Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Cruising the Web

Jack Shafer at Slate takes apart Al Gore's rant in Rolling Stone and demonstrates how weak Gore is at persuasive writing.

A statistical analysis demonstrates that going for the National Popular Vote approach to getting around the Electoral College would mean that most states would lose political power under NPV. They have a lower percentage of the national popular vote than they do of the Electoral College vote. State legislators would have to explain to their constituents why they would sacrifice their state's influence in order to get around the Electoral College.

Who would think that there are such distinctive ways to fill in bubbles that people could be identified around half the time from anonymous bubble forms?

Senator Cornyn informs us of the federal law that Obama is violating by refusing to put forth a plan to save Medicare.

Is calling someone a dirtbag
libel or defamation or just a statement of opinion?

Here is an intriguing experiment
: open up college savings account for middle school students at KIPP charter schools, match contributions and see if this makes more likely these students graduate from college.

The National Journal sees clues that Obama's political advisers are getting nervous.

Obama may be stalling the debt-ceiling negotiations in hopes that the bond markets will panic in mid-July and the resulting fall in the stock market would pressure the Republicans to give in to the Democrats' demands to raise taxes. There's a tactic for you: drive the stock market down in order to gain increased taxes. It's only by depending on a pliant media that the Democrats can hope to get away with such a plan.

A Democratic congresswoman, Laura Richardson of California, is accused of threatening her staffers that they must work on her campaign or lose their jobs. That's illegal, by the way.

Michael Barone writes that the liberals on the Supreme Court would like to run private business as if it were the civil service. And that would be a nightmare.

Thomas Sowell reminds us that disdain for the Constitution has been part of the leftist game plan since the Progressive era.

1 comment:

toto said...

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.