How many votes will 15.4 million buy in Florida?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

My guy Chris Matthews finished yesterday's show questioning the democratic principles in playing out today in Florida's GOP primary, where the LA Times reports:

"Mitt Romney's campaign had spent $6.9 million to air commercials on the state's broadcast and cable channels as of Monday morning, while Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Romney, had spent $8.5 million, according to a campaign source familiar with the ad buys. Newt Gingrich's campaign spent $1.6 million over the same time period, and Winning Our Future, the pro-Gingrich super PAC, spent $2.2 million."

It got me to thinking, in Florida's winner take all contest over 50 delegates, how much would the likely winner (Romney) be spending per vote Tuesday. Please NOTE: Restore Our Future is in NO way connected to the Romney campaign.

Well, according to Bloomberg:

"The Florida election is open only to the 4.06 million voters who were registered Republican as of Jan. 3. Polling places will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. local time. Most of Florida is in the Eastern time zone, and part of the state is in the Central time zone.

"Daniel A. Smith, a political scientist at the University of Florida in Gainesville, said Jan. 24 he didn’t expect turnout to match the 1.95 million voters who participated in the 2008 primary, or 51 percent of the 3.83 million registered Republican voters at the time. A similar turnout rate to 2008 would draw 2.07 million voters in this year’s primary."

Just to simplify for my math sake, we'll project 2 million Florida GOP voters casting ballots in today's primary. With that, and a surge to 40 percent in the latest polls, a reasonable accounting would project that Romney will be spending about $19.25 per primary vote in the Sunshine State.

Boy, that would buy some of those voters a nice Surf-n-Turf dinner.

One has to ask, Is it worth it? And, as Chris says in the video above, What does it mean for our Democracy?

Of the Rich, By the Rich, For the Rich????

Labour leader a Boy in a Man's Job?



(From Ken Wedding's Teaching Comparative blog
Some people think that the reason Labour hasn't reached a position of really challenging the coalition government is because of the leader.


Many thanks to Rebecca Small who teaches at Oakton High School in Virginia for pointing out the Washington Post article.

In Britain, opposition party leader struggles to find voice

For the opposition Labor Party, this should be a shining moment. Under Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, unemployment is up, budget cuts are biting British wallets and the government’s veto of a new European Union economic treaty has left the country increasingly isolated from its neighbors.

And yet rather than Cameron, it is Labor’s chief, Ed Miliband, who is confronting a profound crisis of popularity. Only 16 months after he defeated his brother to win the crown of opposition leader, Miliband’s approval ratings have sunk to record lows. Suddenly, not only his rivals on the other side of the aisle but also influential power brokers within his own party are openly questioning his leadership.

Miliband confronted his critics this week, outlining a new direction for the Labor Party in an effort to revitalize his tenure and hold on long enough to challenge Cameron in elections still three years away…

Yet the problem, analysts say, is not Labor’s message, but the messenger. Miliband, fairly or not, is being pelted with criticism…

Miliband has seemed a round short in the intellectual blood sport of British politics, played out weekly on the floor of Parliament where Cameron and Miliband set their wits against each other in terse, often-biting oral combat.

“I think the simplest way of saying it is that most people don’t see him as a prime minister,” said Peter Kellner, president of YouGov, one of Britain’s largest polling firms. “It’s to do with his manner, his lack of experience, the fact that people don’t see a toughness of character in him. People on some level think being prime minister is a man’s job, and in Ed Miliband, they see a boy.”…

Miliband’s situation looks worse when compared with Cameron’s success. In many ways, the prime minister has defied the odds, maintaining a relatively buoyant approval rating despite his relentless and, according to the polls, largely unpopular crusade against government spending…
____________________________________________________

Can our Labour leader Thursday be more popular?? Time will tell.

This is another example, like the AV Referendum, of how politics have become more personal (Americanized?) in the UK over the past election cycle.

