I’m told the nuns at St. Elizabeth hospitals with a malicious smile used to tell the young women who came into the maternity section of that hospital “you’ve had your fun – now suffer.” I cannot vouch for them saying that because I was never in that position or condition. What verified that it may have happened was the discovery of the way the nuns in Ireland treated the young unmarried pregnant women who fell into their clutches.
New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent Iowa, has provided America with its fun. We are supposed to believe that the competition for the nomination for president of our two major parties is up for grabs. That the people are crying for change, which they are, and that something new will come about, which it won’t.
I have predicted since early on that the field has been set and that the nominees of the two parties – it is a strange type democracy when only two parties decide who will be president – a far cry from the days of Lincoln when the people had a chance to choose among four parties. History has taught us that those two parties are controlled by insiders who are numbered in the hundreds, if that many, and decide who the American people can choose. The exceptions to this were Barack Obama who was an outsider but he had great support – was it in the 90% — among the black voters which greatly pushed back against those in the back offices who pull the strings and vice-Presidents who took over after the president fell..
Am I calling out for Michael Bloomberg to join the race so that we will have a third choice? That would be nice for the people, especially those of Massachusetts. He did after all grow up in Medford. He’d make a great president – perhaps it is time we had a president whose parents were Jewish and we can wait a little longer for a woman president who is honest and trustworthy and whose career has not been anything but playing with the insiders. Bloomberg would have a hard row to hoe because the country does not like independent candidates – look at what happened to the Rough Rider – but then again Teddy was running against an incumbent. Better the devil you know than the Devil himself.
Now that Iowa and New Hampshire are behind us we can settle back and watch the magic of the insiders push their candidates to the fore. It is more clear than ever that the two nominees will be Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush – the people with the money behind them who during their campaigns will promise us with their fingers crossed behind their backs campaign reform, changes in the tax code, and to fight for the middle class.
You know the ultimate winner of the campaign will be the Clintons since Bush is so uninspiring even though 12 Medal of Honor winners and 37 former generals support him. Hillary is going to have Bill step up his act; Jeb is calling on support from his own former president supporter, his brother who is coming back to help him. God save us.
By the way the Clintons are at least consistent – they pass their traits on to their offspring. I guess it proves the apple does not fall far from the tree. I don’t suppose you heard what daughter Chelsea recently told an audience. Now I’m sure you are not going to have any trouble believing this especially if you know any six year olders and how much they know about life and religion. She told a New Hampshire audience as she ginned up support for her parents: ‘I was raised in a Methodist church and I left the Baptist church before my dad did, because I didn’t know why they were talking to me about abortion when I was 6 in Sunday school — that’s a true story.’
That’s what I mean when I say we had our fun. Now we’re facing a country that will be again led by a person who the George Will remarked was “not the worst president we ever had, just the worst person who was ever president” and the Washington Post said was “It’s the Clinton administration in miniature. They do something wrong and force the country to stoop to their level to make them get it right.”
Matt- I’m with your analysis with one but- if the economy takes a beating so won’t Hillary.
Sean:
Hillary will be Democratic nominee – she has too many super delegates to be defeated. Who is it that can defeat her? The present crop of Republicans leave me without hope. As for the economy, the stock market is being hurt a bit but other aspects seem to be running well – I don’t see it having a great effect on the race. When Scalia died I wondered how many Americans had heard of him as compared to Peyton Manning.
Bush got 2% of the vote in Iowa. He got 11% in N H. He is polling at 10% in S. Carolina. It is difficult to see him amassing enough delegates to be a factor. It may be Trump vs Cruz. If Iowa is reflective of the GOP nationally Cruz will get it. If NH is it will be Trump. Super Tuesday March 1 will probably tell the story. Alabama, Arkansas Georgia, Oklahoma,Tennessee and Texas vote among others. That map may give Cruz what he needs. Time will tell. A multi ballot convention may be in store. If Bernie or Hillary are the nominee the Dems are in trouble. But both could beat Trump. He appears to be a coarse vulgar person of little substance just mouthing slogans. Clinton is the Holy Ghost of Wall Street. She is completely beholden to Goldman Sacks and it’s interests. She didn’t get $600 G for nothing. What happens if Bernie gets more votes than Clinton? Can the Dems steal it from him as they did in Iowa?
