Yesterday I penned an extremely long and complicated column about the Electoral College in an effort to capsulate the following:
A) Hilary won seven states in the Primary that the Democrats won in 2004.
B) Obama won seven states in the Primary that the Democrats won in 2004.
C) Hilary won 121 electoral votes, Obama won 52.
D) If you were a Super-Delegate what would you do?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Doing the math is one of our favorite occupations here at The New Narrative and this week we think that the math puts the lie to the mainstream media's belief that Obama will win the Democratic nomination and further that he will be the next President. We were correct in our prediction that neither Hilary nor Obama would have enough votes to win the nomination by the end of the primary season, so we should be taken seriously on this as well. Obviously the mainstreamers want to pick the President because, like the Democratic super delegates who do not completely trust the elected delegates, the mainstream media does not trust the voters to make the right choice. So they have put forth statements based on polls that they designed. For example, Hilary dominates among lower class, uneducated women voters, while Obama is the choice of the well-educated, more intelligent voters. Which would you rather be? There are also other implied attitudes. If you are a white voter and do not want to vote for Obama, it's possible that you may a have a reason that is not racist, but it’s not very likely. There have been many obvious attempts at making your mind up for you through the use of polls, surveys, etc, and The New Narrative has been talking about them for months. Our readers, at least, have an idea of who is trying to pull what strings in the upcoming election. As the Democratic nomination battle nears the end of the Primary contests and the rules committee takes on the issue of seating the Michigan and Florida delegations, the New Narrative has been looking at the Electoral Vote contest that will decide who will be President on Inauguration Day in 2009. There are 536 votes in the Electoral College and 270 are required to win the Presidency. The November election is a winner take all contest in most states. If the Democrats have more votes in a state they get all the Electoral votes of that state. The same is true for Republicans. There are one or two proportional representation states, which have so far proved to be inconsequential. We decided to look at the results of the Democratic Primary in Electoral College terms. Before we start take note our results do no reflect the South Dakota and Montana primary contests, the Florida and Michigan situation and the Texas Primary, which is confusing because it counts both voting and caucuses in a weighted manner. Obama has won 29 Primary contests including the District of Columbia. Hilary has won 17. If they won the same states in the general election Hilary would have 230 electoral votes and Obama would have 227. More importantly, if you look at the vote count of states the Democrats won in the 2004 Presidential race you will see that Hilary would have 121 electoral votes compared to Obama’s 52. In the all-important battle-ground states, which the Republicans and Democrats split with 76 electoral votes each; neither candidate gets enough electoral votes to win. Continuing this analysis we discover that although Obama has won 29 states in the primary, only 12 of those states went Democrat in the general election providing a paltry 52 electoral votes. The remaining 175 electoral votes went to George W. Bush. In Hilary’s case the Democrats won 7 of the 17 states she won in the general election, but they were high-value electoral states like California (55), New York (31), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), New Jersey (15) and Massachusetts (12). Her seven victories provide 121 electoral votes in all. The other 109 went to George W. Bush. The New Narrative cannot be the only analysts looking at these numbers. If the map of the battle ground states remains the same, and there is no reason to expect it to change dramatically, and Texas, Florida, Michigan, South Dakota and Montana vote as they did on 2004, its very hard to see how Obama can win the electoral college vote nationally, whereas a contest that features Hilary as the candidate has a greater potential for a Democratic win. Either way the Democrats must hold all the states they won in 2004, plus pick up a combination of states that includes Florida, Ohio or Virginia, noting that some analysts are saying Pennsylvania will be in play for the Republicans in the upcoming election. If the Democrats hold they will have 249 votes, not counting Michigan (17), which they carried in 2004. If the Republicans hold they will have 245, not counting Florida (27). So almost any way you slice this pie the election will be close and the traditional battle ground states will make the difference. The question for the Democrats is which candidate is likely to do best in the Electoral College contest? Hilary has won all the big Democratic electoral prizes (New York-31, and California-55), with the exception of Illinois (21). In 2004, the Republicans won the Electoral College contest 286 to 252. Does choosing Obama put any state that went Democrat in 2004 at risk? If so Hilary will have to be the Democratic choice for 2008.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The U.S. Senate called in Oil Executives yesterday (May 21) to grill them on high oil prices, as well as embarrass and humiliate them as much as possible. The irony of course is that it should be the other way around. The oil executives should be grilling the Senators about why they choose to prevent oil exploration and production on 97% of available federal property? Why haven't they reined the regulation happy Departments of Environmental Protection and Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service? Why haven't they acted against states that pursue policies that are contrary to the national interest? How can you (the Senators) accuse oil companies that make between 5 and 10 cents a gallon of being profit hungry, while the U.S. government, through tax laws created by the House and Senate makes 60 cents a gallon? Senator Dick Durbin's bellicose attack on the oil industry, which he has tried to cripple his entire career, should have been directed at the Senate , the House and the President. It is