Defeated UK AV vote explained

A couple of videos posted here to explain the UK Alternative vote referendum that went down to defeat last May. The AV referendum was a manifesto piece of the Liberal Democrats, and despite getting the Conservative coalition partner to promise to bring the referendum, the referendum had PM David Cameron and Deputy PM Nick Clegg campaigning against each other. The top video is a good, straight forward explanation piece that promoted a YES vote. The bottom mocks the negative, fear-filled NO campaign that supporters of YES said killed the reform of the first-past-the-post system.





The AV Referendum: What went wrong?

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/the-av-referendum-what-went-wrong

AV would only have minimally effected 2010 general election results

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7708964/General-Election-2010-how-different-voting-systems-would-have-affected-the-result.html

Prime Minister David Cameron went through a Fact Check when he claimed:

“It's a system so obscure that it is only used by three countries in the whole world - Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.”

David Cameron, 11 April 2011

But today’s Independent labels this claim a “myth”, and argues that we can add at least one more Western democracy to this list: Ireland. The paper writes that: “[AV] is also used to choose the Irish President, in many US mayoral elections and for the Best Picture at the Oscars.”

Leaving aside the Academy Awards and the US mayoral elections (which, like the London mayoral ballot, cannot be considered nationwide polls), the example of Ireland is intriguing.

A glance at the Irish Government’s own guide to its election system might suggest that the Independent has erred: “The President is elected by the direct vote of the people. Voting is by secret ballot on the Single Transferable Vote system.”

However this is not necessarily so. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is indeed used by Ireland for most of its parliamentary elections. Like AV, the system asks voters to list the candidates on the ballot paper in order of their preference.

So blog here on whether you would vote YES or NO to an alternative vote system to replace First Past the Post.

Oh Lordy, what about the children?

(From Teaching Comparative Blog)
Two issues -- one on policy and one on the British governmental institutions are in play in Westminster currently as the Conservative government looks to reform the Welfare State. There are two issues to be alert for here. The most prominent is the argument about the tolerable level of public assistance. That's mostly a policy issue for Brits. The other topic, more for non-Brits to heed, is the role of Lords in shaping policy.


Lords is often overlooked as a player in policy making. It does offer a debating forum for considering policy alternatives, and, as in this case, a force to change policy.

Welfare reform: Lords bid for benefits cap concessions

Peers will press for changes to plans for a £26,000 cap on the benefits families can receive when the measure is debated in the House of Lords later.

Church of England bishops and some Liberal Democrats will push for child benefit to be excluded from the cap - so as not to penalise large families.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith says there are exemptions for some disabled people and those in work…

Former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown has said he will vote against the plans, unless there are measures to cushion the impact on those affected…

The changes would affect England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has its own social security legislation, but it is expected that what is approved at Westminster would be introduced there too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citizens United: On to the Terrible Twos

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Monday was the 1st anniversary of the landmark Citizens United case that created the Super PAC. No longer the owner of his Super PAC, Steven Colbert sat down with, "The Dissenter" retired Supreme John Paul Stevens to "celebrate" the happy birthday for election's big money interests.

Jessica Levinson of the Huffinton Post sent her thoughs this way to the Birthday...Boy, No Girl....No Corporation.

Birthday note from the Huffington Post

State of the Union Bingo

Denver poltico Sarah Moss has the best State of the Union Bingo Card, you should print it out and play during the President's annual address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night.

This year, though, there are plenty of cards to play along with including those from special interest advocacy groups:

The Center on Global Development has a card, as does The Religious Action Center of Reform Judism, and the Alliance for Excellent Education.

While the National Constitution Center is hosting a viewing party and has advertised bingo cards, those available for download appear to be 2010 editions.

So I would go with the card from Sarah Moss. If you play, and turn in your card 2 points of civic action EC. If you get a bingo, +2 more, and if you get the cabinet member that stays home Tuesday night in case Mars Attacks, +2 more.

Every State of the Union in our History

(From Ken Halla's US Government Teachers Blog)

Of course Thomas Jefferson, a notoriously poor public speaker, choose not to do the State of the Union in person and it was not until Woodrow Wilson that we had our addresses done in Congress again.  Here is every one from Washington through Obama.

