of the matter are that we only have so many options in dealing with Iran- turn a blind eye and hope for the best, or military actions, sanctions, and strategic alliances. To the best of my knowledge only Ron Paul favors the blind eye approach.

On the subject of Libya, President Obama said he has taken a leadership role in the changing Middle East, including the ousting of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power.
"I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to—without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq—liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans," he said. (And English teachers everywhere cringed.)

For some reason Romney didn’t take that opportunity to attack the President on the Benghazi assassination. He has not been shy about criticizing Obama on the issue in recent weeks. It was surprising that he didn’t do it in this debate. In my opinion, this was a big mistake.

The one place the two candidates differ significantly is on defense spending, and these differences aren’t just their differences, they are deep down to the core party differences. Democrats don’t like to put money into the military, Republicans do. It is that simple.

Here’s some food for thought: Democrats like to “create jobs” within the federal government. Republicans like to create jobs with military spending (the jobs come both within the military and in civilian contracts with the military). There is a well defined line between federal and military jobs. The biggest difference is that federal jobs don’t help the overall economy, they help the government. And it creates a finite number of jobs. Military sector jobs not only help the military, they help foster research, inventions, development, and improvements from the commercial sector, and help the economy. Not all military spending goes to bullets and bombs. Much of it goes to create new technology that starts out as a need for the military, and gets adapted for civilian use. Case in point- the internet (regardless of what Al Gore may have told you), microwaves, cargo pants, and duct tape.

Both men declared their support for Israel when asked what the U.S. should do if Israel were attacked by Iran. Obama said, “I will stand with Israel if Israel is attacked.” Moments later Romney declared, “If Israel is attacked, we have their back.” But again I ask, is there anyone who plans to turn their back on Israel?

Both candidates also oppose U.S. military involvement in Syria. Obama did try and make some points on his leadership efforts in Syria. However, most of these points failed to hit home, and will not resonate with anyone. The U.S. population overall has remained disconnected to the Syrian conflict, with most of the major news outlets (excluding CNN) largely ignoring it.

A CNN poll released right after the debate showed no clear “winner” for the night. An MSNBC poll showed 59% of viewers were more likely to vote for Obama after the debate (no surprise there). The ABC poll showed the candidates in a virtual tie on international affairs. And a CBS poll showed 53% of the people feeling Obama “won” the debate, 23% felt Romney won, and 25% felt it was a tie. As of midnight, there was not a Fox News report on who “won” the night. But I'm pretty sure we can all predict what their poll will inevitably say. 

It is unfortunate that international affairs and foreign policy will continue to stay the American people’s shortcoming. Equal or adequate time is rarely given in classrooms or the media when it comes to the subjects. There are enough domestic issues to fill newspapers and news reports, without needing to invest much in conflicts and stories in faraway lands. And so we are often misinformed and under-informed. We are naively guided by biases, rumors, and third hand ideas, rather than facts and figures. We build opinions on what another country needs having never been to that country, met someone from that country, or listened to the voice of the people in that country. All too often we assume that what they need is a little dose of our American medicine and trample our military in to give it to them. I am happy that both presidential candidates shy away from this approach, and instead lean to negotiations and sanctions first.

All this talk about Iran has me thinking of one of my favorite Saturday Night Live digital shorts- 

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Thoughts on the Second Presidential Debate

First, I think President Obama decided to listen during his debate prep sessions finally. He must have figured out that "hope" isn't an actual debate strategy.

That's not to see Governor Romney didn't bring is A game. I believe he did. But the match was more evenly balanced this time. 

The big hot topics that emerged from the debate-

1. "Binders full of women."
I admit I did not hear this line the first time around. I was listening as I drove in the car, and missed this entire segment. I was surprised when I got online later that this statement, "binders full of women," was such a big deal. I was very curious what it could be about, because all I could find were people mocking the phrase, but no one saying what it meant, or what was wrong with it. I imagined it to be some horrible thing. I was actually incredibly disappointed to find what a benign statement it really was.




