Category Archives: Politics

Food stamps and voting: What do the maps show?

Before the election much hubbub was made about the numbers of people being added as recipients to the SNAP (food stamp) program. Some wondered at the possibility of those being bought votes. In the form of a question, did the Obama administration recruit people to the assistance program to ensure a re-election victory? In the mean time, people wondered, were we being bled dry be a bunch of lazy, shiftless, good for nothings who are just taking advantage of the governmental teat?

According to the Wall Street Journal the average food stamp family in 2010 had $731 per month in gross income. They received just $287 per month from SNAP. The Journal also reported

Nearly 21% of households on food stamps also received Supplemental Security Income, assistance for the aged and blind. Some 21.4% received Social Security benefits. Just 8% of households also received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the cash welfare program.

But some 20% of households had no cash income of any kind last year, up from 15% in 2007, the year the recession began, and up from 7% in 1990.

That’s partly because most household heads who were receiving food stamps were also out of work. Just 21.8% of them had jobs in 2010, while 19.8% were jobless and looking for work.

More than half of household heads who received food stamps, 51.1%, weren’t in the labor force and weren’t searching for work. Labor-force dropouts have been a particular concern for economists, who worry their lost potential damages economic output. Those who drop out of the work force often turn to other government programs, such as Social Security disability, which is costly.

[…]

Just 6.7% of households who received food stamps were getting jobless benefits.

Nearly half of all food-stamp recipients, 47%, were children under the age of 18. Another 8% of recipients were age 60 or older.

Whites made up the largest share of food stamp households, 35.7%. Some 22% of households receiving food stamps were counted as African American and 10% were Hispanic.

U.S. born citizens made up the majority, 94%, of food stamp households.

While it is true SNAP users have increased dramatically under the Obama administration a substantial increase had already begun under the Bush 43 administration. The extent of the economic downturn between the fall of 2007 and 2011 would likely have seen a continued increase if there had been a third Bush term. (Only Clinton at -8.2% and Reagan at -2.4% have overseen declines in the last eight presidencies.)

So what about the votes? Below are four national county maps. The first is voting by county for the 2008 election. Then the amount of county-by-county increase in food stamps recipients between 2007-2009. Beneath that is the percentage of residents on food stamps in each county nationally in 2009. Finally, a county-by-county voting map of the 2012 election.

I am neither a cartographer, a politician nor the son of either. However, it looks like an awful lot of counties with high concentrations of food stamp recipients voted Red (ie, GOP). It is true that the highest numbers of recipients are in Blue (Dem) areas, but I think it is too strong a suggestion to say all food stamp recipients voted Democratic. It is also too strong to say Obama carried the day because of that vote. Since 18M people been added since Obama took office and he won by less than 3M votes, and since he garnered 9M more votes in 2008, it seems hard to argue that SNAP recipients contributed meaningfully to his victory.

Thoughts?

Friedersdorf on the abject failure of conservative media

Conservative radio theater host, Rush Limbaugh [Image credit]

Over the last few weeks I have come to appreciate the writings of Conor Friedersdorf, columnist for The Atlantic. Following last night’s election results he addressed the failure of the conservative media to see the big pre-election stories, opting instead for conspiracy theories, and faux news.

The losers, according to Friedersdorf, were the “rank-and-file” conservatives who took Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, as authoritative and truthful casting a wary eye at all other outlets.

From the article:

Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike 4 years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday’s result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout — Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes. Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that the election was anything other than a toss-up. Peggy Noonan insisted that those predicting an Obama victory were ignoring the world around them. Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye. These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs.

Those audiences were misinformed.

Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different. Its driving force was Nate Silver, whose performance forecasting Election ’08 gave him credibility as he daily explained why his model showed President Obama enjoyed a very good chance of being reelected. Other experts echoed his findings. Readers of The New York Times, The Atlantic, and other “mainstream media” sites besides knew the expert predictions, which have been largely born out. The conclusions of experts are not sacrosanct. But Silver’s expertise was always a better bet than relying on ideological hacks like Morris or the anecdotal impressions of Noonan. Sure, Silver could’ve wound up wrong, but people who rejected the possibility of his being right?