US Primaries/Caucuses Explained

(From Ken Halla's US Government Teachers Blog)
This video will help you keep the nuts and bolts of the nominating process in mind while keeping the score of the GOP Road to the White House through the Primaries and Caucuses.

Remember that each state, and each national party, have their own rules of the road. Its a good example of how elections in the US are truly a concept of federalism. Also, how the primaries and caucuses have replaced party conventions in the nominating process.

Newt: "Despicable ME (dia)

Will the "Blame the Media" pre-primary tactic work for the "conservative, family values" candidate that didn't like being questioned by a watchdog, gotcha media that asked about him asking his second (of 3) wives for an "open marriage?"

I don't know, but listen to the crowd's reaction of last night's GOP debate crowd in South Carolina.

As Politico reported below, last night's scuffle may go down in presidential debate history. Really? I think it may very well help Newt rally to win the South Carolina primary. Despicable. Did the media cheat on Newt's wife while he was going off to speak on family values. Don't cheat on your wife if you want to get through the vetting to be President. Remember, Washington D.C. mayor Marion Barry being filmed smoking crack in a hotel room by the media, then claiming media "dirty laundry" ruined his career.

The media ruined his career?  How about, "Don't smoke the crack!?"
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Newt Gingrich’s heated exchange with moderator John King at Thursday’s CNN debate may help determine the fate of Gingrich’s campaign for president and could also be a defining moment for King, whose image as a serious reporter is now tethered to a face-off that recalled the famous televised exchange between Richard Nixon and Dan Rather at the height of Watergate.

“This is one of the most explosive moments we’ve seen in debate history,” CNN’s David Gergen said on the air afterwards. “It was also one of the harshest attacks that we’ve had on the press that I can remember in a long, long time.”




Will this help, or hurt, Gingrich's chances in South Carolina forward?

_________

By the way, Gingrich blamed the media for not focusing on what should be real issues. Here's a pretty good presidential compatibility quiz. Maybe you are a match for Newt.......now maybe that's despicable.

2012 Presidential Candidates Quiz - Take our compatibility quiz of 35 questions to find out which candidate is the best match for you. We've updated the questionnaire with 10 new questions on education, gay marriage, immigration, infidelity, Occupy Wall Street, oil subsidies, and the Tea Party.

Why Comparative Politics?

(From Teaching Comparative Politics blog)
American beginners in comparative politics often start by trying to study non-American political systems in the same way they studied the USA. It doesn't always work.

Henry Farrell, professor at George Washington University points to an example of why both the "Americanist" and "Comparativist" perspectives are important.

Why Is Inequality Higher in America?

[A] Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan article… suggests that we need to look to comparative politics rather than Americanist political science in order to understand the sources of American inequality.

"… the preoccupation of many Americanists with America’s distinctive governmental institutions—Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court—obscures this inequality and what it means for the US political system. It thus seems to us that Americanists’ ability to analyze American politics would be enhanced by locating these problems in a larger, comparative context."

To bolster this broad argument, they argue that the unusually large number of veto players in the US political system is a major cause of inequality.

"A question thus arises, one both simple and surprisingly understudied by scholars of American politics: From a comparative perspective, does the United States have more “majority constraining” and “inequality inducing” political structures and veto players than other democracies? When we examine our set of 23 long-standing democracies in advanced economies, we find that slightly more than half of these countries (12.5) actually have only one electorally generated veto player… There are 7.5 countries with two veto players, two countries (Switzerland and Australia) with three veto players, and only one country, the United States of America, with four electorally generated veto players… In addition to having the highest number of veto players, there are four more constitutionally embedded features of the US political system that, taken together, make that system even more majority constraining and, we believe, inequality inducing, than any other democracy in our set… "

As a comparativist by training, I find the idea that Americanists should think about the US more in a comparative perspective highly attractive. I also think that the veto player perspective is a very helpful lens onto the ways in which the US resembles or differs from other advanced industrialized democracies… Equally, comparativists need to pay more attention to the Americanists whose way of thinking about the world is less immediately congenial than that of those with comparativist training or sympathies if we are to move to the next stage of the debate that Linz and Stepan would (rightly) like to see taking place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOPA, PIPA protest to stand for the right of liberal democracy

The Arab Spring revolutions, especially in Egypt were called, "Facebook Revolutions."

