Tuesday, January 17, 2012

POLITICAL ANALYSIS: The Hispanic vote and the 12 swing states

Politico says “deep voter dissatisfaction with the economy” is a real threat to President Obama and congressional incumbents in twelve swing states, according to a new Gallup poll.  If you aren’t sure what those dozen states are here is a lineup: Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.  Gallup did their survey in October 2011. 



In general, the poll says 60 percent of the residents in those states don’t think they are any better off than they were in 2008, compared to 37 percent who think they are.  Measured with non-swing states, 54 percent of respondents said they weren’t better off, while 44 percent said they were better off.  I decided to take the 12 states and evaluate them in relation to their Hispanic population to see if the President can count on a majority of this vote in 2012.

The swing state with the most electoral votes is Florida counting 29, followed by Pennsylvania with 20, Ohio 18, Michigan 16, No. Carolina 15, Virginia 13, Wisconsin 10, Colorado 9, Nevada and Iowa with 6 each, New Mexico with 5 and New Hampshire with 4.  This represents a total of 151 electoral votes; 270 are needed to win.  Eight of these states have had increases in their Latino population of over 50 percent since 2002.

Of those with electoral votes of 10 or above, Hispanics have representative percentages in their states’ populations as follows: Florida 22.5%; Penn. 5,7%; Ohio 3.1%; Michigan 4.4%; No. Carolina 8.4%; Virginia 7.9%; and Wisconsin 5.7%.  But add to that smaller electoral number states like Colorado 20.7% Latino; Nevada 26.5 %; and New Mexico 46.3%, and the question is just how much impact can the Hispanic vote have?


2008 vote

Obama won an astounding 359 electoral votes in 2008 taking all the 2012 swing states.  He also walked away with 133 votes from non-swing states like Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Illinois and New York.  Adding this to the 151 swing state votes and you have 284 electoral votes, enough to win the election.  The increase in the Latino population alone could be a factor in delivering the swing states in 2012. 

The question, of course, is whether Barack Obama can convince Hispanics in the swing states he’s the one, and if the economy continues to improve and deliver other states plus the additional five above.

There were 6,646,000 Latino voters in 2010, which amounted to 31.2 percent of eligible voters.  84.2 percent of those had some college and 79.4 percent had incomes of over $50,000.  In one study, the Democrats have an advantage with Hispanics with higher educational attainment, as well as those with longer tenure in the country.  I couldn’t find duration figures on legal Latinos in the U.S. but of the unauthorized 10.2 million here, nearly two-thirds have lived here for at least 10 years suggesting many citizens could be here even longer.

Two GOP states, Arizona and Texas, have a combined 49 electoral votes and could be up for grabs in November.  The Arizona Hispanic population is 29.6 percent, Texas 37.6 percent, both significant enough to at least turn the states purple and seriously challenge Republicans.  No one knows what the impact of the Latino vote will be this November, but it does look as if with the surge in population plus increased voter turnout, Democrats could be riding a wave.


2012 Electoral votes
 As you can see from the above, the numbers are there.  And if the GOP continues its rhetoric against the Hispanic community which doesn’t seem to be letting up, the Dems are even more of a sure bet for this vote.  But since the immigration issue is consistently ranked second with Latinos, behind the economy, but ahead of jobs, health care education and taxes, President Obama still has a lot of work to do.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Bruce Springsteen’s latest studio album captures meaning of Occupy Movement

Apparently the Boss is angry again and his new album will vent some of this anger which closely parallels the emotions of the Occupy Movement.  Starting with Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, the crusade has literally moved all over the world.  But Springsteen remains grounded in his concern for the blue-collar group and liberal causes.  Although most of the album was written and recorded before the Occupy Movement started, it still reflects the sentiments of the fight for equality.

In an article where Princeton professor Cornel West describes the Occupy Movement as an “idea whose time has come,” Tea Party crackpot Michael Prell compares Occupy with the Berkeley Free Speech movement that took place in 1964-1965, “right down to the babbling incoherence of the participants.”  Now this takes the cake considering this man, who is a strategist for the TP Patriots, represents a bunch of blithering blockheads with double-digit IQs.