To be honest, it was awkward phrasing, but really, what was so wrong with it?? I don't get it.

2. Libya
Oy vey.
I never have liked Candy Crowley, in spite of my love for CNN. She just really likes to tell people they are wrong and to be critical. I honestly don't think she is more Obama than Romney. She just really likes to correct people, and in this case, she picked poorly. But I actually put the blame for this little moment of confusion on Romney for not fully explaining things. "Act of terror." He should have better explained that calling it an "act of terror," and yet, not terrorism, were not the same thing. But shame on Candy Crowley for not being a better moderator and asking him to explain himself, rather than cutting things off. Even Obama looks a little confused as to what went down.




And the correction admission
 

3. President Obama's speaking style.
IT HURTS MY EARS.
I bet everyone else with ADD like me is incapable of listening to him for more than a minute. There's so much dead air I lose focus and move on to shiny objects reflecting off the stage lights or counting freckles on the back of my hand. For the love, Mr. President, SPIT IT OUT!
You may want to complain that Obama got 3 more minutes of time than Romney did. But really, he just took up time. It wasn't speaking time. He likes to (pause) speak in (pause) short (pause) staccato (pause) phrases followed by a quick jumbled line altogether when he (pause) doesn't (pause) have a teleprompter to keep him together. (Pause..........................)

President Obama Changes Illegal Immigration Policy (in an election year)

President Obama speaks on U.S. immigration policy in the White House Rose Garden

President Obama announced a major change in U.S. illegal immigration policy on Friday, June 15.

First, the facts.

• He did NOT grant amnesty to illegals.
• Anyone who claims the above is biased to the point of uncredibility.
• Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation.
• Those who meet the requirements will able to apply for work permits.
• The policy change is expect to affect 800,000- 1.4M people (depending on which news source you trust). 

The exact words: “Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. Now, let's be clear: This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix.”

(SEE BELOW FOR THE FULL TRANSCRIPT AFTER THE JUMP)




Now, for some discussion on the facts (with a little bias, because sometimes facts warrant bias)-

• The President did this on his own. He did not do this with the assistance of the elected legislative body of the United States. 
• That same legislative body where Senator Marco Rubio was already working on a bill to address these issues. The same Senate that defeated the DREAM Act in 2009.
  Prefer to bypass the Constitution and anyone who doesn't want to do things exactly your way, Mr. President?? Why do we need three branches of government if we can just do it your way (the right way?) every time, right?
• Hispanics make up the fastest-growing immigrant population in the country, and the Latino vote is considered a crucial bloc for the November presidential election.
  But you are better than election year politics and football spiking, right, Mr. President? You would never want to set an example to your own daughters and all of those elementary school children you asked to be loyal to you, that it is okay to do things all by yourself without asking permission first, just so you can be popular, right? You would never do that.
• Some people will love the POTUS for this. After all, as he put it, "it's the right thing to do." We're talking about young adults who were brought here as children through no fault of their own. Why should they be punished for their parents' transgressions? To that extent, it is hard to fault the President for this change in policy. These kids (which are apparently also called "Dream-ers" (news to me)) have gone to American schools and know this as their home. (And apparently some have served in our military, which begs the question- WHAT? How do illegal, non-citizens serve in the U.S. Armed Forces?! Don't you have to have a Social Security number for that?! And are we really not giving them citizenship after they have served honorably in our Armed Forces?! (HELLO CONGRESS- Please make that a law NOW. If someone is going to voluntarily serve in our military and risk their lives on our behalf, I think we can absolutely grant them some amnesty and citizenship!) But back to the point here. Yes, these kids deserve a better deal than deportation. And granting them a reprieve is a nice step in the right direction on their behalf. But it absolutely does not solve the problem. 
• If you believe he did this because "it was the right thing to do" and not because he needed to make sure Senator Rubio (a well-liked potential VP for Romney) couldn't get the glory for it later in the summer, and that the announcement on a Friday afternoon wasn't suspect in and of itself (in political media this is called "throwing it out with the trash"), and that he wasn't completely and in every way pandering to the growing Latino vote- you are not only naive, but completely unaware of how politics work.  Right or wrong, this was one of the most political moves this President has ever made. 

