[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Presidential

Dollars Per Vote in the Presidential Election

David Boaz

There’s been a lot of talk about the high cost of the 2012 election, with both major candidates spending more than a billion of dollars once affiliated groups are included. Some people find that too much. Others point out that Americans spend that much every year on potato chips, and surely deciding who will lead the United States government is at least that important.

And of course the bigger amounts are government spending. When politicians vote to give money to students, the elderly, farmers, automobile companies, defense contractors, and other voting blocs, political considerations are certainly part of the decision-making process. When Republicans vote for $60 billion in “Hurricane Sandy recovery aid,” including money for Alaskan fisheries and activist groups, aren’t they buying votes? 

But for the moment, let’s take a look at how much the candidates did spend, and how much they got for it. I’ve added Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson to the usual Obama-Romney comparison to get some perspective.

 

The vote totals are from Wikipedia. Spending figures for the Democratic and Republican candidates and for Johnson are from OpenSecrets.org. 

So the first thing we notice is that Obama and Romney spent respectively $10 and $7 per vote, while Johnson spent less than $2. But party and outside groups roughly doubled spending for the major candidates. More money was spent on behalf of Romney, but presumably money spent by groups other than the official campaign is less efficient, so that their total expenditures were effectively similar. And we can only wonder how much of “the libertarian vote” a Libertarian Party candidate might pick up if he had enough money to be heard.

 

 

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

American • What happens if there is no clear US presidential election

What happens if there is no clear US presidential election result?
03 November 2012

It happened as recently as 2000. Then a series of irregularities in Florida delayed the election of President Bush that only came after an intervention by the Supreme Court. Next Tuesday another incumbent president is is a very close race, might the same thing not happen again?

We can even imagine why. Superstorm Sandy has caused widespread disruption in the US East Coast and even the New York Marathon has been cancelled. Can an election really be held in these circumstances without the possibility of ballot issues arising?

Dead heat?

The polls have showed a dead heat but we know that there can only be one president of the United States, so who will it be and when will that happen? Uncertainty over who is to run the most powerful nation in the world would be very bad for financial markets that always have to discount the worst until they know better.

Besides there is another particular reason to fear such instability at this juncture: the so-called US ‘fiscal cliff’ of automatic tax increases and expenditure cuts on January 1st. The general assumption has always been that a newly endorsed president and Congress would be able to stop this process, what if it goes ahead?

That is the statute at the moment, and if the political system is stuck in an impasse that is what will happen. Economists say it would mean a return to recesssion and up to four per cent off US GDP. Then again there are reasons why this has been enacted: balancing the budget is not such a strange idea.

Major crash?

However, without a clear result in the US presidential election next week financial markets will visit a place that they really would rather not go. How low could they go? You never can tell when fear and greed come fully into play.

Markets are close to four year highs, and arguably the higher you go the harder you fall. An across-the-board sell-off would bring the price of just about every asset class tumbling down and trigger a panic to get out at any price.

This is the financial market counterpoint to the superstorm that hit New York last week and could be every bit as scary. Let us hope democracy can deliver its verdict without this unexpected consequence next week.

http://www.arabianmoney.net/gold-silver … on-result/

Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:49 pm


View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com

How Not to Fact Check a Presidential Debate

By Justin Logan

After last night’s debate, I watched the postgame on the Fox News Channel.

They had some problems with their fact checking.

They got off to a solid start, going through the back-and-forth on whether or not the Obama administration attempted to get a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq that would have exempted U.S. troops from being subject to Iraqi law and therefore left them in the country. Governor Romney was right on that one, and Fox called it for Romney.

Then Chris Wallace decided to “fact check” the repartee over Romney’s point that the U.S. Navy has fewer ships than it has had since 1917. Just as a refresher, here are the relevant bits:

ROMNEY: Our Navy is old — excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me.

I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy. Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947.

[…]

OBAMA: …I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works.

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities…

So how did Fox fact check this go round? Here’s what Chris Wallace said:

Well, as it turns out, in the middle of the debate, after he heard this, a Marine tweeted Fox News and said, “The Marines still use bayonets,” so it may not be clear who doesn’t really understand what the military currently uses.

I always thought Chris Wallace was a pretty sharp guy, but this makes me question that judgment. The point wasn’t that bayonets don’t exist anymore, or that they aren’t issued to Marines—they are. The point was that fighting wars is very different than was fighting wars in the early 20th century. Bayonets are not causes of mass death in combat as they were, say, right around 1916 (see photo). The point was that simply tallying the number of ships isn’t apples to apples because one American warship can do so much more today than one warship could back then.

The more precise point would be that we currently measure our navy in terms of tonnage. But don’t take it from me, take it from former Bush/Obama defense secretary Robert Gates:

As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners.

