For Super Tuesday, there are the following contests:
State Contest type delegates
Alaska Caucus 27
Georgia WTA:D WTA:S 76
Idaho Caucus 32
Massachusetts proportional primary 41
North Dakota Caucus 28
Ohio WTA:D WTA:S 66
Oklahoma WTA:D WTA:S 43
Tennessee Complicated 58
Vermont WTA:D WTA:S 17
Virginia WTA:D WTA:S 49
437 delegates
Unpledged Caucus delegates at stake: 67
Pledged Primary delegates: 329 + 41 in Massachusetts
Wyoming is listed as being in Super Tuesday by the NYT. The Caucuses have completed though as of the 29th so I don’t know why this is.
Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota and Massachusetts have straight forward contests. Massachusetts has a 15% threshold to qualify to win delegates which are then allocated proportionally.
Super Tuesday has no true Winner-take-all states like Arizona or Florida or simple winner take all district or statewide rules like South Carolina.
Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Virginia have similar primaries. Congressional district delegates are awarded three per district. If you are over a vote threshold in the district, you win delegates in the district and if you are over 50% you win all three. Vote thresholds are 20% in these states, except Oklahoma, which is 15%. Georgia’s rules spell out that if you are the winner in the district you receive two delegates, and the runner-up receives one. I suppose it is possible for a district to award one delegate two three candidates but I don’t know how likely that is with the threshold requirement.
Examples:
1.
Romney: 55%
Santorum: 28%
Paul: 12%
Gingrich: 5%
Romney receives three delegates.
2.
Romney: 35%
Santorum: 30%
Paul: 25%
Gingrich: 10%
In Georgia: Romney would receive two and Santorum one. In any of the other states: Romney Santorum and Paul would each earn one delegate (as I understand the rules).
3.
Romney: 40%
Santorum: 35%
Paul: 16%
Gingrich: 9%
Romney receives two, Santorum one (explicitly in Georgia). in Oklahoma: Romney, Santorum and Paul each get one (as I understand the rules).
The same rules are extrapolated to statewide delegates. If a candidate gets over 50% he wins them all. If under 50% but above the threshold, he proportionally shares them with the other candidates who did the same.
Tennessee uses the same rules as Georgia except to win all a district delegates or all statewide delegates, you need 66% of the vote with a 20% threshold. So if Romney wins 65% of a district and Santorum wins 21%, Romney will still only receive two delegates and Santorum receives one.
Additionally in several states, three delegates are usually unbound and can endorse anyone they want. This is true for Tennessee, Oklahoma, Ohio, Virginia BUT not Vermont or Georgia.
Clear as mud, right?
Virginia only has two candidates on the ballot, Paul and Romney. Romney is the clear favorite in all polling and I expect him to win all of Virginia’s delegates, especially now with Eric Cantor’s endorsement.
I expect states to go to these candidates:
Romney: Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia (all)
Santorum: Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota
Gingrich: Georgia
Toss-up: Ohio
Here are some polls:
Georgia:
Poll Date Sample Gingrich Romney Santorum Paul Spread
RCP Average 2/23 - 3/1 — 39.3 23.8 20.5 6.0 Gingrich +15.5
Mason-Dixon 2/28 - 3/1 625 LV 38 24 22 3 Gingrich +14
Landmark/Rosetta Stone 3/1 - 3/1 950 LV 42 22 16 5 Gingrich +20
Rasmussen Reports 3/1 - 3/1 750 LV 38 26 20 7 Gingrich +12
SurveyUSA 2/23 - 2/26 457 LV 39 23 24 9 Gingrich +15
Ohio:
Poll Date Sample Santorum Romney Gingrich Paul Spread
RCP Average 2/29 - 3/2 — 34.0 31.3 15.7 12.0 Santorum +2.7
NBC News/Marist 2/29 - 3/2 820 LV 34 32 15 13 Santorum +2
Rasmussen Reports 3/1 - 3/1 750 LV 33 31 15 11 Santorum +2
Quinnipiac 2/29 - 3/1 517 LV 35 31 17 12 Santorum +4
Tennessee:
Poll Date Sample Santorum Romney Gingrich Paul Spread
RCP Average 2/13 - 3/3 — 37.3 23.0 14.7 11.3 Santorum +14.3
Rasmussen Reports 3/3 - 3/3 750 LV 34 30 18 8 Santorum +4
Middle Tn. State U. 2/13 - 2/25 196 A 40 19 13 11 Santorum +21
Tennessean/Vanderbilt 2/16 - 2/22 815 RV 38 20 13 15 Santorum +18
Oklahoma:
Poll Date Sample Santorum Romney Gingrich Paul Spread
RCP Average 2/8 - 2/21 — 41.0 20.5 20.0 7.5 Santorum +20.5
Rasmussen Reports 2/21 - 2/21 750 LV 43 18 22 7 Santorum +21
Sooner Poll 2/8 - 2/16 300 LV 39 23 18 8 Santorum +16
A New York woman who lives in a 34-room, 30,000-square-foot mansion is facing a federal criminal charge related to her employment of an undocumented immigrant who allegedly served as a domestic servant in a “forced labor situation” that included her working 17-hour days, seven days a week, with payment of 85 cents an hour, extremely poor working conditions, and sleeping in a walk-in closet.