The Contraception Controversy Spelled Out

I can't even believe I am writing about contraception for a blog on politics. But nonetheless, here I am. I'm not going to point fingers at the candidates on who has said what about contraception. I'm just going to get down to specifics on what voters really need to understand on the topic.

Contraception is not always cheap. If you have insurance it may still not be cheap.

Contraception (and we use this term to mean the hormonal therapies available specifically to women) can be used for much more than birth control, as it is often prescribed for actual illnesses that effect women.

Contraception is available to every woman in the United States as of this moment, even if minivan-driving soccer moms aren't willing to drive to their inner-city clinic to ask for it. Don't believe me? 33.5% of Planned Parenthood's services are for contraception.

In this new contraception debate, voters need to get off the moral issues surrounding contraception. The questions they need to be asking are far more simple-

Are you the type of person who believes that the government should provide services to individuals?

OR

Are you the type of person who does not want the government involved in pricing and services, and wants to see businesses provide affordable products?

OR

Are you the type of person who believes that the government should forces businesses to provide certain services?

OR

Are you the type of person who can't answer those questions, but when you find yourself in trouble, you get mad that the government doesn't have an obvious solution for you?

Right now people are focusing on the wrong issues (the moral side of the question). It isn't a moral issue. And it also isn't about a woman's right to choose this time around (even if a lot of people are discussing it as if it is). The question at the end of the day is whether or not you are the type of person who wants the government to make it happen, or you believe the government needs to get out of business.

The Obama policy as recently enacted is flat-out about the government making a business do something. You either like that or you don't. Take the “moral” contraception part out of the equation, and insert in any other numbers of scenarios, and use the same, equivalent argument.

Should the government force businesses to provide employees with fuel for their cars? After all, the employee works there, and has a car, and therefore should use it and be expected to use it! It is the employee's RIGHT to have a car and to drive it! The employee has the RIGHT to free gas!

What? You don't like that example. It is too impersonal? Okay, we'll use one a little more closely related.

Should the government “require” (it sounds so much nicer than “force,” doesn't it? But really, it is the same thing.) businesses to provide free drug addiction rehab services to employees? After all, by current definitions drug addictions are not the fault of the abuser. If it isn't the person's fault that they are addicted (except that they took drugs in the first place) (yes, there are exceptions to this rule for prescription addictions versus illegal drugs, see below), don't they have the RIGHT to free care?

Apparently we have become a country that no longer believes in personal accountability. Shouldn't the person be at fault for taking an illegal drug in the first place? Where is the accountability for that?

It is the same exactly thing with contraception. Either the woman is accountable for her own choices and body, or she is not. As stated earlier, yes, contraception is used for more than just birth control. It is used for many illnesses, and no one can help whether or not they have most medical conditions. This is where and why the need for a defining line on birth control for contraceptive purposes versus hormonal treatment for medical conditions must be drawn.

Where is the accountability? It is a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. Shouldn't she also be accountable for her choices? Why should the American taxpayer and/or her employer be accountable for her choices?

The precedent set by the government requiring businesses to offer contraception options to employees could have very negative effects. The drug addiction scenario is very real. The gas for cars? Not as immediate and realistic, but still a future possibility. (How many employees already expect commuting stipends and parking spots? Is this really that much of a stretch?)

All of this does beg the question over and over, why stop at contraception? Why only contraception? If the argument is that birth control is for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies, because it helps with illnesses too, why are we not forcing employers to provide complete coverage for terminal illnesses, diabetes, asthma, etc? Individuals are obviously not at fault for getting cancer or diabetes, so why aren't we forcing companies to pay for them? Why are we forcing them to pay for something there is actual personal accountability for?