 With pending legislation in committee mark-up session in the the House of Represenatives HR 3261    many who spead information on the internet are using the "Youdia" to protest what could be a serious threat to liberal or substansive democracy in the United States and around the world. Political Warrior will follow the lead of Ken Wedding's Teaching Comparative Government and Politics in honoring a "No Blog Wednesday" Protest.

The SOPA acronym (Stop Internet Piracy Act) might sound like a good idea, but the fear is that it could fundamentally change the way we have, as Thomas Friedman may say, flattened the world. It is also a great example of the way our Congress works/or doesn't these days. Roll Call outlines the lobbying groups fighting hard to have influence the blocking or passing of this legislation:

Groups Ramp Up Lobbying Before SOPA Vote

David Carr of the New York Times spells out the danger of passing SOPA:

The Danger of an Attack on Piracy Online

The bill's author, Lamar Smith (R-Tx), defends the proposed legistlation here:

Fighting Online Piracy

However, despite the Congressman's claim, foreign websites, inluding Chinese blogs, etc. that are used here to study comparative government and politics could be restricted or censored. As Ken Wedding wrote in his blog:

"On January 18, Teaching Comparative will join Boing Boing, Reddit, and other sites around the Internet in opposing SOPA and PIPA, the pending US legislation that creates a punishing Internet censorship regime and exports it to the rest of the world. Teaching Comparative could never co-exist with a SOPA world.


There will be no blog entry on Wednesday.


If the proposed legislation passed in anything like its current form, I could never quote the contents of another site or even link to another website unless I was sure that no links to anything that infringes copyright appeared on that site. In order to link to a URL on any web site, I'd have to first confirm that no one had ever made an infringing link, anywhere on that site. That would require checking millions (even tens of millions) of pages. Even for an old guy like me with lots of time, that would be impossible. I'd be unable to tell you about potentially valuable teaching material.


If I failed to take those precautions, my finances could be frozen and depending on which version of the bill goes to the vote, my domains confiscated."

Colbert for President?!

(From APGov.org

Colbert announced he's forming an exploratory committee to consider running for President in South Carolina (and only in South Carolina). A poll this week had him polling ahead of Huntsman (ouch).


Control of his SuperPAC will be turned over to the Daily Show's Jon Stewart. Now to be called the "Definitely not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC"

God Bless "Citizens United!"

Check out the turned over Colbert Super PAC and Politico's legit? news story on Colbert exploratory committee announcement.

List of super PACs

(From Ken Halla's US Government's Teachers Blog)
Above is the most recent (and biting) advertisement by Gingrich's super PAC. Here are all of the super PACs. Super PACs are a direct result of Citizens United v. F.E.C. and essentially are the follow-up to 527s allowing their individuals and corporations to give unlimited donations to one. The key is that there cannot be any collaboration between the candidate and the super PACs - even though they seem to mostly be run by former staffers of the presidential candidate. My question will be will the super PAC people be given key jobs in the next presidential administration, be it Obama, Romney or someone else. The ad above (here is an article detailing it) is possible because of a $5 million donation to his super PAC by one individual and is a huge help to his South Carolina campaign.

What will New Hampshire mean?

The "First in the Nation" nine primary voters of New Hampshire's tiny village of Dixville Notch casts the first ballots of the contest just after midnight, a tradition since 1960. Since 1960, the village winner has won the GOP nomination. This time, however, there was no Republican winner. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman tied with 2 votes each in the Republican race. President Obama took 3 of the nine total votes.

New Hampshire does not have a closed primary primary, in which votes can be cast in a party primary only by people registered with that party. Undeclared voters — those not registered with any party — can vote in either party primary. However, it does not meet a common definition of an open primary, because people registered as Republican or Democrat on voting day cannot cast ballots in the primary of the other party.