They were operating at a self-imposed information disadvantage.

[…]

You haven’t just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven’t tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they’ve done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election.

Why do you keep putting up with it?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because Romney supporters like Jennifer Rubin and Hugh Hewitt saw it as their duty to spin constantly for their favored candidate rather than being frank about his strengths and weaknesses. What conservative Washington Post readers got, when they traded in Dave Weigel for Rubin, was a lot more hackery and a lot less informed about the presidential election.

Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense. World Net Daily brought you Birtherism. Forbes brought you Kenyan anti-colonialism. National Review obsessed about an imaginary rejection of American exceptionalism, misrepresenting an Obama quote in the process, and Andy McCarthy was interviewed widely about his theory that Obama, aka Drone Warrior in Chief, allied himself with our Islamist enemy in a “Grand Jihad” against America. Seriously?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because their information elites pander in the most cynical, self-defeating ways, treating would-be candidates like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain as if they’re plausible presidents, rather than national jokes who’d lose worse than George McGovern.

I encourage you to read the entire piece.

I’m sure some will say, “But what about Benghazi? What about Fast and Furious? What about socialism? What about Obamacare?”

To which I answer, “What about the boy who cried wolf?” As conservative media beats the birther drum, the Obama 2016 drum, and every other drum of suspiciousness, why should conservatives be surprised to find the wolf soundly dismissed even when loudly announced?

Conservative media, like liberal media, does not exist to tell the truth. It exists to relate a narrative. Each narrative fulfills–they hope–two functions: to sell ads and to make money. I really do not see this as cynicism. This is just reality.

The air inside any bubble eventually becomes toxic.

As long as Americans–conservative and liberal, Right and Left–eat pablum like it is a 5-star breakfast and drink muddy water like Italian roast, media sources will be content to serve it up as a never ending feast.

For Election Day: Malcolm X on blind party allegiance [AUDIO]

Before you start down that path, understand I am not defending, promoting or worshiping Malcolm X. From his bio on Wikipedia:

Malcolm X ( /ˈmælkəm ˈɛks/; May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965), born Malcolm Little and also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz[1] (Arabic: الحاجّ مالك الشباز‎), was an African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist. To his admirers, he was a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans. Detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy, and violence. He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.

Malcom X in 1964

Malcolm X’s father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. When he was thirteen, his mother was placed in a mental hospital, and he was placed in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 20, he went to prison for breaking and entering.

In prison Malcolm X became a member of the Nation of Islam and after his parole in 1952 he quickly rose to become one of its leaders. For a dozen years Malcolm X was the public face of the controversial group, but disillusionment with Nation of Islam head Elijah Muhammad led him to leave the Nation in March 1964. After a period of travel in Africa and the Middle East, he returned to the United States, where he founded Muslim Mosque, Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. In February 1965, less than a year after leaving the Nation of Islam, he was assassinated by three members of the group.

Malcolm X’s expressed beliefs changed substantially over time. As a spokesman for the Nation of Islam he taught black supremacy and advocated separation of black and white Americans—in contrast to the civil rights movement’s emphasis on integration. After breaking with the Nation of Islam in 1964—saying of his association with it, “I was a zombie then … pointed in a certain direction and told to march”—and becoming a Sunni Muslim, he disavowed racism and expressed willingness to work with civil rights leaders, though still emphasizing black self-determination and self-defense.

Below is the audio from a speech to a group of African Americans. Though Malcolm X is deriding them unceasingly for their support of the Democratic party, his observations about party loyalty are true across the board. The last build-up and closing sentence are the stuff of a speaker’s dreams.

If you are heading to the polls today, I encourage you to give a listen to this four minutes and think about how these words apply to what we as a nation continue to experience as a result of blind party loyalty.