Is the price of contraception expensive? It can be. Is the price of an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy expensive? Yes, even more so. But is that the government's problem? Or should voters be putting the pressure on businesses to lower the prices? Or should voters be putting the pressure on the government to create a business climate that allows businesses the lower prices?

The current political question is not about the morality of contraception. The real current question is about whether or not you believe the government should force a business to provide an offering to employees?

 

Fantasy Presidential Predictions

Over on the Motley Fool today I wrote about "Putting Stock in Politics" and how futures trading on politics is, in my humble opinion, nothing more than glorified gambling. If you want to have a little legal fun, with no money exchanged, with a fantasy presidential campaign pool, check out Fantasy Prez.
On this fun site you can make your predictions regarding the presidential race. The Iowa window has closed, but you can still put in your picks for other primaries and caucuses. You can check out my results (as soon as Iowa takes place) on the site where I am listed as "Swing State Voter."

Have you followed the new story about Mitt Romney being unwilling to disclose his campaign's tax information? What do you think about it? Does it make you doubt him? Do you think he should have to disclose it? Are you aware that he legally has no obligation to do so? What information do you think he might be hiding? Or do you think he's hiding anything at all?

Comparing the GOP 2012 Polls for the week ending Dec 12, 2012

Washington Monument, Source: E. McBride

Welcome back to another round of comparing the weekly GOP 2012 polls. Let's quickly recap last week's standings (polls for week ending Dec 5).
Last week I wasn't very impressed with Real Clear Politics and their overall wrap up. They were using the same polls over the same exact dates for the past three weeks, but representing it as new. They tossed in one new poll and mixed it in with the old data to create new numbers. The polls weren't even conducted in the same time period, which really throws off the accuracy of the gauge. Nationally they were showing Newt Gingrich leading by 6.2, and their one new poll (Rasmussen) had Gingrich ahead nationally by 21! So I am looking forward to figuring out today's numbers, and hoping for a lot of new data, especially since this will be our first non-Cain week.

And yet again, RCP is disappointing me by mixing old data with new data, which throws things off by keeping Cain numbers in the older data. Ugh.

Taking out the old data, and only looking at the specific polls, feels different to me. Same frontrunner, and the results don't change much. (Remember, without Cain the totals won't be 100%.) But I'm more comfortable this way. In short, Gingrich is still showing a meteoric rise. Laid out this way you can also really see how very little change the bottom 3 candidates are seeing in the polls. Why won't they just drop out? Are they hoping to be the next Gingrich?
Look at that the Gallup poll for 10/7/11. Gingrich had 7% and was in 5th place (Cain had 18%). He was still behind Perry and Paul! So I guess you can't blame the back of the pack for wanting to be a dark horse. But I really don't see that happening.
Basically it all comes down to Romney and Gingrich at this point. Romney is such a strange number in all of this. He really has managed to hold on to exactly his 20% of registered Republicans for a year now. That tells you something- he has a very solid and loyal group of supporters.
This got me to thinking. There are 312,759,000 people living in the United States according to the 2010 Census. (Source: Wikipedia.) There were 218,054,301 individuals in the "voting eligible population" for the 2010 elections (which takes out illegals, those under 18, overseas, non-citizens, anyone incarcerated, etc) (Source: US Elections Project).
It will be an imperfect number, but here's some food for thought. In 2008 (and in the 2 previous elections) we saw the country split in close to 50/50 numbers in the presidential elections. Obama won over McCain with 53%. There are 55 million registered Republicans (source: AskMe), while Pew Research Center says that 27% of Americans identified as GOP in 2008 (come to think of it, I didn't identify as GOP in 2008, because I didn't like McCain/Palin. I identified and registered as Libertarian. Living at that time in a heavily red state, I knew my third party vote and the electoral system wouldn't help Obama get elected, but would send a message to the GOP that they were losing their base.) So using these numbers, I wanted to see how many people are staying local to Romney nationwide.
We could break down the numbers a few ways-
27% of the 312,759,000? Not good enough, since that number includes the under 18, illegals, and incarcerated.
But first let's see what 27% of the voting eligible population comes out to- 218,054,301 x .27 = 58,874,661.
59 million(ish), which isn't too far off from the 55 million registered Republicans. Don't you just love it when numbers actually come close?
So of 55 million Republicans, we know that roughly 20% have stayed loyal to Romney. That comes out to 11 million loyal Romney fans.
Obama won with roughly 67 million votes in 2008. (Source: CNN)
Assuming the country goes close to 50/50 again (and really, do we have a reason to think it won't?), Romney has 8% of the base. (Erin Math: he has 16% of the 50% which is GOP, therefore 8% of the 100%). Granted, with the electoral college system, that isn't going to really make much of a dent, (especially since Utah only has 5 electoral votes), but if he were to choose 3rd party, he could mess things up for Gingrich.
But since he's never threatened such a thing, and Ron Paul does all the time, let's see what kind of damage Paul could do-
Paul holds steady with 9.5% of the GOP. That gives him roughly 55 million x 9.5 = 5.2 million Ron Paul supporters
5.2 million supporters equals 2% of the voting eligible population.
Sorry, Paulites, but I don't see him doing any significant damage. Or winning. Ever.