So what was wrong with the Berkeley demonstrations that resulted in the University backing off and allowing academic freedom with open political activity on the campus, with the Sproul Hall sit-ins eventually creating a place of open discussion?  Liberal, yes, and perhaps contrary to a conservative approach that hides its ideology behind the dogmas of religion and worship of big business.  Berkeley has gone on to represent a progressive attitude that has become a solid foundation of the left.

Sidney Tarrow, a visiting professor at Cornell Law School, believes the Occupy Movement will emerge as a “more potent national force” after cities get past the “encampment” issue.  And this may be the real connection between the Berkeley Sproul Hall sit-ins where you have to take a physical position to make your point.  Tarrow calls it the creation of a “communal basis for future social movement.”  So where do the “Occupiers” go and how do they make their voice heard without the bivouac?  Tarrow says they should “Move on” and “march to Washington.”

Bryan Boydston in The Humanist wants to know, “What Exactly Does the Occupy Movement Want?” when he refers to the Lennon/McCartney song, “Revolution.”  He also refers to the ideology “rebel without a cause” when commenting on the disorganization of the movement so far.  Boydston quotes Naomi Wolf in the Guardian asking the same question, receiving numerous responses she capsuled into the following three:

1.    Reverse the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court further allowing the influence of money in U.S. elections.
2.    The movement wants fraud and manipulation taken out of the U.S financial system.
3.    Prevent politicians from using their positions in Congress to benefit corporations they have invested in.

In addition to Wolf’s three Boydston has three of his own which he thinks may be more directly focused on what occupiers want:

  1. Reversing Citizens United is good but he thinks the Movement is more about the total economic inequality that exists in the U.S.
  2. He questions regulation as the “fix-all” for the financial community and thinks more of it would not have prevented the recession.
  3. With little evidence of insider trading by Congress and because they are already prohibited from passing laws that impact companies in which they hold any significant interest, this problem is probably already covered.

So one might assume from all this exposition that you can boil down what the Occupy Movement wants into one simple phrase: Balance the inequity of the economic system so that a more equitable arrangement exists for all.

I’ll leave you with Boydston’s quote from the Lennon/McCartney song, “Revolution,” which is actually appropriate for the Occupy Movement.
You say you want a revolution?
Well, you know, we all want to change the world.
…You say you got a real solution?
Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.

Friday, January 13, 2012

New Hampshire GOP Primary 2012 compared to 2008…Obama’s opposition

Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich said that if Mitt Romney didn’t get a 50 percent win in New Hampshire, it wouldn’t be a mandate for his nomination.  In 2008 in NH, John McCain received only 37.71 percent of the vote and went on to win.  Mike Huckabee came in third with 11.44 percent.  This week Romney came in with almost 40 percent of the NH vote compared to 32.17 in 2008.  The Iowa Caucus took place on the same date, Jan. 3rd, both years.

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire by 39.09 percent in 2008, beating Barack Obama’s 36.45 percent, but Obama went on to win the nomination.  John Edwards came in third at 16.94 percent.  There will obviously be no Democratic primary in 2012 but what this says is that New Hampshire isn’t always a clincher.  When Obama became the Democratic presumptive nominee on June 3, 2008, New Hampshire then cast all its 30 votes for him, one of only three states to do so.



For years now the New Hampshire Primary and the Iowa Caucus have received more media attention than all the other primaries combined.  This publicity and resulting momentum by a decisive frontrunner can have great impact on the future of his or her candidacy.  According to one report, a win in New Hampshire can increase that candidate’s share of the resulting primary count by 27 percent.

Former NH Gov. John Sununu said that people in Iowa pick corn, people in New Hampshire pick presidents, referring to the race to be the first primary.  From the late 1980s the NH primary has been considered an early measurement of the national attitudes toward candidates.  One of the major reasons the state is a good representation of political sentiment across the U.S. is that Independents are allowed to vote in the primary, although with some manipulations at the time of voting.