thesmokinggun.comAccording to a criminal complaint filed Monday against Annie George, 39, the servant entered the U.S. on a non immigrant visa in 1998 to work for the family of a United Nations employee. She began working for the Georges in late-2005 after being offered about $1000 per month, a substantial pay increase.
In reality, “V.M” received sporadic minimal payments from the Georges. A U.S. District Court complaint estimates that the servant received about $29,000 over the five-and-a-half years she worked for the family. A U.S. Department of Labor investigation determined that the woman was “lawfully entitled” to a minimum of “approximately $206,000 for the entire approximate six years of V.M.’s work.”
The servant told federal agents that she received no personal or sick time while employed by the Georges, nor was she afforded any dental or medical treatment. She had to sleep in a closet in a bedroom shared by the family’s three daughters, the complaint alleges, because “Annie George required that V.M. be near the children at night.”
I can see how there must not have been any room for this woman to sleep in a decent place.
Libertarianism is a First World Luxury
- 82% of libertarians are white.
- 59% of libertarians are male. This makes them the most disproportionately male ideological group in the country.
- 57% have either attended or graduated college.
- 33% are between the ages of 18 and 29.
- 31% make more than $75,000 per year. This makes libertarianism the most popular political ideology of the rich.
Source: Pew Research Institute
As we can see from the above statistics, libertarians are mostly rich young white guys who, compared to most other Americans, live comfortable and financially-secure lives. Why does this matter? Because it indicates that those who want to eliminate welfare, universal health care, and other government assistance programs will likely never have to rely on any of these programs themselves.Libertarianism is an ideology supported by people who will not feel the impact of many of its policies. The exception to this, of course, is that libertarians want to cut taxes for themselves at the expense of the social safety net, which is a standard feature of every modern democratic country on earth.
It’s also interesting to note when libertarianism (and its sister ideology, “limited government conservatism”) gained popularity in American politics and culture. It wasn’t during the Industrial Revolution, when a huge influx of wealth brought about deplorable working conditions and extremely low wages. It wasn’t in the midst of the Great Depression, when many families were unemployed and starving. It wasn’t during World War II, when interventionism was necessary to protect our safety as well as the peace and security of much of the rest of the world.
It was after all of our major problems were over, during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. It was after America had won the Cold War, passed the Civil Rights Act, and was able to provide a decent life to most citizens. This is when libertarianism became popular: during a time of peace and prosperity. One simply does not find a substantial libertarian movement in poor and developing countries.
Of course, before the rise of libertarianism, there were some Americans calling for less regulation and lower taxes. They were, in the words of Republican Dwight Eisenhower, a “tiny splinter group,” of “Texas oil millionaires….their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
I hate to disagree with Ike, but I don’t think libertarians are, in any sense of the word, “stupid.” The research mentioned above proves that they are well educated and financially successful. I do believe, however, that the popularity of libertarianism among the richest Americans should cause all small government advocates to pause and question the company they keep. If libertarianism is, in fact, good for the poor, why then has it always been the ideology of the rich?
The invisible welfare state of the top one percent
washingtonpost.comOther programs, like Medicare, are provided by the government, but eligibility is mostly automatic, and recipients have paid into them. Beneficiaries of such programs are somewhat less likely to realize they’re on a government dole than beneficiaries of means-tested programs.
Then there’s what Mettler calls “the submerged state.” These policies are mostly, though not exclusively, tax breaks. They include the much-beloved home-mortgage interest deduction and the tax exclusion for employer-provided health care. Recipients of these policies — and there are tens of millions of them — are rarely cognizant that they’re benefiting from a government program.
But they are. “Indirect social policies offer benefits that are comparable to direct social benefits both in their purposes and in their costs,” Mettler and Koch write. “Both are targeted to specific groups of people, aimed to reward some kind of activity or some class of persons whom policymakers deem worthy of public support. From an accounting perspective, as well, both types have the same effect: They impose costs on the federal budget, whether incurred through fiscal obligations or lost revenues.”
The costs are significant. Huge, in fact. Tax expenditures now cost the federal government $1 trillion annually — more than Medicare and Medicaid combined. And they’re regressive.