NC:
Bush will come on strong and end up with the nomination. Have I ever been wrong? I don’t understand why you don’t see this – Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and the others will all crash and burn. They may all survive until the convention with no one having more than 25% of the delegates but as a history major you must know what will happen when the insiders get a chance to control things.
Bernie has no chance. The delegate count for the Democrat convention at the present time favors Hillary 394 to 42. Clinton has commitments from 355 superdelegates to Sanders’s 14. All Hillary has to do is win a few here and there and it is hers – since the Democrats have no winner take all primaries it is just about impossible mathematically for Bernie to overcome his lack of votes. https://newrepublic.com/article/129707/superdelegates-really-stop-bernie-sanders You don’t think for one instance the Clintons didn’t wrap up the nomination before the voting even began, do you.
Sure the Clintons are crooks and totally beholden to Goldmen Sacks but they also as Bernie says are the “most powerful political machine in America.” Bernie, like all past socialists, lives in a dream world.
After studying Organized Crime in an urban setting, I have come to realize that city politicians and State/Federal are no different than the individuals who operate in the streets. I have no respect for any politician. It may sound unfair, but the white collar crime and elimination of the middle class has left me disgusted. Hillary Clinton doesn’t give a shit about anything but her own self interests and her bank account. I would vote for Trump strictly to spite the GOP and DEMS. Billy Clinton back in the White House??? doing god knows what with god knows who?? No Thanks.
Doubting:
When Bill gets back in the White House which he will the first call he will make will be to his buddy Jeffrey Epstein and ask him to send over some of the girls. You are right about politicians — if not corrupt when they start they quickly fall to the lure of money.
see website whowhatwhy
Threats to Democracy
February 10, 2016 | Jimmy Chin
Fighting for Election Transparency — With Science
Portrait of an E-Voting Skeptic
Most of us are convinced that we, as individuals, cannot make a dent in the scheme of things. Given all of the injustices in the world, it can seem near impossible to create any sort of meaningful change. It’s hardly surprising that we become hopeless or indifferent, or, at best, resign ourselves to the push-button comfort of online “slacktivism.”
But there are people who are different. People who not only believe they can make the world a better place, but also have the resolve to turn their convictions into actions. WhoWhatWhy will try to find these individuals and bring their stories to our readers.
Here is one such story:
————————————————————————————————————
For most of the week, Beth Clarkson is a professional statistician. She tweaks statistical models and delves into the mysteries of composite materials. But at home on the weekend, she puts on her second hat — trying to keep American elections honest.
Clarkson is fond of saying, “Data has a story to tell,” and she likes nothing better than digging out that story. But she had never applied her skills to politics — until a few years ago..
She avoided anything to do with politics, she wrote on her blog, “because I am so bad at storing and accessing that sort of information in my head.” But that hands-off attitude changed when she began to suspect a threat to our electoral system.
Her conversion to vote fraud activism began more or less by accident.
An Amazing Discovery
To enliven the statistics classes she used to teach at Wichita State University, Clarkson started discussing real-life data from the 2000 election. You remember that one: it was a cliffhanger, and ended with the Supreme Court anointing George W. Bush as president.
Over the next decade, Clarkson’s expert eye meticulously analyzed election after election, and to her surprise, found some interesting voting patterns. Clarkson found statistical anomalies that kept appearing here and there, but she thought that they could have simply been just that: anomalies or outliers.
