Dozens of online polls seem to indicate Ron Paul as the candidate who would win the GOP nomination today. Contrary to this, major media outlets tell viewers the front runner is Herman Cain and make an occasional nod to Mitt Romney. With such disparate information, individuals may wonder if there is a way to tell with 100 percent accuracy who would win.
Most information seems to indicate the winner as of today would be Herman Cain. The fact that Ron Paul performs exceedingly well in online polling may be due to self-selection bias in poll sampling. The bulk of Ron Paul supporters are very active online, while Cain supporters are less so. Cain performs very close to Paul in most online polling attempts, and carries greater weight in polls for registered Republicans via telephone. The online polls showing Paul in the lead include statistics from those who will vote in the Republican primaries as well as many who may not.
It is important to note that statistics fluctuate daily, and both Cain and Romney have seen quite a falling off in recent weeks. As both Cain and Paul gather additional endorsements, the race is shaping up to be between the two. The “Black This Out” campaign effort by Ron Paul has gained great momentum among people of all backgrounds. If those people get out to vote, they may provide an unexpected tipping point in the primary elections.
Although it is impossible to state with 100 percent accuracy who the GOP nominee would be if the votes were tallied today, all polling efforts indicate it would be Cain or Paul. Which candidate you go with seems to be up to personal view point and whether you get your polling information online or through nightly news from any of the major outlets.
Posted by Derrick on November 1st, 2011 :: Filed under
PoliticsTags ::
gop nomination,
gop nominee,
occasional nod,
republican primaries
The number of voters registering independent seems to rise every year. Many people wonder, why are so many voters ‘independent’? Possible reasons given in the past for independent voters are apathy or rebellion. Opinions were that young voters simply did not care enough about politics to commit to a party, or they were too rebellious to allow a party to claim them.
The truth is people are not registering independent out of a sense of apathy these days. Many independents are far from apathetic about the state of our country and politics. Many of the most outspoken voters consider themselves to be independent or libertarian. They are rebelling against the two parties, not for the sake of rebellion alone but because they feel they have been wronged.
Voters no longer feel their governments are representing them. Political leaders are caught up in battles over things that the public does not believe government should be involved with. When the leaders take on a topic or problem that does have public approval, they tend to warp it into something unrecognizable. Polls clearly show how the American people feel about a number of items, from health care to the economy. Yet, each time Congress passes a bill, it seems to be far and away from public desires.
People are tired of politicians playing games with each other, and feel that many politicians have forgotten where their power really comes from. The people are turning to independent status as a way of separating themselves from parties that no longer represent them. The performance of formerly independent candidate Ron Paul in recent GOP polling shows that the American people are tired of the same old politics. It may be possible that more third-party candidates are going to make it in to public office in the next few years.
Posted by Derrick on October 25th, 2011 :: Filed under
PoliticsTags ::
Apathy,
independent,
independent status,
public desires,
state,
third party candidates,
time congress,
truth
What do the protesters on Wall Street want? The movement that started a little over a month ago with a few dozen participants has now grown to thousands in New York City, across the country and even in a number of countries around the world. Critics that oppose the protest are quick to point out that there is no unified message and that the group is quite disorganized.
The ever-increasing attention that the Wall Street protestors are receiving from the media as well as politicians, including the President makes it impossible to dismiss the mostly young crowd as a bunch of out-of-work, hooligans who have nothing better to do with their time than stir up trouble.
While it is true that the group does lack strong focus, they are starting to become more of a cohesive unit. Initially, when the protestors were interviewed, they gave a variety of responses when asked why they were camping out in the park just a few blocks from the heart of the financial district in lower Manhattan. There answers ranged from hating the war, not having a job and wanting the greedy Wall Street Bankers to go to jail for their greed. Some had even more unrelated causes such as saving the animals and advocating for organic food.
As the group enters its second month of protests, they are attracting more attention and also raising more money. According to one of the people in charge of the fund raising effort, the Wall Street Protestors have raised a little over $300,000 to date from both online contributors and on-site collections. They intend to vote democratically on how to best spend the money to further their efforts. Some of the suggestions include adding free wi-fi to the entire park so communications can be enhanced, buying food and other necessities for the growing crowd and possibly purchasing ads to enhance their name recognition.
Posted by Derrick on October 25th, 2011 :: Filed under
Finances,
PoliticsTags ::
cohesive unit,
dozen,
dozen participants,
food,
free wi fi,
lower manhattan,
park,
Protestors
Why Does Apple Have More Money Than the US Government?
For a period of time in late July 2011, specifically July 29 and 30, Apple Computers, makers of the iPod, iPhone, and almost anything else in the computer world that starts with ‘i’, had more cash on hand than the entire United States federal government. Several news operations reported on the morning of July 29 that Apple Computers had roughly $76.2 billion on hand, whereas the federal government only had $73.8 billion.
This happened because Congress was busy debating the raising of the debt ceiling, which became a massive political uproar at that time. The United States government at the time was authorized to run a debt of a maximum of $14.294 trillion dollars. At the time, they were running close to this limit, and so President Obama asked Congress to raise the limit.
This has been done many times since 1917, when Congress changed from directly authorizing all government payments to setting debt limits instead. It had last been done in February 2010 by the Democratic House and Senate. This time around, the Republicans in the House were not comfortable with the idea, and the inability of the two parties to come to an agreement almost led to the federal government being unable to pay its bills.
A bill was finally passed on August 2, the final day before the government defaulted on its bills. As the government was unable to borrow any more money until the debt ceiling was increased, their cash on hand steadily dropped to the point that on July 29 it had less cash on hand than Apple Computers. This fact was generally used at the time to compare Apple’s ability to grow and manage its financial operations to the governments in an unfavorable light, though on the other hand, the federal government has always run a debt – it ended the Revolutionary War with a $75 debt to various banks that lent it money to fight the war.
Posted by Derrick on October 25th, 2011 :: Filed under
Finances,
PoliticsTags ::
apple computers,
debt limits,
Government,
hand,
limit,
political uproar,
time,
united states federal government
Have Obamas policies really worked?
Determining the efficacy of a sitting president’s policies can be difficult. There are certainly policies put into place by the administration that may not pay off for years, while other plans have much quicker results. With elections around the corner, many U.S. citizens may find themselves wondering if Obama’s policy initiatives have actually worked. The answer to the question is complex, but can fairly easily be broken down. The President’s initiatives can be broken down into three easy categories: economic, social, and international. President Obama is not a failure in all three categories, but the current prognosis does not look good.
Obama’s initiatives have famously failed economically. The country remains in an economic free-fall despite the President’s efforts, and most of his initiatives have either failed or have been blocked in Congress. His social initiatives, meanwhile, have been more of a mixed bag: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was successfully repealed, but health care reform has become something of a political quagmire. His international efforts have been far more positive, with global opinion of the United States on the rise once more. In the end, it might best be said that Obama’s policies only truly work when they take place out of the country.
Only time will tell if the President’s policies have truly worked out. Some of them can be classified as failures, while others are successes. Like many presidents of the past, though, it seems that only time will allow for an accurate picture to be painted of his administration. As campaign season rounds the corner, it seems more and more likely that the President’s initiatives will fade to the background as he prepares to run for an unlikely second term. Regardless of the outcome, though, his legacy is best left for the future to decide.
Posted by Derrick on October 25th, 2011 :: Filed under
PoliticsTags ::
campaign season,
corner,
health care reform,
Obamas,
policy initiatives,
president,
social initiatives,
time