Six reasons to consider voting third party

Throughout this election season, as in the last one, I have written and discussed here and on Facebook about the need to break the two party, Democrat-Republican dominated political system in the United States. The adversarial aspect of this system has led to a stymied congress, lies, deceit, and an ongoing “lesser of two evils” approach to voting.

The election tomorrow seems to be potentially as close as any since Bush-Gore in 2000. Some have even speculated of an Electoral College tie between president Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Some of my friends have made the informed decision not to vote–and have been castigated for it.

The objection I normally face has been that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Barack Obama (if the objection is coming from a conservative) or a vote for Mitt Romney (if coming from a liberal). I reject this reductionistic approach as inaccurate and illogical. Others say a vote for a third party candidate is akin to throwing away one’s vote. On the contrary, I say voting for someone who does not best represent your principles and philosophy of government is throwing away your vote.

Considering such dominance from the Democratic and Republican parties when should you vote for a national candidate not among the two major parties?

1. When you would have to violate your conscience to do so. If an issues or issues important to you are ignored by the most well known candidates do not cast a vote for them.

2. If neither candidate has earned your vote. I do not look at my vote as something I give to a candidate. It is something they must earn. If he or she does not earn it, they do not get it.

3. If your state is polling overwhelmingly toward one candidate or the other. My state, Tennessee, has been Republican since before Obama was elected. It is not about to change; polling is not close to the margin of error. Because of the Electoral College, every single vote truly does not matter; only the total number of votes matter. For that reason you can confidently vote for the candidate your prefer with no concern you might rip the space time election continuum.

4. If you consider the lesser of two evils argument to be abhorrent. Some Christians will make the argument that we will never have a perfect candidate, so every choice is a lesser of two evils. I find this to be thoroughly unpersuasive. First because the “two evils” necessarily eliminates other, better choices. Second because the lack of perfection does not equate to evil. (Try that on your wife: “No, she’s not perfect. In fact, you might as well say she’s evil.” Good luck with that one.)

5. If you are more concerned about being the cure than spreading the cancer. Our political system, while functional, spews a dangerous toxicity. Abuses of power, mindless spending and selfish gain seem to be the norm on The Hill.

6. If neither major party candidate even begins to address issues of vital importance to justice. Most on the Right have reduced the idea of justice to abortion, while most on the Left have similarly reduced it to taking care of the poor. Where, in three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debates, were discussions about our unjust justice system, the unjust “War” on Drugs, concerns to address human trafficking, the NDAA, the unjust drone war? They were nowhere to be found. A candidate who thinks these major issues not worth a mention does not even qualify for the office.

Can you think of any other reasons to consider voting for a third (or “minor”) party candidate?

The election and social media [INFOGRAPHIC]

With the election upon us, this graphic proves interesting as to the role social media is playing in the 2012 contest.

Live chat the Obama-Romney foreign policy debate, October 22, 2012

Welcome to the Kingdom in the Midst chat of the Obama-Romney foreign policy debate. As with the previous debates, we are given the illusion of fairness. All third party candidates–even those with a mathematical possibility of winning, on the ballots in 47 or more states–are banned from the Democratic/Republican party controlled spectacle.

Tonight’s debate, moderated by Bob Schieffer, will be held at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL. The format calls for six 15-minute time segments, each of which will focus on one of the topics listed below. The moderator will open each segment with a question. Each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Following the candidates’ responses, the moderator will use the balance of the 15-minute segment to facilitate a discussion on the topic.

(Seriously? The leader of the free world is being chosen based on two minute answers?? Good grief. No wonder people want to know who Honey Boo Boo endorsed.)

One of the subjects that has not been covered and will not be covered tonight is human trafficking.

Tentatively the topics as scheduled are:

America’s role in the world
Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
Red Lines – Israel and Iran
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World

The debate will begin at around 9:00pm Eastern Time (8:00CT) and last until around 10:30ET. For a refreshing change, watch the debate on C-Span which seems to be much less shrill than Fox and MSNBC.