This Chart illustrates the breakdown of the Republican vote by voting machine type in a cumulative sum model for 2014 Wisconsin Governor’s race. Photo credit: Beth Clarkson / Stats Life
This Chart illustrates the breakdown of the Republican vote by voting machine type in a cumulative sum model for 2014 Wisconsin Governor’s race. Photo credit: Beth Clarkson / Stats Life
At the time, she was an instructor in WSU’s math department while also working on her Ph.D. in statistics. In 2006, she became chief statistician of WSU’s National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) where she completed her degree and now produces reports for regulatory agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and other businesses.
Then something happened in 2012 that shook her world. One day, Clarkson came across a statistics paper on the internet titled “Republican Primary Election 2012 Results: Amazing Statistical Anomalies.”
The authors of the paper found that in elections all over the country where electronic voting machines were used, a strange pattern kept appearing: the larger the number of registered voters in the voting precinct, the larger the Republican vote. Since precinct size should have no effect on the vote distribution, the authors concluded that the data “indicates overwhelming evidence of election manipulation.”
Clarkson said she was astonished. She proceeded to reproduce the results of the study — she called it essentially a peer-review — and began to seriously question the trustworthiness of our electoral system.
Doing Something About It
The paper galvanized her to take action. First, she went to the local elections office to inquire about the voting machines in Sedgwick County, Kansas.
“While [the election officials] were very nice and very open about what they were doing, I was pretty much appalled at their lack of quality assurance, in terms of how the machines were accurately recording people’s votes and reporting the summaries of those votes,” she said. (Clarkson is a certified quality engineer.)
This motivated Clarkson in 2013 to sue for access to election records in her precinct so she could verify the accuracy of the vote.
“I was pro se, meaning I was representing myself, and it was pretty easily defeated,” she said. The judge claimed that if people were allowed access to the vote, they could tie a particular voter to a particular ballot. Clarkson responded: “not really very reasonable, but it is plausible, I guess.”
Far from being discouraged, she stepped up her efforts. Clarkson started a blog, wrote an article spelling out her voting analysis, and, most recently, sued election officials again. This time she amended her proposal to include safeguards for voter privacy, but unsurprisingly she has faced more pushback. Officials remain steadfast in their opposition.
The Elections Commissioner of Sedgwick County, Tabitha Lehman, claims that Clarkson doesn’t need the documents in question — paper records created by the electronic voting machines and known as Real Time Audit Logs (or RTALs) — to check the election results, and besides, the audit process would be too burdensome.
Clarkson contends RTALs are in fact the only way to conduct a reliable recount and that the burden of the request should fall on her, not Lehman or her staff. Lehman did not respond to requests for comment.
Lehman, as well as Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, have also argued that they cannot honor Clarkson’s request because the law forbids it. Clarkson thinks this argument amounts to a Catch-22: “Basically they’re saying they can’t open the records because it’s forbidden by law without a judge’s order. It’s true, but that’s why I’m suing. It’s not a reason for them to say no,” she said.
Who Gets to Look at the Records and When? If Ever
Clarkson said it makes little sense that the records, which are there to ensure election integrity, are safeguarded so tightly.
“If I’m not allowed to, as an academic researcher, look at this and publish the results, who is ever going to look at this?” she said. “You’re not allowed to look at them during a recount. When can you look at them? What are they there for?”
Despite her growing frustration, Clarkson says there is no reason to assume the stonewalling officials are “in the know” — that is, parties to some kind of fraud. They may be simply bureaucrats defending their turf.
Clarkson is encouraged by the outpouring of support on the Internet prompted by her blog, She says some correspondents have taken it upon themselves to contribute to and advance her election analysis.
Media coverage has also been positive (though she admits that she sometimes feels uncomfortable in the spotlight). She has been interviewed multiple times on the radio, there have been editorials supporting her efforts, and she even scored a television spot on Thom Hartmann’s cable TV program,The Big Picture.
Eventually, the attention drew the interest of an attorney, who offered his services to Clarkson pro bono. To help defray some of her legal expenses in preparation for her March trial date, she founded the Show Me The Votes Foundation and set up a gofundme site.