Wallace’s idea that what he was doing was somehow a “fact check” overlooks the point that there wasn’t a fact in dispute. There was an argument, slightly more complicated than a simple factual dispute. And Obama’s argument, that the nature of militaries and combat has changed dramatically—nuclear weapons, anyone?—since 1916 and that we measure combat power differently as a result, was clearly correct. Even trying to count the number of bayonets would have been a silly effort to miss the point.

It is disappointing in the extreme to see VP candidate Paul Ryan on television this morning in one breath seemingly understanding Obama’s point, then immediately claiming not to understand the point (“to compare modern American battleships and navy with bayonets, I just don’t understand the comparison…”)

Election 2012: Thank God it’s almost over.

How Not to Fact Check a Presidential Debate is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

Live Blog of the Third Presidential Debate

By Zachary Graves

Join us Monday, October 22nd at 8:45 PM ET for live commentary during the third and final presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The debate this time will focus on foreign policy, covering these topics:

  • America’s role in the world
  • Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
  • Red Lines – Israel and Iran
  • The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
  • The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
  • The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World

Tweet questions during the debate to the live blog participants below:

Follow the live blog directly on Twitter here. You can also join the conversation with the hashtag #Debate and by following @CatoInstitute and @CatoFP.

Live Blog of the Third Presidential Debate is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

Live Blog of the Second Presidential Debate

By Zachary Graves

Join us Tuesday, October 16th at 8:45 PM ET for live commentary during the second presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Tweet questions during the debate to the live blog participants below:

Follow the Twitter list of all live blog participants here. You can also join the conversation with the hashtag #Debate and by following @CatoInstitute.

Live Blog of the Second Presidential Debate is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

2012 Vice Presidential Debate Live Blog

By Zachary Graves

Join us Thursday, October 11th at 8:45 PM ET for live commentary during the debate between vice presidential candidates Paul Ryan and Joe Biden.

Tweet questions during the debate to the live blog participants below:

Follow the Twitter list of all live blog participants here. You can also join the conversation with the hashtag #VPDebate and by following @CatoInstitute and @CatoFP.

Click here for information on how to watch the debate online.

2012 Vice Presidential Debate Live Blog is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

2012 Presidential Debate Live Blog

By Cato Editors

Join us Wednesday, October 3rd at 8:45 PM ET for live commentary during the first debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

Tweet questions during the debate to the live blog participants below:

You can also follow the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #DebateDenver and by following @CatoInstitute.

Click here for information on how to watch the debate online.

@CatoInstitute and

2012 Presidential Debate Live Blog is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

American • All is not as it appears in presidential race

All is not as it appears in presidential race
Rick Moran

Jay Cost writing at the Weekly Standard points out some encouraging facts about where President Obama stands historically at this point in the election.
First, Obama is weaker than previous incumbents who went on to victory. When we are looking through history, the only poll we can really utilize is Gallup if we want an apples-to-apples comparison. For better or worse, Gallup is the only polling organization consistently doing polling of registered voters since 1952. Even media outlets that have been polling a long time have changed pollsters over the years, so Gallup is the only game in town when we are investigating history.
Through 2004 every incumbent who was above 50 percent at this point won, and every incumbent who was under 50 percent at this point lost. As of today, Obama is under 50 percent.
[...]
The second point to keep in mind is that, yes, we are late in the season, but so was the Democratic National Convention. This president still appears to be enjoying a post-convention bounce. If you look at many of the polls in most of the RCP averages – both national and state – their survey dates began within one week of Obama’s speech. If we figure that a bounce period lasts for two weeks, then no polls have been conducted outside the bounce period.
[...]
Third, Obama and Romney have basically been trading leads in the Gallup poll since May. The only postwar incumbent who did not pull away early in the registered voter poll and still won was George W. Bush, whose victory also happens to have been the narrowest margin for an incumbent since 1916. (Truman trailed in polls of national adults through the summer and fall of 1948.)
The bottom line: Historically speaking, this president is in weaker shape than any postwar incumbent who went on to victory, with the possible exception of Harry Truman; he is enjoying a convention bounce later in the cycle than any incumbent in the postwar era; and if he manages to win, it will probably be via a true squeaker, with plenty of twists and turns to come.
With 3 debates still to come and the real possibility of a foriegn crisis throwing conventional wisdom about this race out the window, prematurely celebrating Democrats and pundits might want to keep their powder dry lest they wind up with egg on their face on election day.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … z27D0npLtf

Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:28 am


View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com

Civil Liberties Have No Champion in Presidential Race

By Tim Lynch

Steve Chapman, writing in the Chicago Tribune:

Back in the early days of the Republic, the framers went to great trouble to draft and ratify the Bill of Rights. And every four years, our leaders pay homage to the framers by neglecting or disparaging that creation. …

When George W. Bush was president, Democrats often decried his habit of trampling on freedoms in his zeal to stamp out terrorism at any cost. Running in 2008, Barack Obama decried Bush’s aggressive use of presidential power in the name of national security.