There is also a pattern to these programs: The more a government social program benefits wealthier Americans, the less obtrusive it is. We design policies for the poor in ways that make it hard to escape the knowledge that the government is providing help. But richer Americans rely on programs that are “submerged.”
Why An MRI Costs $1,080 In America And $280 In France
washingtonpost.comOn Friday, the International Federation of Health Plans — a global insurance trade association that includes more than 100 insurers in 25 countries — released more direct evidence. It surveyed its members on the prices paid for 23 medical services and products in different countries, asking after everything from a routine doctor’s visit to a dose of Lipitor to coronary bypass surgery. And in 22 of 23 cases, Americans are paying higher prices than residents of other developed countries. Usually, we’re paying quite a bit more. The exception is cataract surgery, which appears to be costlier in Switzerland, though cheaper everywhere else.
And why is this the case? The government negotiates with private companies on behalf of the largest risk-pool possible; the nation as a whole:
Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.
Something which America, of course, doesn’t do:
In America, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prices on behalf of their tens of millions of members and, not coincidentally, purchase care at a substantial markdown from the commercial average. But outside that, it’s a free-for-all. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured.
And the money quote:
Health care is an unusual product in that it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, for the customer to say “no.” In certain cases, the customer is passed out, or otherwise incapable of making decisions about her care, and the decisions are made by providers whose mandate is, correctly, to save lives rather than money.
In other cases, there is more time for loved ones to consider costs, but little emotional space to do so — no one wants to think there was something more they could have done to save their parent or child. It is not like buying a television, where you can easily comparison shop and walk out of the store, and even forgo the purchase if it’s too expensive. And imagine what you would pay for a television if the salesmen at Best Buy knew that you couldn’t leave without making a purchase.
“Transnational progressives have also judged the Bush administration criminal for having used “enhanced interrogation techniques” — which they denounce as illegal “torture” — to pressure Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few other top al-Qaeda commanders to reveal what they knew of ongoing terrorist plots and operations. (A total of about 30 unlawful combatants were subjected to coercive tactics; exactly three were waterboarded — none at Guantanamo.) By contrast, criticism of President Obama — for ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden and using drones against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen — has been muted. ”
—Clifford May writing in National Review
The latter half of this argument is insightful if not wholly accurate. Had Bush ordered the killing of Osama and drone strikes across the region, progressive outcry would have been brutal. The former half of this article, however, is very problematic.
May’s use of the term “trasnational progressive” clearly seeks to project the idea of human rights in a negative manner. To make a long argument short, we can’t treat terrorists nicely because they just aren’t like us.
I disagree. No matter how vile the man, terrorists remain human. Lowering our standards of human decency when dealing with terrorists ultimately demeans us more than them. We should criticize torture because it goes against the best ideas of our society. We are better than that. Let’s act like it.
100,000,000 workers grind India to a halt in one of world's biggest strikes ever
One of the world’s largest ever strikes began at midnight on Monday 27th Feb and will end at midnight tonight. Up to 100,000,000 Indian workers from different sectors and industries are calling for a national minimum wage, permanent jobs, and much more.
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
independent.co.ukDramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer.
Super PACs aggressively spend ahead of Super Tuesday. Super.
- $10 million in Super Tuesday ads bought by Super PACs source
» Four states getting strongest focus: Ten states are holding primaries and caucuses in a couple of days, but the ones that the GOP candidates are really focused on? Ohio, Georgia, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Much of the advertising seems to be focused on trashing other candidates, with both Mitt-and-Newt-affiliated Super PACs attacking Rick Santorum — who is currently leading in Ohio. In other news, Mitt won a caucus in Washington on Saturday with Ron Paul scoring second place, though the caucus is non-binding.
Will Millennials Still be Liberal When They’re Old and Gray?
newgeography.comThe Millennial Generation (born 1982-2003) is the cohort most in favor of using the federal government to promote economic stability and equality since the GI Generation of the 1930s and 1940s. The attitudes of Millennials were heavily shaped by the protected and group-oriented way in which they were reared and their experience of feeling the full brunt of the Great Recession as they emerged into adulthood.
As a result, the biggest political story of the first half of the 21st century may well be the extent to which the largest American generation ever retains its economic liberalism and thereby shapes the direction of public policy in coming decades. If history is any guide, much of that story’s plot will be written during the next four or five years.
People don't like being occupied
lewrockwell.comEspecially not in Afghanistan. This occupation will end like everyone other one, badly.
Shock, incomprehension, fury. Americans are feeling these raw emotions as news keeps coming in of more attacks by Afghan government soldiers and officials on US and NATO troops. Six US troops were killed last week as a result of protests across Afghanistan following the burning of Korans by incredibly dim-witted American soldiers.