What isn’t representative in New Hampshire, and which will be a significant factor in 2012, is that the state is only 4 percent Hispanic compared to 25 percent nationwide.  If Latinos get themselves organized and continue their efforts to register qualified voters, this block could be awesome and throw the NH Primary results into a quandary.  In other words, it’s all up in the air and nothing is really certain until the fat lady sings in November.

Forty percent of voters in New Hampshire are Independent which is in keeping with their representation nationally and this is a major reason it is considered a swing state in national elections.  But as far as predictions go, Bill Clinton, Geo. W. Bush and Barack Obama came in second in the NH Primary and all went on to become President.  So go figure for November.

But does this mean that Ron Paul, who came in second this year in New Hampshire with 23 percent, has a chance at the presidency?  I think not, and this just confirms what a crazy year for politics this has been so far, and will continue to be until the November elections.  I think it is also a solid sign that voters will both register and come out in droves in November, emerging from an apathetic population that has decided it isn’t going to take it anymore. 

Of course the outcome will be heavily favored toward progressives.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Crime down across U.S. but not because of more guns on the street

Except for the killing of police officers, crime is dropping in all other major categories, a trend that has now lasted four-and-one-half years.  Of course the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) would like to have you think it is due to the recent proliferation of guns on the street, which they are responsible for.  Not so.  According to the WSJ/Online, “Police officials and some criminologists attribute the persistent crime drop to more-sophisticated policing methods, such as targeting hot spots with extra officers.”

CNN reported nearly 500,000 criminal background checks during the last week before Christmas 2011.  The NRA told CNN that this is due to scared citizens afraid that cuts in police coverage will result in less protection.  This is the same kind of bullshit this organization of crackpots has been spreading for years.  It sounds like someone is equipping an army, and some of those guns will end up in irresponsible households like the one recently in Mesa, Arizona where a 7-year-old kid took a gun to school. 

"You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere," is the statement of former NRA chief Ray Arnet.  And it is something they have done well for years working their membership of yahoos into a frenzy over any issue even slightly related to gun control.  The best recent example was when Barack Obama was elected President, the NRA told its members he would take away all their guns.  Thousands went out and bought more.


The $1 million Wayne LaPierre

Any intelligent individual can see this lobbying effort is designed for two reasons.  One, to encourage more gun sales for their high contributing gun manufacturers, and two, to support the NRA’s annual budget of over $200 million.  A pathetic membership provides people like its Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre “lavish benefits,” as the Democratic Underground puts it, with $1,000,000 in yearly salary and benefits.

The Christian Science Monitor lists six key reasons crime is down and not one of them mentions having more guns on the street.  They are:

1.    More incarceration of criminals meaning fewer are on the street.
2.    Better policing through being more proactive through surveillance.
3.    Social programs working with community groups to keep youths engaged.
4.    Simple demographics of a smaller population of the young people who commit more crime.
5.    Unemployment benefits through more government support that reduces stress-related crimes.
6.    Fewer opportunities with unemployment high and more people at home to protect their property.



But there is still the tragedy of more officers dying and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund says 2011 could be the first year in ten years that more officers have died from gunshot wounds than from traffic accidents.  I say that is due entirely to loose gun laws and the fact that guns are everywhere in this country.  And in Arizona, hardly a day goes by that someone is not shot and in many cases killed.  This state has the loosest weapons laws in the nation.

The NRA will never change its methods or philosophy on gun rights, and advocates like myself will never change when it comes to our viewpoint on sane gun control.  Should the 2012 elections provide some relief from the oppression of the conservative right, in particular the Tea Party, and we see changes to a more progressive Supreme Court, it will be time to challenge the 2nd Amendment to define just what the specificity is of the term, “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Visit the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence here.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Obama up with Hispanics, down with youth

It was both the youth vote and Latinos that helped get President Barack Obama elected in 2008.  One is still hanging in there and the other has real reservations over what he has done for them.  Even though Hispanics are concerned that the President hasn’t done enough for their people, they still support him.  Considering the way the GOP looks down on this group, that’s a wise choice.  The younger vote is something else, and unless Obama puts them back to work soon, they may just skip the elections.