our Congress that makes the laws that have driven up the price of gas. Their common loathing for oil, coal and nuclear power is not in the interest of the country or the people. If, as is sometimes charged, the oil companies run the country, why haven't they been able to explore, drill and exploit our own oil reserves? Fact is, they don't run the country or control the Congress. The President of Shell Oil made $12 to 15 million last year. Senator Durbin wanted to know if he felt bad because people were paying so much for gas. It made me wonder if Durbin wanted to call in Tiger Woods to find out if he felt bad that his $20-million dollar endorsement with Nike was driving up the price of Nike products. After all you could fill up twice for the price of pair of cheap Nike’s. Maybe he should call in the starting lineup of the New York Yankees or the LA Lakers. Maybe he should call in Dale Earnhardt, Jr or Jeff Gordon and find out if they feel bad about how much gas is used in car races around the country? The oil company executives all seemed to make $10-15 million a year. They run giant companies, provide jobs for millions of people, take tremendous risks and provide one of the most valuable commodities in the world. Tiger Woods plays golf. Dale and Jeff drive race cars. The Yankees play baseball and the Lakers play basketball. They all make more money than the oil executives called in by the Senate, and yet these athletes would all being doing something else if there was no oil. There would be no graphite for club shafts that help Woods hit a golf ball, which also wouldn’t exist without oil, 300 yards off the tee. There would be no fiberglass for race cars or plastic for batting helmets. There would no nylon for uniforms or Plexiglas for backboards. The list of things we would not have without oil is an index of living in what we often call the modern world. And contrary to what many people think our wealth does not make people in other countries poor. In many of the world’s poorest countries life is ruled from the end of a gun barrel. Those with biggest guns make the rules. Fortunately our Founding Fathers knew this and provided us with a set of laws to protect us against the tyranny of government and permit us to resolve our differences over a table instead of a gun barrel. The policy decisions made by our own government are what have driven up the price gas far more than any demand by China and India. The knowledge that Congress will continue to support policies that prevent exploration and drilling, will only encourage the oil-producing nations to tighten the noose. High prices in America subsidize the price of gas in these nations. In case you haven’t checked lately, gas prices are lower in North Africa, the Middle East and Iran, as well as in Venezuela. If the Congress fails to permit drilling it is turning its back on the American People and spitting on the very Constitution it is sworn to uphold.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Americans loves conspiracies. We love them so much that on any given day you can find a conspiracy to support almost any theory. So given the high price of gas and oil consider the following. The major oil producers in Mexico, South America, Canada, The Middle East and Russia all provide financial support to America's environmental movement, which works in conjunction with our Congress to develop regulations that make oil exploration and production impossible. They know that by keeping us out of the game the price of oil will continue to rise. They pay the environmentalist's because it helps them get richer, and the environmental groups keep the pressure on the Congress at the expense of the American people. Look at the evidence to support this theory. Despite our own financial survival we no longer explore for oil in our own country or just off our borders. We no longer build petroleum refineries, nuclear power plants or take any action to relieve the world-wide oil shortage by providing more oil, natural gas or atomic energy. It is no great secret that in a world that is continually modernizing that the demand for oil will continue to increase for several more decades. We all hope that the magic bullet of pollution-free power will emerge, but until it does, or if it doesn't, do we want the price of oil to continue to rise. Obviously there are forces at work to make sure America is not part of the solution. Our government, both federal and state, has worked for more than two decades to make us totally dependent on foreign oil and now they expect us to believe they want to make us independent by talking about pollution free power. We rely on this hope of pollution free power, as espoused by environmental groups, at five times the price of oil and a lot less efficient. We would, it seems, rather cover a state in high-priced wind turbines that will take hundreds of years to pay for themselves rather than build a 25-acre nuclear power plant that will provide more energy at a cheaper cost. It seems our government is intent on helping the world become poorer by not exploiting the oil resources in our own country. And all the while the oil-producing countries, the market speculators and the environmental movement are laughing all the way to the bank. As I noted in a previous column, if America's industrial might was permitted to solve this problem the oil-producers that pay the environmentalists to keep us out of the game would be running for cover and the price of gas would drop like a stone.