RULES FOR THE CHAT
1. Be clear.
2. Stay on topic. Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden, their policies and performances are inbounds. Their families are not.
3. Try to be concise. If you try to write a novel the comment to which you are responding will be gone.
4. When appropriate use the name of the person to whom you are responding. For instance, “Terminator1: I think you are misinformed.”
5. NO SWEARING. If you cannot express yourself without stooping to gutter language go back to the SPIKE movie you were watching.
6. Please share the post via social sharing buttons at the top. The more the merrier.
7. Have fun!

You can login below under a username and your Facebook or Twitter accounts. The latter two will use your avatar; comments will not post to your timeline or Twitter feed.

Chat is now closed.

Eleven states needed to win the presidency

What is the fewest number of states needed to win the presidency? With our electoral college system it might be far fewer than you think.

You may not have misread the title, but you probably did not get the meaning. I do not mean, “The eleven states a candidate must carry to win.” I mean, “Any candidate can win the presidency by carrying only eleven states.”

Your now have the idea.

It is possible to lose the the popular vote and lose 39 of the 50 states, yet still be the president of these United States.

How? The Electoral College.

The Electoral College was approved September 6, 1786, for reasons known only to the members of Skull and Bones and makers of “corn likker.” According to Wikipedia, “Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern that the large states would otherwise control presidential elections.”

Can you say irony? Smaller states, for purposes of the college, are not determined by size, but by population.

While polls can be a good measure of popular sentiment, they are not sufficient to gage the electoral map. That is why you often hear of “swing states.” These are states candidate X or Y must get to reach the magical 270 electoral votes needed.

You can look elsewhere for more specifics on the electoral college. For now I just wanted to share the eleven states one can win to become president:

California (55 votes)
Texas (38 votes)
Florida (29 votes)
New York (29 votes)
Illinois (20 votes)
Pennsylvania (20 votes)
Ohio (18 votes)
Georgia (16 votes)
Michigan (16 votes)
North Carolina (15 votes)
New Jersey (14 votes)

Electoral College map 2012 [Image credit]

You might be interested to know, based on 2011 data, 177,215,379 people live in those eleven states (total U.S. population 311,591,917). Another way of saying it is around 57% of the United States lives in these eleven states.

Interesting?

An open letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates

Dear Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry,

Like many Americans I am interested in the direction of the country. Others have said they are “concerned,” and still others “burdened.” Still others claim this 2012 presidential election is the most important in the history of the republic.

The Denver presidential debate, October 2012 [Image credit]

You cannot be ignorant of the reality that the presidential debates help frame how voters view the candidates each presidential election cycle. Indeed, this is part of the reason for your existence. Your mission, in part, is that the Commission should:

provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates.

I am writing this open letter to address some concerns I have, concerns that may be shared by others. It seems these might be addressed through your organization.

Your bi-partisan make-up does not translate to the moderator phase of the debate. This silly idea of an unbiased moderator has created a pill too big for most of America to swallow. Following the most recent debates Jim Lehrer was demonized by the Left for being too passive (milquetoast was used by one liberal communicator), Martha Raddatz was slammed by some conservatives for her repeated interruptions of Paul Ryan, and Candy Crowley has all but admitted to assisting one of the participants, President Obama, by “correcting” Mitt Romney on a point of fact. (This, notes Canadian journalist David Akin, was not within the bounds of her assigment.)

Clearly, you have problems with this debate structure. The October 22 debate, moderated by Bob Scheiffer, holds little promise for a cure.

These debates would be more effective if the moderators were specifically chosen because of their bias or biases. Without a semblance of being non-partisan viewers would be better prepared to anticipate questions and reactions. Informed viewers are not deceived by such a fraudulent presentation, but viewers depending on the debates to fully inform their decisions stand in danger of deception.