Only 55.3 percent of Americans age 16 to 29 have jobs.  According to Brad Chase, Barack Obama missed the boat on two issues.  Rather than create jobs for the young unemployed, he talked about it in community forums.  Rather then really providing a bailout on the huge burden of college loans, he only reduced rates by a pathetic 0.5 percent.  This has led to an approval rate by the 18 to 29 age group of less than 50 percent.

But the Prez just may have his sights on the burgeoning Latino voting population to carry him through in 2012.  Combining this with running against a Republican Congress that has done everything they can to defeat anything he proposes, but has done nothing of their own in the last three years may be a winning combination.  At the end of the year, Hispanics favored the President over GOP front-runner Mitt Romney by a margin of over 2 to 1.



According to a Pew survey, two-thirds of Latino registered voters supported Democrats where only 20 percent were for Republicans.  However, Obama’s deportations are an issue where 77 percent who knew of this disapproved of the administration’s policy.  But in a recent proposed change in migrant policy where immigrants closely related to U.S. Citizens would not have to leave the country to apply for legal status, the President got their attention again.

There is a group up for grabs, the Millenials, in their early 20s, and Brad Chase says they have a short memory, but they have experienced hard times in Obama’s last three years.  They aren’t yet leaning to the right, but neither are they enthused with the left.  They are currently in the middle, and The Center for the Study of the American Electorate says they can be had by a candidate that focuses on answers to their issues.

Chase says the President or a presidential candidate might do or talk about doing three things for the youth vote.  First, create a limited student debt forgiveness program for those over $30,000.  Second, Place control on “Predatory lender/services” where servicers like American Education Services (AES) resort to bullying tactics with parents.  Third, allow the discharge of a student loan in bankruptcy.

With two-thirds of registered Hispanic voters favoring the Democratic Party, there is good reason to believe this could translate into more Democrats elected to the U.S. Senate and House, as well as state legislatures.  This will be more prominent in border-states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that have hefty Latino populations.  Once this trend gets rolling it will be hard to stop considering the boom in the growth of Hispanics throughout the U.S.

One thing is certain, with a 9 percent favor rating of Congress, which is primarily focused on the GOP, and early signs that these yahoos aren’t about to change their tactics—specifically because the Tea Party won’t let them—progressives in the next few months leading up to November must emphasize this to the public.  If we, starting with President Obama, don’t take full advantage of this golden opportunity, it will be a loss that goes down in history.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

More…gun sense and nonsense

TSA gun inspection
Here’s the latest.  The gun freaks now want to be able to extend their concealed right-to-carry privileges to airplanes.  J.D. Schechter from, where else but gun-totin’ Arizona, who runs the Arizona Citizens Defense League, says some of his readers think, because of the relaxing of guns laws in many states, this could become a reality. 

Just what we need.  Some yahoo from Arizona where anyone can own a gun and who probably has absolutely no training in firearms, to protect us on an airplane.  I’ll take the train.  Some lame brain gun owners still continue to end up at the airport daily with guns packed in carry-ons that they claim they forgot were there.  In the week before Christmas, the T.S.A. discovered 31 guns with rounds actually in the chamber.  National Rifle Assn. (NRA) education at its best.



And what happened to the uproar over improved gun control following the shooting of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords.  The one year anniversary was last Sunday and immediately following the incident a year ago President Obama sounded as if he might be willing to move forward on the issue.  We also have heard nothing from Giffords herself. 

Jared Loughner
Jared Loughner, the shooter in the Tucson massacre has been judged mentally ill by many and at least we should be addressing that part of the problem.  But over one year later only a small number of states pass along records of those judged to be mentally ill.  Loughner killed six in Tucson, and another mentally unbalanced gunman Seung Hui Cho killed 32 at Virginia Tech U. in 2007.  Why doesn’t the NRA, which supports reporting, lobby for more state participation?

But there is definitely a wave in this country toward looser weapons laws, and gun control advocates like me are fast becoming the minority.  It makes sense that the more guns that are available, the more likely they are to get in the hands of the Loughners and Chos.  Having a gun in the home as a means of protection for an emergency is one thing, but some rube walking around on the streets with a gun in his pocket with no training or background check is preposterous.