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ain't it funny how the polls that local judges keep open during elections and primaries are always minority voting districts? For example in the Indiana primary contest between Hilary and Obama a local judge ruled that Lake County, which includes the predominantly Afro-American city of Gary was permitted to keep their polls open an extra hour, which probably translated into two hours, for voting due to a self-reported shortage of ballots. The mayor of the fair city of Gary predicted an upset for Obama, which did not happen, but it does make you ask. How could a Mayor of a single city predict a statewide victory for a candidate running double-digits behind the opposition? It’s easy. It's called voter fraud. He thought he knew how many votes Obama would need to win and produced them. For some reason in black voting precincts the number of people who vote in the primary is always double the national average of other voting classes. For example in most primary voting twenty percent is considered a high turnout, but in many black areas turnout is always 35 or 40 percent and nobody ever asks why blacks, who constantly complain about being disenfranchised always seem to have a high percentage of their people voting in the primaries, who never show up in the regular election. Similar incidents have taken place in other cities in previous elections. East St. Louis in 2004 comes to mind. In almost all cases they are local judges keeping polls open for an extra hour or two in black voting districts for a variety of reasons and miraculously the Democratic candidate has almost always pulled it out. Of course Democratic cheating did not work in 2000 or 2004, and it didn't work yesterday. You wouldn’t think that the Democrats would try to cheat one of their own, but the close vote in Gary, which almost turned the Indiana primary into a victory for Barack Obama, would have been a death blow for Hilary. This incident proves the party’s true loathing of the Clintons and how much they are looking forward to bidding them farewell. This translates into great news for the Republicans who are likely to win, even with the inferior John McCain, if Obama is the nominee. The Clinton’s already know it, the Democratic Party may find out too late.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
"It's a Democratic year." "All the trends point to a Democratic victory in November." That's what Democratic supporters in general, and those pundits who are in the tank for the Democrats keep saying. It's as if they keep saying it, it will become true. They must believe that if they say it everyday as if it were a fact people will vote Democrat as a fait accompli and never even question the idea. Obviously they think very little of the electorate and quite a lot about public relations and advertising. There is some sort of axiom about this principle, but I can’t remember what it is exactly. Something like if you keep repeating an idea often enough people will start to believe it even if it’s not true. For example, many people are convinced that Carbon Dioxide is a dangerous gas that leads to global warming. Wrong: carbon dioxide is a gas that is produced by living things and is used in the process of photosynthesis to create oxygen. In a zero-sum game the reduction of carbon dioxide is directly related to a reduction in the oxygen supply, which means that taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a sure-fire way to destroy life on this planet. There are many people who have forgotten their sixth grade science and believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant because a Federal judge said so. They believe the falsehoods put forth by the environmentalists because they think that environmentalists care. The real goal of the environmental movement is not to save the environment, but to cripple the development of western nations and keep developing nations in the grip of poverty. If you examine the policy pronouncements of these groups, and there are many, you will find this common goal. Stop believing what is being repeated over and over again as true and do some research on your own. Question the status quo.
Friday, May 2, 2008
I have a few words for supporters of “sanctuary” cites. You have obviously not learned the lesson of 2007. Americans support legal immigration and do not support illegal immigration. What is it about the words legal and illegal that you don’t understand? Yesterday, on the Bill O'Reilly Show, Hilary Clinton said she is for comprehensive immigration reform, which, in her view, includes permitting the estimated 12 million illegal foreigners in the country to become citizens. What about the 5 million who are in the process of becoming citizens the legal way? Is it fair for them to be passed over so Congress can bury its inability to control the borders by making all of our illegal aliens legal? That’s nice work if you can get it. If an engineer designed a bridge that way he’d go to jail after it collapsed. We also know that McCain and Obama both support the illegal alien forgiveness movement. McCain tries to talk a good game, but those who have watched him for a while know that he will never give up his effort to be adored by his political enemies at the expense of members of his own party. He wishes to punish his Republican colleagues’ for their failure to realize his personal greatness. He has been doing it since 2000 and has joined the Democrats in deriding the President and his policies. McCain would despise any man who treated him the way he treated George W. Bush. His support for illegal alien forgiveness is to help the Democrats assure that Republicans continue to lose seats in the House and Senate and make sure that any Republican Presidential candidate is as liberal, if not more so, than any Democrat, or that a conservative Republican nominee never wins the Presidency again. Obama just supports illegal immigration because he is a man of “color” in the midst of brie and Chablis.
I got a few words for politicians who won't let American ingenuity drive down the price of gas. A few well-placed oils fields, some atomic energy and the Arabs, the Hispanics and the Gringos will be running for shelter as the price of gas at the pump comes tumbling down. New York's own Nanny Bloomberg said today that a moratorium on gas taxes was ridiculous because "we" want to penalize people for driving, not encourage them. Not a single Presidential candidate would ever state it quite as bluntly as that, but that is what they believe. If they didn’t why would they oppose drilling for oil, permitting nuclear construction and clean coal research? They know that oil will be the dominant fuel for at least 30 more years, so why ask Americans to pay an unfair price for oil. If the Congress in conjunction with local Governments streamlined the process for authorization America’s industrialists would have the world’s oil barons on the run in five years. Just as an aside. Have any of your friends told you they are canceling their vacations, their master suite and kitchen makeovers, new car purchases, computers, cell phones, new clothes, flat-screen TVs, gourmet barbeque grill, this year’s Beaujolais. I didn’t think so. Me either. I hear a lot of people repeating what they hear on the news, while money is flying out of their bank accounts like bats out of a cave after a lightning strike.