I was not compensated for this post. All math is mine and mine alone, and I was BA, not a BS. But I did get a B in Math 110 from a state university. 

Do the Iowa caucuses represent American voters?

It is hard for me to write about the influence Iowa has over the national elections without a great deal of bias. If Iowa did not insist on being the first state to hold a caucus and/or primary, our country would not be so detrimentally forced to be dependent on corn and ethanol. It is only because every single politician who ever had the slightest amount of ambition had to kowtow to the desires of Iowan voters that the American diet is stuffed full of corn, paid for by government subsidies, while we lament the plot of the farmers who forced the politicians to pay them the subsidies. No politician would dare go against Iowa. And in no way, shape, or form, does Iowa represent a diverse cross-section of America. In fact, the interests of Iowa very rarely are the same as any other state. And yet, presidential hopefuls will spend more time and money in this state than any other state overall.
With that in mind, let's take a look at how often the Iowa caucuses, both GOP and Democrat, have accurately picked the national nominees, and the eventual president.

Iowa Democrat Caucus Winners, with national nominees highlighted in blue, and the eventual presidential winners in italics
2008- Barack Obama 2004- John Kerry
2000- Al Gore
1996- incumbent Bill Clinton
1992- Tom Harkin
1988- Dick Gephardt
1984- Walter Mondale
1980- Jimmy Carter (incumbent but contested)
1976- "Uncommitted" 37%, Jimmy Carter 28%
1972- "Uncommitted" 36%, Edmund Muskie 36%

Iowa Republican Caucus Winners, with national nominees highlighted in red, and eventual presidential winners in italics
2008- Mike Huckabee
2004- incumbent George W. Bush

2000- George W. Bush

1996- Bob Dole
1992- incumbent George H.W. Bush
1988- Bob Dole
1984- incumbent Ronald Reagan
1980- George H.W. Bush
1976- Gerald Ford

Iowa managed to pick the national nominees eight times out of fifteen times. But only managed to be indicative of the next president twice. (I am not counting 1976 when more people chose to not commit rather than vote for Jimmy Carter.) In fact, it is interesting to note that they managed to repeatedly pick candidates (in both parties) that didn't just lose, but lost by significant numbers. Cases in point, Harkin, Mondale, Carter, Huckabee, Dole, Dole again, and anyone who ran against Ronald Reagan (1976 and 1980). And yet, in spite of this historical trend to be completely not representative of the nation as a whole, candidates continue to spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours trying to woo Iowa voters. Not to mention all the things that happen in off-years when hopefuls quietly vote in favor of everything Iowa wants, just to create some goodwill for the future. 
Does anyone else see a problem with this?