But Democrats usually worry about civil liberties only when the other party is violating them. Obama is not always recognizable as the same person now that he is president. He has maintained the prison camp at Guantanamo, continued warrantless surveillance of Americans and carried out lethal drone attacks on U.S. citizens abroad without making public the evidence.

Read the whole thing. More from Cato Senior Fellow Nat Hentoff.

Civil Liberties Have No Champion in Presidential Race is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

Police State • Presidential race boils down to one issue

Presidential race boils down to one issue
Published: Sunday, August 19, 2012

THERE’S really only one issue in the 2012 presidential race; all the rest is trivia. That one issue is: Do you want to be in control of your life, or do you want government to control your life?

If you want to keep control over your life, then do not re-elect Barack Obama to a second term in the White House. Hold tight to your liberty.

If, however, you want your life defined, channeled and limited by Obama’s “we can’t wait” executive orders and the bureaucratic rules of government agencies, then Obama is your guy. But if he is re-elected, by the end of his second term in 2016, you won’t be living in the United States anymore. At least not the United States that gave your grandparents, parents and you the liberty to rise to the level of your dreams and talents.

The America of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” is one where if you’re successful, “you didn’t build that” success, and you are wrong if you want to keep your hard-earned income for your family and donate it to charitable causes as you see fit.

Obama’s America will be a place where other people who are less talented or less hard-working will have a government-backed claim on your income in this new era of “redistribution of wealth.”

This government will know how to spend your money better than you do, so more and more of your income will be taken from you in taxes, or penalties, or whatever they call it. Just don’t call it yours. It’s your job to feed the ever-growing government with your money, so that the bureaucrats and the politicians can spread it to whomever they see fit, however they decide, because, of course, they know better than you.

This won’t all happen overnight. Slow and steady is the preferred way of conducting their form of revolution. Each step will be cheered along as being perfectly reasonable, and the “American” thing to do. But one day you will suddenly realize that being American isn’t what it used to be back in 2012, and there’s no path back to home.

Being “American” will have become pretty much an unappealing gray, mush of mediocrity and few choices.

The Obama-like mindset that puts the state over the individual in an attempt to perfect society is a pernicious sickness that leads to the death of such societies: witness, the Soviet Union, which died 20 years ago, after three quarters of a century of oppressing and murdering its own population in the name of the state.

During that same period of world history, the United States of America grew strong and took its place at the head of the free world. America’s rise to superpower was fueled by men and families of vision, with the freedom to transform their dreams into reality, unhindered by suffocating, and punishing government regulations and red tape. It was a place where ordinary hard-working people could earn a paycheck, keep most of it to use as they saw fit, and give their children an even better standard of living.
That’s the America that Obama has vowed to “fundamentally transform” — and that’s the heart of this 2012 election.

Obama never said what he meant by “transform” in 2008, and now in 2012 it’s clear from his record that by “transform” he means “destroy.”

Destroy by ramping up the national debt to economy crushing proportions. Destroy by killing Americans’ ability to grow a business, buy a home, educate a family, save for a good retirement.

Destroy by sidelining Congress and dictating economically stifling environmental regulations and other business-choking rules. The longtime landmark electric power plant on Lake Erie’s shore in Avon Lake is to be shut down because Obama regulations make it a losing proposition to operate.

Destroy by infecting the world’s best medical system with ruinously expensive Obamacare. It will drive doctors out of practice while dumping millions of additional people into a system of Byzantine complexity without accountability. It will fail massively in its original goal of providing health care to all.

Destroy by abusing the Constitution to dictate by presidential executive orders and by executive agency rules: think of the order halting deportation of illegal aliens who arrived as children; think of the contraception coverage mandate violating religious rights issued by Obama appointee and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Destroy by slashing our military budget and leaving us with a dangerously weakened national security capability. History shows that evil leaders among the world’s nations are emboldened when they sense weakness. Obama aims to please Russian dictator Vladimir Putin with his “flexibility” after he is re-elected. Putin’s courts just threw a three-girl punk rock band into prison for two years for a brief protest against Putin’s co-opting of the Russian Orthodox Church. In response, a third-string Washington flunky noted that the White House was “disappointed” by the prison sentences. Putin spits on Obama and on liberty, and he is emboldened.

Obama hoodwinked the nation in 2008, and he thinks he can do it again in 2012 by buying votes with government benefits and the lure of medical care. The more government owns your life, the more repressive it becomes; that’s a given that flows from human nature. Control, when left unchecked, is a one-way street to tighter and tighter control over your life.

That’s what the Nov. 6 election is all about: Do you want to be in control of your life, or do you want government to control your life?

Tom Skoch is editor of The Morning Journal and www.MorningJournal.com, where his Tell the Editor blog appears. He is on Twitter as MJ_Tom_Skoch and can be contacted by e-mail at tskoch@morningjournal.com.

http://morningjournal.com/articles/2012 … =fullstory

Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:17 am


View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com