Presidential Elections Archives

So I read Trump’s op-ed about the primary in Colorado.

Trump’s blunder in Colorado may have been a stroke of genius!

Reading his op-ed sure gives me the impression that he is trying to make lemonade out of lemons. Trump is very skillful, I might even say genius, at generating and then using his supporters’ emotions to overcome their logic.
Colorado changed their system from a binding straw poll to a caucus system way back in August (that is over 8 months  or 2/3 of a year before the delegates were chosen). Trump left this important information out of his op-ed. If this snuck up on Trump and his team, then he obviously doesn’t pick “the best people” to help him and he may not be ready to be El Presidente.
Colorado’s delegates were chosen by the 65,000 registered Republicans in a republican (representative) democracy. Each Republican from their neighborhood precinct caucus voted for a district captain and a number of precinct delegates proportionate to the number of Republicans in that district (precinct)There were no crossovers from the Demowitz like South Carolina. I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.
Next, the district (precinct) captain and the district(precinct) delegates selected from each precinct attended their county’s caucus or A.K.A. county assembly.
I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.
At the county assembly the precinct delegates voted to select each countydelegate to go to a congressional assembly and state assembly
Delegates to the Republican National Convention were then elected from both of those assemblies.
I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.
 If you wanted to be a delegate to the national convention, you had to fill out a form and email it to a state Republican official, noting whether you would be pledged to a particular presidential candidate or not.
I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.
In the lead-up to those assemblies, each delegate received communications about logistics. Since all campaigns had access to delegate emails, each delegate received communications from all the campaigns seeking their vote.
I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.
According to the national assembly delegates, the Cruz campaign was very organized with an easy-to-navigate interface that allowed delegates to quickly see who was on the Cruz slate for each assembly. The Trump campaign wasn’t so well organized, and they issued error-filled ballots that caused problems for the Trump supporters. I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.
Most interesting of all is the fact that BEFORE the state-wide delegates voted, the all the Republican candidates were scheduled to meet with the delegates. Trump arranged for local security, but then cancelled his appearance at the last minute. 
I did not see this fact in Mr. Trumps’ op-ed.
Being snubbed by the Donald left many of the Colorado delegates feeling like they were unimportant to Trump. 
Why would he do that, and what could be more pressing? Did his team drop the ball? No one but Trump can say for sure, however, the most logical hypothesis is that his internal polling suggested he was going to lose big, and in order to snatch victory from defeat, he used the same device as he did in Iowa, that is blame Cruz as a cheater. It worked before, and when you have a majority of low-information voters and seemingly unlimited press coverage to spread your spin, then why not?
I am sure this post, since it is not a pitch to emotion, is not going to sway emotion, but as Saint John said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 
I just hope there is still enough time for you to be free before we get a gold Air Force One and buyer’s remorse.

The presidential primary system is unfair to Trump (but in his favor)!

The presidential primary system is unfair to Trump?

Image result for colorado trump campaign

I hear Trumpsters, especially the Trumpster himself, lamenting about how the people of Colorado were cheated (but what they really mean, whether they admit it on not, is that Trump didn’t win there so it is unfair).
Trumpsters argue that the Republican presidential primary delegates should be given proportionally to the percentage of votes the candidate gets!
The people of Colorado should stand up and demand it!
I find it ironic that so-called Republicans (who derived their name exactly because we have a republican-style government where We the people elect representatives to make decisions for us about governmental function) want the presidential primary delegates to be awarded  proportionally to the percentage of votes a candidate gets!
They need to be careful what they wish for.
For example:
South Carolina: Trump 32.4% of the vote & 100% of the delegates.
Florida: Trump 45.7% of the vote & 100% of the delegates.
Arizona: Trump 45.9% of the vote & 100% of the delegates.
Illinois: Trump 38.8% of the vote & 78.3% of the delegates.
Missouri: Trump 40.8% of the vote & 71.2% of the delegates.
Alabama: Trump 43.4% of the vote & 72% of the delegates.
Northern Mariana Islands: Trump 72.8% of the vote & 100% of the delegates.
Tennessee: Trump 38.9% of the vote & 56.9% of the delegates.
Georgia: Trump 38.8% of the vote & 56.6% of the delegates.
Vermont: Trump 32.7% of the vote & 50% of the delegates.
Hawaii: Trump 42.4% of the vote & 57.9% of the delegates.
Mississippi: Trump 47.3% of the vote & 62.5% of the delegates.
New Hampshire: Trump 35.2% of the vote & 47.8% of the delegates.
U.S. Virgin Islands: Trump 6.4% of the vote & 16.7% of the delegates.
Idaho: Trump 28.1% of the vote & 37.5% of the delegates.
Arkansas: Trump 32.8% of the vote & 40% of the delegates.
Maine: Trump 32.6% of the vote & 39.1% of the delegates.