No one would consider Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham unbiased, but as I present it they would need not pretend they are. Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews? Liberal as they can get, but at least it would be in the open. John Stossel or Neal Boortz as Libertarian leaners would disrupt the narrative major party candidates and the moderators tend to inhabit.

One from the Left, one from the Right, one from the Outside, and, finally, a college level debate professor as moderator. It is interesting these debates feel so much different than educational or philosophical debates. After watching many debates online, I have found the role of the moderator is to read the rules, ring the bell, keep the time, signal transitions, thank the participants and attendees, and announce the end. The moderator should disappear, not take center stage.

Also, at this stage of our country’s history requiring a candidate to poll at 15% before being invited to participate is appallingly controlling and unnecessarily exclusive. Even when they are included in five major polls (as you require) the results are rarely included by any major media. For all intents and purposes the media presents two–and only two–candidates for the presidency. You follow this problematic path since you are controlled by the same two parties.

The major parties do not have all the answers. In fact the debates reveal all-too-clearly their representative candidates have fewer and fewer answers as time rolls on. America would be better served be allowing candidates from qualifying third parties to participate. Requiring the candidate to have at least a statistical possibility of winning the electoral college (by getting on enough state ballots) would allow the Libertarian or Green candidate, for instance, without having to admit the Ball in High Weeds candidate. Keep the your latter requirement, but drop the first.

Your website says,

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.

As long as you continue to wall-off non-major party candidates you are failing to provide the “best possible information” to us.

Please fix this. Your model is broken. What you are trying to accomplish is admirable and appreciated. What you are actually accomplishing is short of that goal. You should strive for more.

We the people may not deserve it, but we need it.

If you agree share this post on social media. You can also email this post to the Commission on Presidential Debates: comments [at] debates [dot] org

Live chat the Obama-Romney town hall debate, October 16, 2012

Welcome to the Kingdom in the Midst chat room for tonight’s town hall-style debate at Hofstra University between president Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney.

In true two-party dominance and pansy Presidential Debate Commission style, no third party candidates will be allowed. This ensures most actual ideas will remain sidelined. Despite this sad occurrence the Democratic and Republican contenders will have an audience of about 80 undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization. CNN’s “Complaining Candy Crowley” will select from among questions on foreign and domestic policy submitted by the audience, and most likely try to insinuate herself into the debate as well. As she is on the record for hating Mr. Romney, it is unlikely she will issue any substantive challenges to the president.

The debate will begin at around 9:00pm Eastern Time (8:00CT) and last until around 10:30ET. For a refreshing change, watch the debate on C-Span which seems to be much less shrill than Fox and MSNBC.

RULES
1. Be clear.
2. Stay on topic. Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden, their policies and performances are inbounds. Their families are not.
3. Try to be concise. If you try to write a novel the comment to which you are responding will be gone.
4. When appropriate use the name of the person to whom you are responding. For instance, “Terminator1: I think you are misinformed.”
5. NO SWEARING. If you cannot express yourself without stooping to gutter language go back to the SPIKE movie you were watching.
6. Please share the post via social sharing buttons at the top. The more the merrier.
7. Have fun!

You can login below under a username and your Facebook or Twitter accounts. The latter two will use your avatar; comments will not post to your timeline or Twitter feed.

The chat is now closed.

Live Chat the Biden-Ryan Vice-presidential debate (VP debate)

Welcome to the Kingdom in the Midst Live Chat for the Joe Biden-Paul Ryan vice-presidential debate. Vice President Biden and the man on the Republican ticket, Paul Ryan, will be debating the issues in a 90-minute session at Centre College in Danville, Ky. The event begins at 9:00ET.

Below you can login with either your Facebook or Twitter accounts, or simply choose a “Guest” username and login to participate.

Vice-president Joe Biden (l) and Vp candidate Paul Ryan [Image credit]

Chat is closed.

TaterBox

It is a practice site