“Aren’t they supposed to be our allies? We are over there to save them! What outrageous ingratitude,” ask angry, confused Americans.
Angry Britons asked the same questions in 1857 when “sepoys,” individual mercenary soldiers of Britain’s Imperial Indian Army, then entire units rebelled and began attacking British military garrisons and their families. British history calls it the “Indian Mutiny.” Indians call it the “Great Rebellion” marking India’s first striving for freedom from the British Raj and the Indian vassal princes who so dutifully served it.
Britons were outraged by the “perfidy” and “treachery” of their Indian sepoys who were assumed to be totally loyal because they were fighting for the king’s shilling. Victorian Britain reeled from accounts of frightful massacres of Britons at places like Lucknow, Cawnpore, Delhi, and Calcutta’s infamous “black hole.”
As Karl Marx observed watching the ghastly events in India, western democracies cease practicing what they preach in their colonies. British forces in India, backed by loyal native units, mercilessly crushed the Indian rebels. Rebel ringleaders were tied to the mouths of cannon and blown to bits, or hanged en masse.
Today’s Afghanistan recalls Imperial India. Forces of the US-installed Kabul government, numbering about 310,000 men, are composed of Tajiks and Uzbeks from the north, some Shia Hazaras, and a hodgepodge of rogue Pashtun and mercenary groups. Ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks served the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan as well as the puppet Afghan Communist Party. Today, as then, Tajiks and Uzbeks form the core of government armed forces and secret police. They are the blood enemies of the majority Pashtun, who fill the ranks of Taliban and its allies in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.
But half the Afghan armed forces and police serve only to support their families. The Afghan economy under NATO’s rule is now so bad that even in Kabul, thousands are starving or dying from intense cold. Half of Afghans are unemployed and must seek work from the US-financed government.
But loyal they are not. While covering the 1980’s jihad against Soviet occupation, I saw everywhere that soldiers and officials supposedly loyal to the Communist Najibullah regime in Kabul kept in constant touch with the anti-Soviet mujahidin and reported all Soviet and government troops movements well in advance. The same thing occurs today in Afghanistan. Taliban knows about most NATO troops operations before they leave their fortified bases. Among Afghans, the strongest bonds of loyalty are family, clan and tribal connections. They cut across all politics and ideology.
Afghans are a proud, prickly people who, as I often saw, take offense all too easily. Pashtuns are infamous for never forgetting an offense, real or imagines, and biding their time to strike back. This is precisely what has been happening in Afghanistan, where arrogant, culturally ignorant US and NATO “advisors” – who are really modern versions of the British Raj’s “white officers leading native troops”- offend and outrage the combustible Afghans.
Proud Pashtun Afghans can take just so much from unloved, often detested foreign “infidels” advisors before exploding and exacting revenge. This also happened during the Soviet era. But some Soviet officers at least had more refined cultural sensibilities in dealing with Afghan. US-Afghan relations are not going to flowers when American troops call the Afghans “towel heads” and worse. Many US GI’s hail from the deep south. They are inundated by virulently anti-Muslim fundamentalist Christian propaganda that calls Islam the “religion of the Devil.”
Many Afghans have just had enough of their foreign occupiers. The Americans have lost their Afghan War. As the Imperial British used to say: you can only rent Afghans for so long. One day they will turn and cut your throat.
Will cons stay true to their values?
Despite the wonderful comic opera (which I am enjoying to no end) of the Republican Primary race, it looks like Mitt Romney will be the ultimate sacrificial lamb of the GOP. I have always thought this would be the case and so has President Obama and his re-election committee.
The question now is whether the true conservatives and Tea Partiers (who back Santorum and hate Romney) will stay true to there values and not vote for someone they detest? And what about the nut jobs that still back Newt and Rand Paul’s dad? How will they vote if they vote at all?
I think, that when it gets down to it they will all abandon their lofty ideals simply because the ideals are fake to begin with. They are fake because they are all being espoused to cover up the racism that is behind them. These camps all hate the idea of a black Democrat holding office so much that they will side with the devil himself to keep him out of office. It think they already have despite their protestations of faith and family values because racism is surely the work of the devil. Even if, like me, you do not believe in this fantasy figure, the way he reportedly works surely makes the idea of hating someone just because of the color of their skin a true ideal.
So it will be Mitt against the President and he will still lose because I don’t think there is enough hate in America to elect him.
If you read my earlier posts, you know that I could actually stand to have Mitt as the POTUS, but only as a second choice.
I don’t think he is a true conservative (and neither do the true conservatives) and being the former Governor of Massachusetts tells me he never will be. But I do know that he will dance with the devil to become the POTUS, even if he does not end up going home with him.
