M Miller's Blog

South Carolina, the firsts & lasts - A Hot-bed of Extremism

2010-06-04T19:27:00Z

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina

* "declared its independence from Great Britain and set up its own
government, the first colony to do so"

* "To win South Carolina's support for the Declaration of
Independence, Thomas Jefferson removed all material from the document
that condemned slavery."

* "South Carolinian loyalists to the British crown helped British troops
recapture South Carolina from the previously successful rebels."

* " In 1832, a South Carolina state convention passed the Ordinance of Nullification,
declaring the Federal tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional, null
and not to be enforced in the state of South Carolina after February 1,
1833. This led to the Nullification Crisis, in which U. S.
President Andrew Jackson received congressional
authorization, through the Force
Bill, to use whatever military force necessary to enforce Federal
law in the state. This was the first U. S. legislation denying
individual states the right to secede."

* "South Carolina became the first state to declare its secession from the Union."

* "Confederate batteries began shelling Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, (South Carolina)
and the American Civil War began".

* "Although the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was ratified nationally in 1920, South Carolina did not ratify it until July 1, 1969... only Mississippi implemented it later than SC, not ratifying Amendment until 1984."

* " South Carolina became the last state to remove the Confederate Flag from over its statehouse"

* "Until the 1868 presidential election, South Carolina's legislature chose its electors for the presidential election, not the voters. South Carolina was the last state to choose its electors in this manner."

* I won't even get into the racism that was present there as in many other states, but, "The NAACP maintains an economic boycott of the state of South Carolina. The NCAA refuses to allow South Carolina to host NCAA athletic events whose locations are determined in advance. On July 6, 2009, the Atlantic Coast Conference announced a decision to move three future baseball tournaments out of South Carolina, citing concerns by the NAACP's over the state's continuing display of the Confederate flag."

* "In March 2008, "The American State Litter Scorecard," presented at the American Society for Public Administration conference, rated South Carolina a nationally "Worst" state for removing litter from public properties such as highways. The state has an extremely high fatality rate from litter/debris-related vehicle accidents, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data."

* "In 1856, South Carolina congressman Preston Brooks entered the United States Senate chamber and, with a metal-tipped cane, beat Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner. He drew blood and injured Sumner badly enough that the latter was unable to serve for several months."

I might have missed some things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for my avatar.... I do not like the man anymore than anyone else. I utterly hate him. Hence the whole point of it.

I come on here and read news and read about them that I don't like all the time. REALLY REALLY dislike. I can work for 60 hours a week and make 6 times less than someone that works 1/4 as hard.... I can also die too and I have no right to life because I don't have their money. Those are the people that I utterly dislike and my avatar reflects that.

Some use avatars of people like Palin or Bush and I utterly dislike, borderline hate them too, funny or not. This isn't criticism to them by the way, I'm just pointing out people doing the same type of thing, even if its more light-hearted. What the people in their avatars do in REAL life, outside of the humor, is EXTREMELY reprehensible if you look at what they stand for.

Not so democratic America

2010-04-21T22:32:39Z

2004 - top 25 states by population
Blue   11
Red   14

2004 presidential vote - bottom 25 states by population
Blue   8
Red   17

2004 presidential vote
Blue   19 states + DC
Red   31 states

2008 presidential vote - top 25 states by population
Blue   17
Red   8

2008 presidential vote - bottom 25 states by population
Blue   11
Red   14

2008 presidential vote
Blue   28 states + DC
Red   22 states

First off, sorry if this seems a little scatter brain. Its kind of like a brainstorm more than anything. Just thought I'd share it.

Here are some more reasons to add to the list that America isn't as Democratic as we think.

Using data at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population for the estimated population of states, I figured out this data.

California has over 36.9 million people. The bottom 21 states combined has less. Those states combined have 49 representatives in congress and California has 53. 21 times 2 senators means 42 senators toal. Add that 42 to the number of representatives for those states combined to figure the electoral votes. That's 93 electoral votes for 21 states with less population. California has a mere 55.

California and New York combined has over 56.5 million people. The bottom 26 states combined has less. Those states combined have 77 representatives in congress and CA & NY together have 82. 26 times 2 senators means 52 senators total. Add that 52 to the number of representatives for those states combined to figure the electoral votes. That's 129 electoral votes for 26 states with less population. CA & NY together have a mere 86.

This next part I take away 1 senator (and 1 electoral vote because of the lack of that senator) from the bottom 25 states in population to make things more even and population based. There would be instead of 538 electoral votes and 100 senators, 513 electoral votes and 75 senators. Instead of needing 270 electoral votes to win the electoral college, you would only need 257.
Kerry would have gotten 242 electoral votes but would have lost by only 15 instead of 18. Make it 241 and 16 away if you take 1 electoral vote from DC.

Obama would have gotten 354 electoral votes instead of 365. Instead of being 95 votes in excess of the number needed to win the college, he would have been 97. Change them new numbers to 353 votes and 96 in excess if you take 1 electoral vote from DC.

If you take the number of senators out of the electoral college, that would make things more even. Above, talking about CA & NY, you can see that 43 more electoral votes for states with less population is really not all that fair.