What New Hampshire may show is the strength of independent voters. The percentage of Americans identifying as political independents increased in 2011, as is common in a non-election year, although the 40% who did so is the highest Gallup has measured, by one percentage point. More Americans continue to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, 31% to 27%.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/Record-High-Americans-Identify-Independents.aspx

If you are checking in tonight, blog your thoughts on the second of two important momentum-builidng nominating contests. At stake here, just 12 total delegates to the GOP convention, but does it mean life or death of the campaigns of Huntsman, Gingrich??

Cheers! A toast to Popp (not soda here) Point leaders

A couple of years ago I found this random advertising map, in which the Department of Cartography and Geography from East Central University (Oklahoma) tracked where people called soft drinks whatever. It is a Blue v. Red country after all, but it’s not a Pepsi winner. The true-blue winner: “No Coke, Pop!” Not surprisingly 50-80% of us in Chicagoland call soft drinks POP. But look how Atlanta-based Coca-Cola controls the language in the South.


Okay, I digress. The point of this post is our Popp Point Scoreboard. ("Popp Points" named after graduate Alex Popp, SS Student of the Year 2006, who helped me create the blog back in the day.) Remember a maximum 10 EC points are available for blogging here till 1/13. Here are the standings as of 1/9. Points have been calculated on posts from 8/25/11 and later. In the spirit of horserase journalism, we have a four-way neck and neck lead, but even the leaders are leaving points on the track.

1. Iman K. -- 6 (bulit early lead and is holding on)
1. Kyle D. -- 6
1. Shilpa S. -- 6
1. Ralf V. -- 6
5. James H. -- 5
6. Nick S. -- 4
6. Justine L. -- 4
8. Chris D. -- 3
8. Carolyn S. -- 3
10. Danielle L. -- 2
11. Jibran A. -- 2
(Jackson E., Taylor B., Max K., Priya T, Jessica C. and Amanda Z. all have 1)

In Case You missed it....

Along with the PM/AM GOP debates prior to this week's "First in the Nation" New Hampshire Primary, the Obama administration made major news while we, and the US Senate, was on break.

First, the adminstration filed its brief defending the Affordable Care Act -- known in Republican presidential debates as "Obamacare," or the socialist seizing of American democracy. Politico reported Friday:

"The Obama administration on Friday told the Supreme Court that the requirement to buy insurance in its health reform law is well within Congress’s constitutional boundaries — and insisted that legally, the law doesn’t break any new ground.

The 130-page brief is the first the Justice Department has filed since the court agreed to review the law. The Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy accomplishment, will be the centerpiece of three days of oral arguments at the Supreme Court, a modern record, in late March."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71167.html#ixzz1ivNv7Ap3
 
The U.S. Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, will argue the case for the adminstration before the Supremes this summer.
 
http://www.justice.gov/healthcare/
 
http://www.justice.gov/osg/
 
Also, on Wednesday, President Obama made a controversial recess appointment of Richard Cordray’s to lead the nation’s new consumer watchdog agency even as the political fallout intensified.

Cordray, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, declared Thursday to a packed house at the Brookings Institution that his recess appointment by President Barack Obama — a move that outraged Republicans — is legitimate under the law and would withstand an inevitable challenge. But he also underscored his reputation as a bipartisan bridge-builder, promised he would work with the GOP and emphasized that all share the same goal: serving the American people.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71128.html

As you should have learned, while presidential appointments need Senate confirmation when in session, president's can get around that balancing check, by appointing a director during a legislative recess.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71128.html#ixzz1ivRwFJCm

Presidents since George Washington have made recess appointments. Washington appointed South Carolina judge John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and Rutledge subsequently attempted suicide and then resigned.

New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 through a recess appointment. This was done in part with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern Catholic on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. In 1958, the CIA tried to pull off a coup in Damascus. When the Syrians expelled our ambassador, President Eisenhower, in a recess appointment, designated Charles W. Yost as the new ambassador. Eisenhower made two other recess appointments, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Potter Stewart.

According to the Congressional Research Service, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.

So was the President showing an unconstitutional contempt of Congress, as was suggested by GOP leaders on the Hill, or was he doing what we expect the Chief Executive to do, lead?