The Fight Yields Results
Whatever the outcome of the current lawsuit, Clarkson has already had an impact on the national conversation about voting integrity. Secretary of State Kobach, who has faced criticism for his opposition to opening up Sedgwick County voting records, has proposed legislation that would mandate post-election audits starting in 2017 — a move directly in response to the lawsuit.
Clarkson is optimistic that her case will prevail in court. But even if that happens, she expects that the county will appeal, in order to delay handing over the data for as long as possible. If so, she intends to keep up the pressure for full disclosure.
“I feel like it’s just too important to drop. When we don’t have everybody represented in our voting process then the people who win those elections are not necessarily representative of the average of what the country wants,” she said.
Clarkson sees her crusade as a simple matter of good citizenship.
“We all want to make the world a better place, right? That’s kind of a universal desire,” she said. “It’s not necessarily that people want to spend all of the time, effort, and energy in activism of whatever nature, but we all like to think that our presence makes a difference and that the world is better for us having been here.”
The 1860 four-way presidential contest was a one off. It ended in disaster, a horrendous bloodletting. The United States is the only country so badly governed that it took massive carnage to end slavery. Everyone else did it more sanely.
The other 40% president came out of the 1912 GOP split. Wilson gave us WWI which he so settled that an even bloodier WWII was assured to happen. So much for multiparty elections that lead to minority presidents both of whom copiously spilt blood.
The inadvertent result of a two party system is that the winner represents c. 50% or more of the general opinion of the nation. A multiparty general election for the executive does not produce stability. Foreign and civil wars grow out of >30 % executives such as the red Allende in Chile.
Parliamentary governments can easily withstand the divisiveness of many political parties. The coalitions required in most cases produce the needed consensus to govern without recourse to violence. This is not true of independently elected executives.
Tadzio:
How could you forget Bill Clinton who barely got 43% of the vote in 1992. Or Richard Nixon who in 1968 received a little over 43%.
There were others under the 50% mark. I can’t buy your thesis that the president with only a plurality of votes will lead us to war. If it wasn’t Lincoln’s fault for the Civil War. There was no way to avoid that if we wanted one nation. In 1940 FDR got 54% of the votes; Truman just about 50%; LBJ 61% — all led us into wars which seems to contradict your position.
Wa-llahi! What about Bernie?
All those bright kids you watched fronting for OWS are out there, organizing for Sanders. Bernie can beat Clinton. He can also beat Trump. He can’t beat Kasich. Go Trump. Keep up the good work, trumpeters.
Jeb doesn’t have the look of a guy who wants to be president, and, Cruz’s appeal doesn’t extend any further than the Bible-belt. Kasich, an urban republican moderate, can attract independent and conservative Democratic voters. Trump can’t get the cross-overs, Kasich can.
Khalid:
Kasich has no following in the party. Look for a brokered convention with an insider grabbing the flag. A long shot would be Romney. Jeb’s look is that of a person who does not want to campaign for president — he feel entitled to the job. But the fix is in, it has been for a long time, the next president if Hillary Clinton and Bill.
Trump is dominant.
Every Republican candidate who finished first and second in Iowa and New Hampshire has won the presidential nomination. Having done so, Trump is now in a class with Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney. John McCain was a partial exception in 2000, having basically skipped Iowa and then won in New Hampshire. And it doesn’t matter where the first and second place finishes occurred. Reagan was second in Iowa in 1980, then won New Hampshire. Dole won Iowa in 1996 and settled for second to Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire.
[More]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001015/
Henry:
Good background information but there has never been a guy like Trump running before – he will come into the convention with about 30 to 35% of the delegates. The insiders will decide who will get the nod and it won’t be the duck.
Bloomberg or Trump will run without party. Ensuring a Clinton win. The nuns were prescient.
Henry:
Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn’t matter – there is no way short of indictment the job doesn’t go to Hillary and there will be no indictment as along as a Democrat is AG.