Michigan: Trump 36.5% of the vote & 42.4% of the delegates.

Alaska: Trump 33.6% of the vote & 39.3% of the delegates.
Texas: Trump 26.7% of the vote & 31% of the delegates.
Massachusetts: Trump 49.3% of the vote & 52.4% of the delegates.
Oklahoma: Trump 28.3% of the vote & 30.2% of the delegates.
Kentucky: Trump 35.9% of the vote & 37% of the delegates.
Nevada: Trump 45.7% of the vote & 46.7% of the delegates.
North Carolina: Trump 40.2% of the vote & 40.3% of the delegates.
Virginia: Trump 34.7% of the vote & 34.7% of the delegates.
Kansas: Trump 23.4% of the vote & 22.5% of the delegates.
Iowa: Trump 24.3% of the vote & 23.3% of the delegates.
Louisiana: Trump 41.4% of the vote & 39.1% of the delegates.
Puerto Rico:  Trump 13.1% of the vote & 0% of the delegates.
Washington DC: Trump 13.8% of the vote & 0% of the delegates.
Utah: Trump 14% of the vote & 0% of the delegates.
Wisconsin: Trump 35.1% of the vote & 14.3% of the delegates.
Ohio: Trump 35.6% of the vote & 0% of the delegates.
New York: Trump 60% of the vote & 95% of the delegates.
Do the Trumpsters know that more people voted for Cruz in Wisconsin than voted for Trump in New York, yet Trump was awarded 55 more delegates for his New York win than Cruz for his Wisconsin win?
In fact, in one New York district, Trump gleaned only 642 total votes yet was awarded 3 delegates!
So Trump has won a higher share of delegates than votes in unfair system!
How can you stand for this! 
Don’t believe the hype!

Marco Rubio for Prez? Part 2

If you watched the New Hampshire debates, then you saw the Obama-hugging Chris Christie tear into Marco Rubio for pointing out that Obama is purposely destroying the United States. Christie says Obama is not purposeful, just incompetent. Really?


Christie is a very gifted orator and statist, like Obama, but unlike Obama Christie plays for the Republican team.  Christie’s main difference with Obama is that instead of Obama being king, Christie wants to be the sovereign.

Christie as king


What Senator Rubio did not say, but certainly implied, is that Obama’s status as a first-term senator has not prevented him from achieving what he set out to achieve (the first steps in the destruction of the free-market system in the U.S. and abdication of the U.S. as a dominant player in the world). It is not hard to realize what Obama has done he has done on purpose.

Obama Greek Columns

Obama said in October of 2008, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What do you think Obama meant?


Obama’s actions have been deliberate and have caused considerable damage to our nation. Domestically, Obama has used regulation, taxation and executive order to botch health care, energy, education, economics and employment. Internationally, he has wrought destabilization, death and destruction to the world, and his victims have included Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and Europe (the list goes on).


In the debate, Rubio , also a first-term senator, argued that he could be equally effective, but in the opposite way. Rubio was absolutely correct. There is no doubt that he could be the savior our republic needs, and honestly pointing out what the Obamanation has done is sin qua non.

In contrast to Christie’s criticisms, Donald Trump dismisses Obama as a rank incompetent because he hasn’t enriched himself sufficiently. Trump doesn’t really have a problem with the Progressive plan “to fundamentally change the United States,” foreign policy notwithstanding. Trump believes that Obama’s real problem has been that he could have amassed much more money if he had more experience at using the government to enrich himself (a projection of the Donald’s avarice and modus vivendi).

Trump Florida

I have no doubt that Trump is highly proficient at gaming the system, and if he were the Prez, then he would have made out like a king, but is that what we really want in a president?

Only Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio, are willing to point out that what Obama meant by “change” was to “fundamentally transform” the United States from a constitutional republic into a socialist democracy.

Cruz Rubio Fiorina

All the other remaining candidates refuse to point out that Obama was deliberate in his efforts to destroy our free-market system.


These other candidates, if  they were to acknowledge Obama’s real purpose, would be admitting that they are unprincipled and just go along to get along (or worse).

However, with the exception of Cruz and maybe Ben Carson, all the candidates (including Fiorina) have curried favor or have outright worked with Obama or other statists, unwittingly or not, to help with our nation’s nefarious transformation. So that leaves only two candidates from which to choose.

Cruz and Carson

In Senator Rubio’s and Fiorina’s defense, it needs to be stated that they both recognize, understand, and are willing to say EXACTLY what is going on with the Obamanation, and for this they should be applauded!

However, Marco’s association with the Gang-of-Eight’s attempt to codify amnesty, or more precisely the plan to import millions of new Democratic voters, indicates he goes along with what would be the death knell for our constitutionally limited government. That is a deal breaker for me!


Still, if you are asking if he should be the Prez? The logical answer is; we could do much worse than Marco (but why take the chance? ).