Maybe this system is what's keeping this country together? Imagine what the nut jobs would do if they couldn't have more say in our country than they should have?

Of the total, 100 electoral votes is accounted for from each states' senators plus 2 for DC with a total of 102. How would the last two presidential elections happen if you get rid of them extra 102?

436 electoral votes with 219 needed to win. Kerry would have got 212 (7 from winning instead of 18 from winning like he did). That would have have been 48.6% of the electoral votes instead of 46.8%. Obama would have gotten 70.4% of the electoral college instead of 67.8%. Obama 307 EV, McCain 129 EV.

Obviously, that wouldn't take care of the situation of 53% of the popular vote turning into about 70% or 67% of the electoral college like it is now, but, it wouldn't be much different than it is now. The senate would be more fairly represented at least.

Obama doing excellent, better than Kerry - Election projections summary

2008-08-10T20:16:20Z

If this does not post correctly, go here:
http://dawabbit.mine.nu/ProjectionSummary.html

--------------------------

Base states include
leaners unless noted Rasm Rasm
only base RCP RCP
only base RCP
no tossups MSNBC
(Now) MSNBC
(Now) only base MSNBC
(proj. Oct 26th) 538 Zogby Rasm 2004 Election
where Kerry shown as Obama

Obama lead in base 46 45 75 42 106 28 54 28 37 127 -36

Obama needs to win0 60 32 129 0 53 80 10 6 0 84

Red state toss-ups38 121 (202%)116 (363%) 187 (145%) 70 lost 90 (170%)150 (188%) 42 (420%) 47 (783%) 119 56 (67%)

Blue state toss-ups0 42 (70%)21 (66%) 111 (86%) 0 lost 42 (79%) 62 (78%) 4 (40%) 0 (0%) 0 74 (88%)

Difference (EV) Red +38 Red +79 Red +95Red +76 Red +70 Red +48 Red +88 Red +38 Red +47 Red +119 Blue +18

The percentages in the toss-up columns represents the % of Electoral Votes available from the red/blue state compared to how many is Needed by Obama. In other words, Kerry needed 84 EV and the number of toss-up red states was 67% of that. The number of blue state toss-ups was 88% of that.

The reason I included this was that in the last election, Kerry had trouble keeping blue states and had trouble winning the red states. At this point, Obama doesn't have as big of problem with this. He doesn't need to spend quite as many resources on keeping blue states blue and can use them elsewhere, and has shown more of a success in being competitive in some red states. For Obama, the higher the percentage of red states compared to EV needed shows more room to work with to win the election and more states that McCain has to work to defend.

It should be noted too that the blue states Kerry was looking to keep blue was 268 electoral votes in 2000. The total electoral value of the states Gore won went down and the red states Bush won went up in value. I think this was due to reallocating the EV per state by updated population estimates or the census. The 268 was only worth 260 in 2004. Iowa & New Mexico were blue and New Hampshire was red.

More red states that are toss-ups and less blue states that are toss-ups makes Obama's chance's greater to win.

Base states are Solid/Likely states. No Toss-up states mean all states are solid. When Leaners aren't included with Base states, they are included with toss-ups.

Sources:

Rasmussen: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

RealClearPolitics - no toss-ups: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ (click on the August audio play button for the Oct. projection Todd made)

FiveThirtyEight: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Zogby: http://www.zogby.com/50state/

Rasmussen 2004 Election: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2004/electoral_college_projections

Numbers not shown on these sites: Calculator

James Carville: Hillary has three balls

2008-05-05T07:36:14Z

I'm sorry, but I can't say anything about this. I didn't even read it. Just the headline was enough to make me throw my hands in the air and then put my face in my hand and shake my head.
Carville: If Hillary Gave Obama "One Of Her Cojones, They'd Both Have Two"

Indiana: Obama 48%, Clinton 47% - Research 2000:

2008-04-25T00:30:40Z

My curiosity got the best of me and I had to look around and see if any new polls were out for Indiana. Since it wasn't listed here, I thought I would post it.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/NEWS07/284272668/1129/News

Compared to the last Research 2000 poll in Indiana from April 3rd,
Obama 48% (+2)
Clinton 47% (-2)

Obama's had ads running here in north-central Indiana for weeks now. Today I saw my first Hillary ad.

In Goshen, Indiana, just about 20 miles east-southeast of South Bend, I have seen no Clinton ads in any yards as of yet. I've seen at least 15 Obama signs across town though.