If you think these relaxed gun laws is what has reduced violence across the U.S., think again.  Although it isn’t completely clear, the experts say it is due in part to higher rates of incarceration, and a decrease in the number of teenagers who commit a disproportionate share of offenses.  In New York City, as an example, their gun laws have not changed and there are still problems such as oppressive poverty, but murders have declined to 1950’s levels.


Old West cowboy

No matter how you view the loose weapons issue, Arizona is the leader in making guns available to anyone who wants them.  During a very somber period this past Sunday when a vigil was being held in Tucson for those killed in the Arizona shooting, the Tucson Gun Show decided to hold its annual event at the Pima County Fairgrounds.  This can only be described as tasteless beyond reasoning, devised by a bunch of double-digit IQs that have absolutely no feelings for the six dead.  Next, same state, the Republican legislature has renewed its push for legalizing guns on campus.

If there is anything I learn from all this show of masculinity it is that these gun wackos have to pack heat to feel like a man.  It’s an attempt to revive the days of Wyatt Earp when every cowboy carried a gun.  The big difference is in those days they knew how to use them.

Monday, January 9, 2012

ALERT: Senior citizens must support Medicare doctors in pay reductions

The time has passed when you consider becoming a doctor and all your friends assume right away you will be making tons of money.  I am not sure that was ever the real case, although there were a lot of docs driving around in Mercedes automobiles, and the general agreement was that specialist doctors were the ones who made the real money.  According to CNN Money, many docs today are just trying to survive, many hiding the fact they are about to go bankrupt.

This includes casualties from all fields including cardiologists, oncologists and the family physician.  To keep Medicare financially able, federal law says that annual reimbursement rates to doctors be reduced annually based on a formula that is connected to the health of the economy.  And even though Congress has blocked these cuts for ten years, the possibility still hangs over the heads of the docs creating an uncertain financial future for them.  The current cut is 27.4%.

Our family has witnessed this concern with every doctor who treats us and I was able to actually interview one recently on just where she stands on the issue.  I had heard her comments before about how little Medicare paid her for office visits, medical procedures and surgery.  Having seen the reports of payments, I agree.  But she really unloaded when asked about the current 27.4% cut.  She led with “many people think doctors are rich, but most are fighting the same battle as middle-class Americans.”

But she really got serious when reacting to the reduction, above, saying that most docs would have to drop Medicare patients if there is a reduction in payments of any percentage.  Her assessment was that special clinics would have to be set up for these folks for them to receive care.  And wouldn’t that cost taxpayers more than straightening out the Medicare and Medicaid entitlements?  Her judgment was that with a reduction of any amount would mean that it would cost most doctors to treat Medicare patients.

There are 45 million Medicare beneficiaries and that figure is certain to grow measurably in the future.  The aging population is most prominent in the rural areas, and those are the places that can least afford to lose their docs.  Since rural areas tend to be more conservative, and the conservative right has tried already to meddle in Medicare, even reduce benefits, these people had better rethink their politics if they want to keep their physicians.



Dr, Robert Wergin, a family physician in Nebraska, says that based on what Congress might do, he might be forced “to pick up his business and move to a community with a smaller Medicare population.”  Some doctors have as many as 80 percent of their patients on Medicare.  One group of family physicians did a survey and found that 62 percent of their members would drop their Medicare patients if any cuts are made.  Some docs are even considering leaving medicine. 

Deborah Chollet, senior fellow and health economist at Mathematica Policy Research comments that this standoff between doctors and Washington could go on for years.


Today's Senior Citizens

There are 34.1 million Americans age 55 to 64, that will be collecting Medicare in the not-too-distant future.  There is another 45.1 million from 45 to 54 that are on Medicare’s horizon.  There were 60.6 million beneficiaries of Social Security as of November of 2011.  The U.S. must decide soon just how far we want to go in paying entitlements like these programs, and more important, how we plan to pay for them. 

Several ideas have been spun by both progressives and conservatives, neither of which will probably address the issue in an election year.  I like the one that changes the payment structure upward for the wealthy along with that elusive tax increase on the rich. 

Senior citizens should contact their congressional representatives now to let them know how you feel.  House of Representatives here; Senate here.

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...