It is well known that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior; so, if we want to return our nation to a constitutional republic, then that leaves Ted Cruz.


If you believe in our Constitution , then he is by far THE best choice!

Ben is second, Carly if third, and that leaves Marco as a close forth. The rest are somewhere on the spectrum between Bush and Obama (in other words 8 trillion to 20 trillion)…

Blogging for Liberty: SEIU and the BIG O

In 2010 President Barack Obama appointed Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andrew Stern to Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, a new commission tasked with coming up with recommendations to help reduce the federal deficit.

Oh, don’t worry, he knows the President well! According to White House visitor logs released in November of 2010,  Stern visited the White House at least 22 times in 2009, making him the most frequent visitor during that year!

Stern will not feel alone either! Patrick Gaspard, a former vice president for politics and legislation for SEIU Local 1199, a giant New York health care workers union, who was named White House political director following Obama’s election will be in the White House

Barack and Patrick

Also, SEIU Treasurer Anna Burger, who was named to Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, will be at the White House too!.

Anna and Barack

Of course the former SEIU associate general counsel Craig Becker, did not get appointed because his nomination to the National Labor Relations Board was blocked in the Senate. Becker has stated publicly representing illegal aliens is one of the core tasks of the SEIU. Yes,  he was so bad that Congress  (with the help of a couple of Democrats) blocked the appointment. So how did  Obama respond? By making Becker a recess appointment, that’s how. That means that he’ll serve on the board until the end of 2011. SEIU knows it’s good to own a President.

SEIU has invested heavily in politics. In 2008, it was the 7th largest campaign donor, with almost every penny of its contributions going to statist Democrats (sorry about the redundancy). In fact, Andrew Stern told a reporter for the Las Vegas Sun newspaper  in May 2009; “We (SEIU) spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it.”

By the way, who do you think stands to gain with the implementation of Obama Care? Can you say SEIU?


Blogging for Liberty: The Reddest and the Bluest States

The Reddest and the Bluest

PRB looked at the results from the last five elections (from 1988 through 2004) and identified 20 states that have been reliably Republican, with another 18 (plus the District of Columbia) that have been reliably Democratic.2 As the map shows, these states follow regional patterns: Republican states tended to be in the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West, while Democratic states tended to be in the Northeast, Great Lakes, and on the West Coast.

State Typologies Based on 1988-2004 Presidential Elections

Why Recent History did Not Hold in 2008

While these historical trends are useful in analyzing the outcome of the upcoming election, news reports and state polls in recent weeks have suggested that changes might be in play for 2008. Several states that have been reliably Republican over the past 20 to 40 years are considered swing (or “battleground”) states this time around. This list includes Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Three post-2000 demographic trends emerge when examining these new swing states:

  • Each state has a higher voting-age population (VAP) growth rate than the national average (9 percent).
  • The Hispanic rate of growth in voting population has been especially high.
  • Much of the growth has occurred among minority groups and in suburban, exurban, and urban areas (see table).

Florida, long considered a swing state, shares the same trends but to an even greater degree. These trends may have reshaped the political map as we have come to know it over the past couple of election cycles.

Change in Voting-Age Population (VAP), 2000-2007: Selected Battleground States in 2008

State Total VAP increase Hispanic VAP increase Share of Total VAP Increase
Selected racial/ethnic groups Metropolitan areas
Traditionally Republican States
Colorado 15% 32% Hispanics: 32% 47% in Denver
North Carolina 12% 53% African Americans: 23%
Hispanics: 18%
29% in Raleigh-Durham
25% in Charlotte
Virginia 10% 51% Hispanics: 21%
African Americans: 21%
Asian Americans: 15%
47% in Northern Virginia
(including exurbs)
Traditionally Democratic States
Pennsylvania 3% 44% Hispanics: 38%
African Americans: 24%
Asian Americans: 20%
40% in Philadelphia suburbs
Swing States
Florida 15% 40% Hispanics: 42%
African Americans: 19%
19% in Miami-Fort Lauderdale
16% in Orlando
14% in Tampa-St. Petersburg
Missouri 7% 48% African Americans: 15%
Hispanics: 13%
35% in St. Louis
20% in Kansas City
15% in Springfield
Ohio 3% 34% African Americans: 26%
Hispanics: 18%
Asian Americans: 14%
43% in Columbus
34% in Cincinnati

Note: Data for African Americans and Asian Americans are for non-Hispanic members of these groups who did not identify with another racial group

Sources: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual State Population Estimates with Sex, 6 Race Groups (5 Race Alone Groups and One Group with Two or more Race Groups) and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007,” accessed online at on May 31, 2008; and “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007,” accessed online, on Aug. 31, 2008.

As for the racial groups, 66 percent of non-Hispanic whites, 56 percent of non-Hispanic blacks, and just 28 percent of Hispanics (a testament to Hispanics’ citizenship rates of 61 percent) voted in the 2004 election.