SurveyUSA track record

2008-04-09T12:01:18Z

SurveyUSA

California
Clinton 52%, Obama 42%
Actual vote
Clinton 52%, Obama 42%
C 0, O 0

South Carolina
Obama 43%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 24%
Actual vote
Obama 55%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 18%
O +12, C -3, E -6

Oklahoma
Clinton 54%, Obama 27%
Actual vote
Clinton 55%, Obama 31%
C +1, O +4

Missouri
Clinton 54%, Obama 43%
Actual vote
Obama 49%, Clinton 48%
O +6, C -6

Illinois
Obama 66%, Clinton 30%
Actual vote
Obama 65%, Clinton 33%
O -1, C +3

Alabama
Obama 49%, Clinton 47%
Actual vote
Obama 56%, Clinton 42%
O +7, C -5

New York
Clinton 56%, Obama 38%
Actual vote
Clinton 57%, Obama 40%
O +2, C +1

Virginia
Obama 60%, Clinton 38%
Actual vote
Obama 64%, Clinton 35%
O +4, C -3

Maryland
Obama 55%, Clinton 32%
Actual vote
Obama 60%, Clinton 37%
O +5, C +5

Massachusetts
Clinton 56%, Obama 39%
Actual vote
Clinton 56%, Obama 41%
O +2, C 0

Connecticut
Obama 48%, Clinton 46%
Actual vote
Obama 51%, Clinton 47%
O +3, C +1

New Jersey
Clinton 52%, Obama 41%
Actual vote
Clinton 54%, Obama 44%
O +3, C +2

Ohio
Clinton 54%, Obama 44%
Actual vote
Clinton 54%, Obama 44%
O 0, C 0

Texas
Obama 49%, Clinton 48%
Actual vote
Clinton 51%, Obama 47%
O -2, C +3

I looked around and tabulated all the polls for
primaries (only) that SurveyUSA did and also the final results and compared
them.

In the big states of Ohio and California, SurveyUSA
was dead accurate with the percentages (and winners of course). In the big state of Texas, they
actually were wrong about the winner as well as in Missouri.

Of all the states listed, SurveyUSA had
underestimated Obama's election showing 10 times, overestimated 2 times, and
were right 2 times. Underestimation: 2-12%, average of 4.8%.
Overestimation: 1-2%, average of 1.5%.

Of all the states listed, SurveyUSA had
underestimated Clinton's election showing7 times, overestimated4
times, and were right3 times. Underestimation: 1-5%, average of
2.29%. Overestimation: 3-6%, average of 4.25%.

It is now harder for Hillary to Win. The math is the real story.

2008-03-05T14:27:41Z

Despite all the media spin favoring Hillary coming out of her wins last night, here's some math to take in. When I say delegates from here on out, I'm talking about Pledged Delegates.

Before March 4th, 1202-1042 (all news outlets are different), 931 pledged delegates left to be decided

Mar 4: Ohio 141, Rhode Island 21, Texas 193, Vermont 15
Mar 8: Wyoming 12
Mar 11: Mississippi 33
Apr 22: Pennsylvania 151
May 3: Guam 3
May 6: Indiana 66, North Carolina 91
May 13: West Virginia 26
May 20: Kentucky 47, Oregon 48
Jun 3: Montana 15, South Dakota 14
Jun 7: Puerto Rico 55

She needed to win at least 546-361 of the remaining delegates to get a 1 delegate lead.

She needed 58.65% of the delegates left. That's a win on average of 58.65% of the delegates in each remaining contest.

Now that March 4th has passed, there's 561 delegates left.

I don't know what the delegate count will be at the end, but I'll be generous and say she picked up 20 more than he did on the 4th. If that lead of 160 goes down to 140, she needs to win the rest of the delegates by 351-210 to tie Obama. That means 62.57% of the delegates left are needed by her, and she needs to win on average 62.57% of the delegates in each remaining contests.

Chances are, he will win pretty good in Mississippi and Wyoming. I expect, conservatively, combined 5 delegates more than Hillary (25-20). That would put her percentage of needed delegates up to 64.15% with 516 delegates left to go, and 145 delegate lead for Obama.

Keep in mind these numbers are good if Hillary nets 20 more delegates out of March 4th than Obama and Obama nets 5 delegates more than Hillary out of Mississippi and Wyoming in the next 6 days.

Clinton has to win TX & OH about 2 to 1 or she's still behind.

2008-02-14T12:19:38Z

After being pretty much tied following Super Tuesday, we all know Mr. Obama picked up a decent lead. I've found that given an even split in WI, HI, RI, & VT she will have to get just under 2 to 1 of the pledged delegates, around 65% to get back to where she was right after Super Tuesday.

As I've mentioned before, Super Delegates can change their mind at any time. FL & MI delegates are a risk, the pledged delegates at this point in time are all that matter.

The numbers (from Obama's site. MSNBC says Clinton's campaign's numbers have him winning even more than his):

This last weekend pledged: WA, LA, VI, & NE
vs Texas pledged
Texas: 193
Weekend: 185
Obama 121 (65.41%), Clinton 64 (34.59%)
Obama +57 (30.82%)

Potomac Tuesday pledged: VA, MD, DC
vs Ohio pledged
Ohio: 141
Potomac: 168
Obama 109 (64.88%), Clinton 59 (35.12%)
Obama +50 (29.76%)

Sure there are more delegates in TX then last weekend but there are more than enough to make up for it from DC on Potomac Tuesday vs Ohio to even the TX delegate comparison. Besides, if you add DC to the TX count, it wouldn't change much. Just a point or two off of my Ohio comparison and that point or two added extra on the Texas, thereby making that state harder to reach your tying goal instead of Ohio.

A good and VERY thoughtful page on how Obama stands a chance on losing the popular Texas by a little but winning more delegates.
http://blog.texansforobama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=751